LA/London - The Writer and Producer Emails

Dear Laura,

Thank you so much for agreeing to write the feature film "Julie and the Soldier". You are the only writer for the job and the only person we trust to be able to give the project to.

I will now leave you alone to work your magic. I always thought Julie being French would be a nice touch.

Yours,

Derek, Producer.

--

Dear Derek,

Yay! Thank you so much for hiring me. Have been wanting this job so passionately for so long and it's great that I can now do the all important thing: write it.

I'll begin tomorrow, at 9am sharp, after-all the deadline is only four weeks away! Also, Julie can't be French. The film is about an English farm girl who's never been out of England. To make her French would, I fear, confuse the story!

Yours,

Laura

--

Hey Laura,

Totally get where you're coming from. I like it. Definitely think Laura should be English. I guess what I meant was that she could have a French side to her. Something in the attitude.

Also, I didn't know whether to tell you or not. Brad Pitt is interested. Just saying. 

Derek

--

Hi Derek,

Great that Brad Pitt is interested. But what is he interested in? A role in the film, or a date with me? If it's a role in the film, do you see him as little Julie, or the soldier? Remember that the soldier is retired, in his nineties, and missing an arm.

If on the other hand you mean Mr Pitt wants a date, let me know with some advance notice so I can shave my legs and send the husband out for groceries :D

Laura T.

--

Laura --- find him something. Maybe a quick-witted mailroom guy. Not too comedy. HA.

D.

--

Hi Derek,

Thanks for your email but I must admit I'm a bit baffled. The story is set on a British farm, where Laura and the soldier are cut off from society. What kind of mailroom would this be?

How about if we just trust that I can deliver a story based on the beautiful novel, and we'll go from there once we have a first draft. Is that okay? -Laura

--

Hi Derek,

I know you're very busy, but I'm just checking in. Is it okay to move ahead without the mailroom scene?

Laura.
--

Laura,

I'm paying you to write the movie. A mailroom is not realistic. Stick to the world of the story.

Need first draft on Friday. Investors. Don't ask.

Thanks,

Derek Jacowski


--

Derek!!!!

The deadline isn't for two weeks! No way can I write a FEATURE FILM in the next 27 hours. Maybe you were joking?

Laura

--

Laura,

Just come from a meeting with McDonalds. It's a go. Try work it in somehow.

Derek

--

Hi Derek,

Again, lost. Work McDonalds into the script? It's a 1940's story about friendship, set on a distant English farm. You want me to add a drive-thru? And all in the next five hours?

Laura
--

Laurahi

had drinks with the studio guys.

Wot color is ur bra.

--


Dear Laura,

I just want to apologise for any messages you got last night. I think someone used my phone. Ignore it. Strange.

Aside from that--- the deadline has passed. I need that first draft. I'm meeting the investors at 3pm. Get the screenplay to me by 2, no excuses.

Yours Sincerely,
Derek Jacowski

--

Dear Derek, the Producer

My bra is white, with multi-coloured threading, it looks like a Smarties Mcflurry. You have as much chance of seeing it as you do of me putting McDonalds in a period drama.

The deadline is unrealistic.

Laura T.

--

Dear Laura,

We seem to be having some conflict. Conflict is good, it shows we are both passionate about the project.

Not to worry, I took the meeting and showed them your first 50 pages. Then I pitched them the McDonalds bit, they went for it so it's a definite GO.

And don't worry, I know you're all about the integrity, they've promised to make the McDonalds logo ancient-looking.

Let's put to bed our recent conflicts and focus on our great movie.

Derek Jacowski,
Producer
Winner of 2 Emnys 
'Producer To Watch Out For' 2006 (Michigan Arts Quarterly)

Care to share?

Tweet

GROUNDHOG DAY: A Masterpiece of PREMISE and CHARACTER

The reason that GROUNDHOG DAY is so funny and has lasted for so long as one of the all-time great comedies, is how intricately it is put together. The problem with most comedies is that the structure and premise are not given due attention. Writers latch on to an idea and use it as a jumping point. But the best films are built around the premise. If you set the film up in the correct way, the structure and rules don't limit you, they free you. 

