To be a Director ...

[a whitmer]

And yet the teasing babble loop goes on.

Mods, you are too kind.

Babble, indeed. It's actully just a rest period.


I'd love to keep it 'serious' but what I have to say about the current state of affairs for writers in a PC-lust world-gone-mad would get the thread locked in a jiffy. I would title it 'To be a Writer ...'

For some writers, anyways. Most just capitulate and go for the cash and credits. (I'm kidding about the cash part, of course. We rarely get paid. I know - boo-hoo)


Anyways, the book starts out with this quote ...

“The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.” - Geoffrey Chaucer


That one applies to all of us in film. I have a massive respect for the guys and gals on set, and all the techie stuff that goes into the art and craft. I just can't do it myself.

Hella fun to watch, though :smile5:

a

 

[Ben Scott]

When you find a writer that gets it and that can collaborate without presuming ownership of the story once it has been greenlit to be a template for a film, then they are like gold dust.


I think a lot of the issue is about expectation vs reality. Being a writer is like being a director in the sense that on the outside they seem very romantic and pathos-filled jobs, when in fact they are 99% get your head down and just graft and problem solve and 1% what everyone thinks...

 

[a whitmer]

It is 99%/1%, or once was. Pathos is slowly being displaced by ethos, however, and the resulting shift is closer to 95/5. Still have odds in the favor of those who just do what their heart tells them to do.

Being a storyteller (be it with words or a camera) is not entirely risk-free.

 

[Ben Scott]

No, and even on the worst job I do as Director or DP, I'm still thankful I don't work in an office doing a 9-5.

 

[a whitmer]

No, and even on the worst job I do as Director or DP, I'm still thankful I don't work in an office doing a 9-5.

I just might have to go back to it. Toss in the writer's towel. 60+ and still dumpster diving.




This is pretty dang intereting. Probably take me a week or two to get through it.


The StoryAlity(TM) Screenplay Syntagm

So – in my empirical and scientific doctoral research study, I’ve identified (`discovered’ isn’t really the correct term for it) The Fibonacci Sequence, and therefore: The Golden Ratio (i.e. 1:1.618…etc), in the story-and-screenplay structure of The Top 20 RoI (Return on Investment) Films.

https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/storyality-50-the-storyality-screenplay-syntagm/

And HOME ...

https://storyality.wordpress.com/

 

[a whitmer]

This 'Written and direced by' film, in my opinion anyways, just nailed it.



https://vimeo.com/173364685


Blurb about the film ...

Life in a hotel is a curated one: an endless supply of fresh towels, the same continental breakfast spreads, stock paintings on the walls… Globetrotting from hotel to hotel may sound like a dream, but for a man who spends his life writing reviews of his accommodations, it can be tiring – and disconnecting. The film’s final moments are a bittersweet reminder of why we travel in the first place, suggesting that we don’t need to be surrounded by five-star luxury in order to forge fun and even meaningful relationships.

From a craft standpoint, Home Suite Home matches style with story, using precise framing and camera moves to echo Ludwig’s own meticulous, nitpicking nature. It’s an excellent example of externalizing the internal, ever the holy grail of a medium as visually-driven as film.

 

[a whitmer]

This is one reason why I argue that screenwritng needs to catch up with modern filmmaking. Are we all reading the wrong books? Actually I have have not read them. Whew!


So, is it possible that the reason 7 out of 10 films fail is because our whole paradigm of what makes a story - and screenwriting - IS WRONG, or at best pathetically outdated?


https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-25-why-7-in-10-movies-loe-money/

 

[a whitmer]

I have heard repeated time and again that 'Artistic differences' is the reason projects get scrapped before or during production. As a non-director writer, I work a lot with non-writer directors - and in-the-process-of-becoming-a-writer/director, and I myself have not had many direct head slams over artistc intent or vision, Some, of course. Happens. Where I have seen the breakdown is more often between director-producer or director-cinematographer. Of course there is also the occasional actor/actress that storms off set.

So I found this article today ...

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/film/why-do-we-watch-movies


... and specifically zeroed in on this ...

In one of my favorite films of the year, Munyurangabo, there is a scene of two boys throwing mud at a wall. They’re just throwing mud at a mud hut for what feels like five minutes. Nothing much happens except mud-slinging (literally). And yet in that moment, I felt the object-ness of mud in a way I hadn’t in a long time, if ever. Another one of my favorite films of the year, Bright Star, opens with a closeup of Abbie Cornish’s hands stitching. I can honestly say I’ve never focused so attentively on the soft, lyrical, industrious beauty of a hand that is stitching. It was the most objective stitching I’d ever been confronted with.


These moments of “objectivity in time” have little to do with things like story, plot or narrative … and yet in them exists the key to why we find cinema so intoxicating. It’s more than just a story—because for that we could read books, see a play or watch an opera.

... and ...

This idea—that the everyday, when carefully seen and considered, can provide epiphany—finds its greatest ally in the cinematic form. Bazin believed cinema was “objectivity in time,” presenting a reality of things onscreen even more real than our experience of them in “real life.”


I couldn't find a clip on the mud throwing (looks like a pretty powerful film, though), nor find an opening scene clip for 'Bright Star'. All I have is a nano-second shot in the trailer at 0:49.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0nx5Iu6KQo&nohtml5=False

Point is, where along the line does these kinds of 'Objectivity in time' happen? The writing? Or did this look something like ...


Fanny stitches.


That turns into this ...

and this ...

Pretty mundane, to be sure, and maybe the screenplay was far more visual, or at least I would hope so. But when everything is done right, as the article points out, these words on the page become 'soft, lyrical, industrious beauty of a hand that is stitching'


To quote (because you know you love them) ...

‘The most ordinary word, when put into place, suddenly acquires brilliance. That is the brilliance with which your images must shine.’

- Robert Bresson


So where does this 'artistic differences' breakdown occur? Editing? Certainly editing is only as good as the raw material it is given. Did the writer plant a seed for a 'poetry in motion' shot of a hand stitching, or was it the director? The cinematographer maybe? A shared vision that came out of open communication and interpretation?

I love the analysis here of that opening scene ...

http://www.filmcomment.com/article/review-bright-star-jane-campion/


Anyways, what seems like some incredibly mundane 'who gives a rat' subject matter becomes a powerful metaphor of sorts to a much bigger story. THIS is the power of cinematic art.

Shame so much is lost in the locking of horns. I know I have lost a few (several?) films due to it. Strapped-for-cash is the other big contributor to crash and burn. Add the two together and it is a right miracle films get made at all.

alex

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

That's one reason why I love David Lynch so much. He never has token glimpses at details just so he can tick them off the list. He indulges in them.

 

[Mathias Erichsen]

I love this thread! It inspires me.
Thank you Alex

 

[a whitmer]

:001_cool: Thanks, Mathias-


This following response in is ref to this ...

"or long short at 65 pages"

Well Jesus Christ, add 15 more pages and make it a feature. There are no 65 minute shorts!


Response ...

My predition - and I could be wrong - is that we will see shorter features become more common. Say 60 to 90 minutes, and I base this on our shorter attention spans thses days due to the internet, and the YouTube (and other delivery systems) phenom that dumps short and quick entertainment in our laps 24/7. It is the new norm, and I think we will see the full-blown absorbtion of it into mainstream 'film' in a very short time (since I am always late to the party, some of you will be thinking 'Uh, we've been saying this for ten years, Alex')

Also, with all these cut-loose creative minds at work making entertainment, who knows what techniques will come out of it - techniques the big camera folks will want to somwhow adapt?

The two newest 'film' mediums are web series and pocket filmmaking with cell phones (I think there is a term for this using a series of 15 second clips with cell phones), both leaning towards short blasts of entertainment. If one can tell a story in one minute, they can cartainly tell one in under three epic hours.. Anyways, I am looking at writing shorter features - or longer shorts. Change, it is a comin'.


Maybe this cell phone thing is the answer to my director-wannabe prayers?


History of movie length ...

http://www.randalolson.com/2014/01/2...ey-used-to-be/


A few pocket films ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4FRujDeqFw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgkE_wgr5HI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7epE7etrtA



I'm waiting for this ... have been for YEARS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YWTtCsvgvg


Alex

 

[a whitmer]

The discussion continues ...