The first eighteen minutes of the film are not actually particularly funny. In fact, if it wasn't for the charisma and humour of Bill Murray, it's possible you would be bored. What the opening of the film does do - is plant in the key concepts which the film will keep referring to again and again and again. 

The second time Phil Connors (Bill Murray) experiences Groundhog Day is when the film really begins to deliver the laughs. The concept is a funny one, 'what if a guy had to live the same day again and again?' --- the second walk-through of the day delivers on this joke. Most movies peak at this moment-- they have a humorous set-up, play out the joke, and then run out of ideas. It's why most rom-coms, despite sounding clever in a pitch meeting, end up being predictable run of the mill movies. 

When the audience knows the world your film is set in, you can take them anywhere, as long as it stays within the confines of the universe you've created. In 'Groundhog Day', once the audience knows that they're going to be seeing the same day again and again -- the director, Harold Ramis, was free to dive into different scenarios without needing to set them up each time. This is why your premise, and how you deliver it, has to be perfect. This is the difference between great comedy and average-to-poor comedy. It's like when I wrote recently about 'The Watch' and 'Ted' - they're lazy and hacked together. Like the writers thought "Oh, a guy can't get rid of his bear, and a bunch of neighbours protect their hometown from aliens," and thought that would be enough, but it's about so much more than that to produce a stand-out comedy.

Another thing that 'Groundhog Day' has going for it is, of course, Mr Bill Murray, in what is surely the defining performance of his career. The crazy thing about his miserable, angry character, is that we can relate to him! Despite the supernatural thing he is experiencing, of living the same day over and over, we realise that it's not too far from our own experiences. Most of us go through months and months of seeing the same people, having the same conversations, facing the same problems. Despite the ridiculous situation Connors is in, it's also surprisingly normal.

PHIL

What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?

GUY IN BAR

That about sums it up for me. 

As Phil grapples with his bizarre situation, he is plagued with concerns about the meaning of his life, or lack thereof. His concerns are specific to his situation, of living the same day again and again, yet miraculously, they are all same issues we all face, day after day. At various points in the film, Phil finds temporary freedom - through driving on train tracks, manipulating dates with Nancy, and eventually -- through killing himself. These troubling yet hilarious moments give us a great insight into Phil's character, and they also strengthen the premise. We realise, this guy really is stuck in a predicament, and nothing he does matters. You could argue that the movie has atheistic undertones--- if life is meaningless, what exactly are we meant to live for? 

The perfect construction of the film's premise allowed for so many delightful moments that wouldn't have been possible without it. A perfect example is the morning after Phil is put in jail. Despite being miserable in his repeated daily existence, he is ecstatic about being a free man again. He comes down the steps and talks to the woman from the bed-and-breakfast place. Before she can offer him coffee or ask about the weather, Connors answers all the questions, because he's heard them countless times before. This joke was set up in the opening stages of the film, and repeated throughout. Comedy is like lego, you have to build the pieces and make sure they fit together perfectly. It's also about repetition. 'Groundhog Day' is pretty much just five or six scenes being repeated again and again, but they're different each time because of the plight of the character. (If you're interested in these elements of comedy, I recommend you read my blog post about Billy Wilder and I.A. L Diamond's 'The Apartment' and also read the screenplay).

Then we have Phil Connors in the coffee house, with a plethora of cakes and pancakes and cigarettes -- throwing caution to the wind. He made the choice, which I must say is an extremely tempting one, to live a life full of eating bad food and not giving a crap about anything. Again, he is forced into this viewpoint by the premise of the film, yet it is also something we relate to in our monotonous, repetitive lives. If I eat a giant cake today, does it matter? If life is meaningless anyway, should I smoke some cigarettes and have another pancake? 

'Groundhog Day' is a fresh take on a tried and tested notion that any day could be our last, and that it's about making the most of life. To quote the title of a new film staring Dakota Fanning, "Now is good". Of course, we all know that now is good, but we need reminders. We need movies to drum it into us. 

The thing about Phil Connors is that he is so unaware. He thinks he's above the work he's doing, being forced to travel to see if a rat sees its shadow. He's dissatisfied. And he sees the repeating of each day as a punishment, as another thing he has to get through. Isn't that how we all see most of our days, as something we have to get through? So he tries to manipulate the situations, by stealing money, manipulating women to go to bed with him, killing the groundhog. 

Come the end, there's only one thing Phil hasn't tried: being genuine. Getting coffee for his colleagues, taking piano lessons, trying to save an old man's life. What makes this so powerful, much like in his miserable moments, is how strongly we relate to it. We want to be people who look out for others and follow our passions and be kind to strangers; yet we always get grumpy and delay it-- we think we'll be the great versions of ourselves tomorrow, or next week, or after a trip to Spain or whenever it is we get enough sleep.

The film asks; what would you do if you had to live the same day again and again and again? Midway through we realise, we already are living the same day again and again and again. The question is, now that you know this, what are you going to do with your life? When are you going to make an effort and put a smile on people's faces? 

Care to share?

Tweet

KRISTEN WIIG in 'BRIDESMAIDS' - The WRITING and ACTING of 'ANNIE WALKER'

There was a lot of hype about 'Bridesmaids' when it came out. Article after article about how it was going to change the industry. But just because a few black men are in politics now, it doesn't mean hundreds of years of institutional racism vanish. Likewise, the fact that a few male producers enabled two women to write a movie and have a female cast; it doesn't mean it's suddenly an even playing field.

But I wish it was. Because women are great at making movies. They're great when they step out of the restrictive chick-flick genre; because when films like 'Sex & The City' get made, I'd rather keep male privilege rolling for another hundred years. But films like 'Bridesmaids' and 'Whip It' - to give two examples (albeit light-comedy examples) show that there is a whole voice missing from cinema, a whole gender's perspective to be truly explored. The history of cinema is, by and large, the history of male storytelling.

In June 2009 I wrote a blog called 'Men Only' in which I said, among other things, "I love women on screen, they're an important part of films; but it's very rare that I find them interesting enough to carry a film as the lead. What's that about?"

And I want you to know I fully retract everything I said in that article. I was wrong, and my views have changed considerably.

A perfect example of great acting is Kristen Wiig in 'Bridesmaids'.



When you're watching a comedy, you rarely think about its complexity. You just have a good time and wait for the next laugh to come. Wiig's character, Annie Walker, was amazingly written and acted; a stunning performance from the lead actress. Not only is it worth noting -- I think it's worth exploring further.

Annie Walker was vulnerable and fragile throughout the whole film. At the beginning we find out that her business attempt, opening a bakery during the recession, has failed. When it did, her boyfriend left. Her best friend is getting married and her love life consists of casual sex with a man who doesn't listen to her, doesn't care about her needs, and doesn't want her sticking around for the night.

You cling on to anything when you're down. Annie clings on to her best friend, Lillian (Maya Rudolph) who is also getting married. There's a touching scene when Lillian announces she's getting married and asks Annie to be the bridesmaid. Of course, she says yes -- but only seconds later, as Lillian chats on the phone to her fiance we see Annie sitting there trying to hide her loneliness.

The supporting characters in a film all give us information about the main character. It's done to maximum effect in this film when the gorgeous, rich, youthful and seemingly perfect Helen immediately makes Annie feel bad about herself. With just a look in her eyes we can see she feels old and under threat. We can all relate to it. We've all had a friend bring along a new friend and we feel all threatened and insecure about their in-jokes.

Wiig is noted for her comedic talents, which are undeniable. But the core of this movie is actually carried by her dramatic abilities. Those moments in between the laughs -- little snapshots of her character that lived outside of the writing.