I have been watching film for a spot over 50 years, with the release of 'The Sound of Music', 1965, as my first big movie experiece. This was in the days when the theater was the main source for film, and intermission was still a part of the experience. That film clocked in at 174 minutes, and I sorta remember that being pretty typical. Not all. I remember seeing 'Brighty of the Grand Canyon', which was 89 minutes, but had mostly a kid audience.

I grew up on B&W television, and films just were not available beyond the theater. I think film made for TV didn't really get going until late 60s or early 70s. Around there. There were still a lot of animosities between film and television in those days, with little will to cooperate - not unlike we saw again with new ways of creating and distributing entertainment with the advent of the home computer and internet. I hasn't exactly been a group hug, but it's finding it's groove.

The only exception that I remember was The Wizard of OZ, 1939, which aired on TV in '56. Scared the piss out of me, too. I'm sure there were others, but that one sticks out in my mind. I can't rememebr if we watched it in color or B&W. Color was around, but I really don't think we had a color TV that early. 99% sure.

These were rough times for the film industry, accepting televisions plopped into every home (reminds again me of the computer), and the big studios were not going to let their actors work for TV. Actors - as well as screenwriters - have Ronald Reagan to thank for residuals and softening the gap between studio and TV.



To name just a very few that I remember from my early days ...

Sparticus, 1960, 184 minutes
Psycho, 1960, 109 minutes
The Magnificent 7, 1960, 128 minutes
Cleopatra, 1963, 248 minutes
2001, 1968, 142 minutes
Breakfast at Tiffany's, 1961, 114 minutes
Dr. Zhivago, 1965, 193 minutes
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, 1966, 177 minutes


Some variation to be sure. Anyways. I don't think we have seen the full impact of computers yet on feature film. Maybe a few years once some of the short-but-sweet methods really take hold. Longer films were a reaction to television. My prediction is that film's reaction to today's changes and content availibility will be shorter films in general.

Jus' sayin'

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I'm waiting for this ... have been for YEARS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YWTtCsvgvg


Alex

That is very cool. And so damned simple! I would have assumed that holograms like this would be too complicated to make. But as it turns out, they're too simple.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I know of several major indie distributors who will routinely reject any "feature" less than 80 minutes long. And about a year ago, I was called back 6 months later to work on an 80-minute feature that had been rejected by a distributor in Germany, and the producer had to frantically recut it to extend the film to 85 minutes, just for a sale in that part of Europe. The extra 5 minutes did not make the film better.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I know of several major indie distributors who will routinely reject any "feature" less than 80 minutes long. And about a year ago, I was called back 6 months later to work on an 80-minute feature that had been rejected by a distributor in Germany, and the producer had to frantically recut it to extend the film to 85 minutes, just for a sale in that part of Europe. The extra 5 minutes did not make the film better.

In this case, was the producer not aware of the 80 minute guideline? Or were they allegedly promised an exception which was later rescinded?

 

[a whitmer]

From the Cannes Caméra d'Or rules ...

Article 2

By "first film" is meant a first feature film for theatrical screening (whatever the format; fiction, documentary or animation) of 60 minutes or more in length, by a director who has not made another film of 60 minutes or more in length and released theatrically. A director who has previously made a student thesis films or a TV film can compete for the "Caméra d'Or 2016 - Festival de Cannes" with his/her first feature film.


I keep seeing '60 minutes' all over the place, from best films 60 minutes or less, to best films 60 to 90 minutes, and so on, but not finding a lot of samples of actual 60 minute films. This list, sadly, doesn not include runtimes.

http://cinelists.blogspot.mx/2012/08/120-classic-short-films-60-minutes-or.html


But, I'll stick to my prediction of film moving toward shorter runtimes. Not all, and there will always be the thirst for epics.

a

 

[Elsie N]

From the Cannes Caméra d'Or rules ...

Article 2

By "first film" is meant a first feature film for theatrical screening (whatever the format; fiction, documentary or animation) of 60 minutes or more in length, by a director who has not made another film of 60 minutes or more in length and released theatrically. A director who has previously made a student thesis films or a TV film can compete for the "Caméra d'Or 2016 - Festival de Cannes" with his/her first feature film.


I keep seeing '60 minutes' all over the place, from best films 60 minutes or less, to best films 60 to 90 minutes, and so on, but not finding a lot of samples. Thos list, sadly, doesn not include runtimes.

http://cinelists.blogspot.mx/2012/08/120-classic-short-films-60-minutes-or.html


But, I'll stick to my prediction of film moving toward shorter runtimes. Not all, and there will always be the thirst for epics.

a

As long as the audience has its smartphones, I don't think they really care how long or short the movie is. '-)

 

[a whitmer]

As long as the audience has its smartphones, I don't think they really care how long or short the movie is. '-)

I got to tell ya, the reason I stopped going to theatres is for that very reason. What a joke. In fact, the last time I was in a theater was in 2007, for the film Perfect Stranger, with Halle Berry and Bruce Willis. Had a guy get maybe 20 calls during the film, and the management did NOTHING. When the film was over and the lights came up, this big bruiser type with his classic bimbo trash beside him, stood up and gave the whole audience this 'Anyone want to discuss this, come on down' look, with his proud wannabe trophy next to him.

They walked to the exit just looking for any chance at all to lay someone out. Again the pansy-ass management did nothing. The power of one, huh? Actually used to mean soomething. I have never been back to a theater since.

I prefer the early days with cigarette smoke and intermission.


Maybe that was pre-smartphone. Don't know anything about them, so whatever the tech was in 07. It still went ring-ring.



This about sums up my overall opinion of cellphone idiocy ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY&nohtml5=False


I especcially love the scenario at :43. I have small cafe, and parents come there to tap my wifi and dump their kids ALL THE TIME. Kids? what kids?

The ones ripping the covers off my books, stealing muffins, knocking the furniture over, taking all the napkins and throwing them on the floor, ripping into the garden, knocking art off the walls, opening the bean bags and spreading the little beads from one end to the other, running all over and screaming, making sure nobody else has an enjoyable time, drowning out the classical sax music, and on and on and on. Just try saying something to the parents.

I really hate parents with kids and cellphones.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

But, I'll stick to my prediction of film moving toward shorter runtimes. Not all, and there will always be the thirst for epics.

This ties in quite well with my own prediction: more IMAX features. I don't just mean films like The Dark Knight rises, which was shot for both classical theatres and IMAX. I mean films shot specifically for IMAX, in 4:3. I explained the details in another thread, which I'll summarize: IMAX is cheaper (e.g. almost no VFX required to dazzle); people will never tire of it; it offers an experience that you cannot easily get at home.

60 minutes is a pretty awkward length, even for TV. Not only must there be room for ads on commercial stations, but there must be some room for announcements and promo spots on government stations. For IMAX, it might be ideal, as you can have a double feature and maybe even a short newsreel (news in IMAX!). Back to the good old days!

Edit: As far as you cafe situation is concerned, you can avert this nonsense with some positive energy. Think 'law of attraction'. But yes, the disrespect is not cool.

 

[a whitmer]

I'm not sure if I have ever been in an IMAX theater. If I was, nobody told me . I remeber the name being kicked around, but that's it. Just read up on it, so now I have some idea.



Per the café, we pile the postive energy on in layers, and I think overall we get pretty cool people, including pretty cool kids that get the whole concept of shared space, other people's things, and can engage in conversation. We have books, magazines, toys, swings and a slide. We have an old typewriter they love to play with, and I'm looking for some old rotary-dial phones.

The whole place is furnished and decoratred with old and antique stuff we find in the trash or discarded. Like 90% of it. We take it home, fix it up and add it to the collection. Other stuff we buy, or it's 'donated'. We also have several really old framed book pages found on ebay (400 and 850 years) just for fun, some Edo Samurai armor, an antique Dinky car collection, old coffee tins, 500-year-old spoons, some old baby shoes - local artisit's work, a collection of bird's nests, antique books, comics from the 30s to 70s, unusual plants - all that and other weird stuff to make it an interesting place to hang out. We have a lot of sweat equity into it, so it's a bit distressing when bad parents bring their past-salvation kids in and dump them there while they chat with friends. We've had some pretty harrowing situations to be sure - kids almost run over when they wonder out to the street, fist fights between parents arguing over custody - in front of the kids. Add to that the thieves, drunks, univited political rallies, armed robberies next door - you get the idea. When all the chi is aligned, though (most of the time), it's a cool little place to be. At least I think so.


alex