A great example is the scene where she makes a cupcake in her apartment. She takes the time to make a perfect cake, which she bakes and decorates to perfection. She places it carefully on the table, on its own ---- before picking it up and scoffing it down herself. What a great, unique way to show loneliness! Lesser writers would have had her calling someone up and saying 'I'm lonely' or listening to 'All By Myself' -- here we just have her eating a cupcake, and it tells us everything.

I can't think of any other character in recent film history who shows the anxiety of insecurity and fear as well as Annie Walker does here. The writers really kept hitting this home, scene after scene. The airplane scene, renowned for her hilarious drunkenness and for Megan's (Melissa McCarthey's) conversation with the Air Marshall; also carries a lot of dramatic weight in that in cements the gap that is increasing between Annie and her best friend, which is being made worse by the fact Lillian and Helen are getting closer and closer as friends (due to her failings). They are in first class, while she is stuck in coach.

After Annie's mad, drunken behavior on the plane; Lillian suggests that maybe being the Bridesmaid is too much for her. Of course; this is the thing she'd always feared. Of not being enough, of not being able to do a good job, of not being able to be a great friend. That's what insecurity does, renders you ineffective and makes your worst fears come true. It's that vulnerability that Wiig manages to portray so truthfully. 

The sadness of the character is what makes it so compelling. It's what grips you. The funny situations she gets in have a weight to them because they're rooted in realism, no matter how absurd they are. We can relate. I can relate, and I'm a man. That's why all this men-only-in-leading-roles is bullshit, because we're all human beings, and our problems are universal.

The writing takes a great turn in that she begins to get what she needs: a good man (Chris O'Dowd as Officer Nathan Rhodes). Yet she runs from it. Can't handle it. Things have been going wrong for so long, what the hell do you do when something right comes along? There's a simple scene afterwards when she phones Lillian and says she doesn't have a clue what she's doing, it's the most truthful moment of the movie. Truthful because, in life, so often we don't know what we're doing. 

After all this -- she's lost. Lost her center, the thing that makes her herself. She loses her job in the jewelry store after calling a customer a cu*t, she's ignoring Nathan (without really knowing why), and she's asked to move out by her English roommates. What makes it so satisfying, dramatically, is that we feel for her -- she's a good woman, doing her best; yet again and again she's failing. We can all relate to it because that's how the world works.

Comedy is better when you relate to it, when it has reality as a basis. Or not even as a basis, it just needs something in there that's authentic. That's why 'The Other Guys' sucked. Absurd is fine, but you need a center; a place to jump off from. 'Bridesmaids' took care of these details and that's why it's superior to most of the comedies of recent years.

Then there's the bridal shower, which she's invited to despite being demoted from her Bridesmaid duties. She's a good friend and a proud person, so she makes sure she's there. She loves her friend. We see this when she gives her a present, a touchingly personal gift -- a collection of things from back home in Milwaukee, along with a photo montage from their younger days.

And then rich-and-perfect Helen buys Lillian a trip to Paris; an idea which stemmed from a conversation with Annie about how much Lillian likes Paris. Annie is heartbroken -- it's an extremely bitchy and manipulative move from Helen; which we the audience can see, and our hero Annie can see -- but the guests at the party can't. 

What follows is Annie going absolutely crazy; wrecking the garden and smashing things to pieces. It's a hilarious yet cringeworthy scene; but powerful because we feel her sense of injustice. Yet dramatically, she's ruining her best friend's wedding experience. The complex blend of comedy, sadness, and the righteousness of the other characters is brilliantly handled.




The Writing of the film, by Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, with the watchful eye of Judd Apatow; is the core of what makes this film great. Each event, each scene, drives Annie further and further away from her best friend, and from herself. It's rooted in truth; we can relate to what's happening because we'd want to react just like she does. Even the parts of the film that are over the top and ridiculous, we're still there-- because the characters are so true. 


It's the acting of the film that brings it home. The best actors are able to do two opposite things on screen. It's why people pay Robert Downey Jr so much money, and it's why we all loved Jack Lemmon. Kristen Wiig has a touch of that magic. She knows how to get the laugh -- years at the Groundlings Theatre, and live SNL performances, and the multitude of ridiculous jobs before she 'made it' have helped shape the comedic talent that she is. What makes her performance in 'Bridesmaids' stand out, is how layered it is. We laugh at the comedy, but it's the heart and honesty we connect with. 

Care to share?

Tweet

JACK LEMMON and WALTER MATTHAU - Grumpy, Odd, and Loved.

They were a gift. A present from the Gods; the likes of which we'll never see again. If they made a new film together now I would literally sprint to the cinema to see it. In fact, I'd find out where they're shooting the movie and I'd demand a job. Sure, I'd love to direct them, but I'd be happy to get the coffee, shine their shoes, whatever it takes.

Just to be near them. They make my heart and soul fly and soar --- I just wish I could be there, just for a moment. Don't you think that would be magnificent?

I watched 'Out To Sea' tonight -- it's a film that, with any other actors, would be average at best. But with Jack and Walter, every moment is golden. On their own, they're riveting. Together, they transcend. Watching them together is pure joy -- every single frame.

We are lucky that they did so much work together. Especially in the final years of their careers and lives --- 'Out To Sea', 'Grumpy Old Men', 'Grumpier Old Men', 'The Odd Couple 2' - these films weren't masterpieces in any cinematic sense. The plots aren't groundbreaking. Each film is about two men at war with each other-- usually because of personality clashes, and women.

It never seems right that people die, does it? That they just vanish. With film stars, we're lucky. Because they don't have to be alive to make us laugh, cry and smile. That's the thing when you watch these guys -- they're so real and present, but at the same time you feel that sad pang because you know we don't have them anymore.

By the end, the Lemmon/Matthau thing could easily have been a predictable shtick, but somehow they kept the heart. How? Because that's all they had: HEART. Two beautiful souls that fate decided should get into the the business of acting, and somehow they found their way to each other. The fortune cookie that we were dealt was a fabulous one, and this odd couple went on to entertain us for many years.

I crave videos like this. They're aging and they're going deaf and they're forgetting their lines -- but they're amazing. Hilariously funny and more alive than I think I've ever been.

Their definitive collaboration is seen as 'The Odd Couple' - and I totally respect that, it's one of the all-time great comedies. But for me, I can't get enough of them in the comedies they did together towards the end. They were carefree and fun. They brought a warmth, wisdom and ease to what they did which is rare to see in film. The film's glide along effortlessly because you are in the presence of two truly fantastic people.

Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau are, without question, my favourite on screen duo.

Care to share?

Tweet

10 Tips For Directing Comedy

1. Welcome collaboration, but make sure the ideas resonate with your vision.

2. Do takes that are faster. It's always slower when you watch it back. Faster is funnier.

3. Make sure the actors are comfortable doing less.

4. Do as much as you can in single shots. Cutting to different angles makes it less funny.

5. Have really old people in the background and out of focus. Don't know why, but it's funny.

6. Use funny names.

7. Keep to the page.

8. Ignore the page.

9. In drama, your characters sit and talk. In comedy your characters can't talk because one is deaf and the other is trapped under the sofa.

10. Don't be too topical. Good humour lasts forever, but a joke about George Bush is an embarrassment, much like his foreign policy.

Care to share?

Tweet

Acting Competition Winner - 'Get Out' by ERIC GEYNES and LAURA EVELYN

The competition was to create a scene, no longer than one minute in length, on the theme of 'leaving,' in only one shot. They were the rules; and it was down to actors to come together to create something original.

The winner is 'GET OUT' by Eric Geynes and Laura Evelyn. Please watch it before reading on:

Originally I had planned to get an established industry actor to judge which film is best -- but we only had a very very small amount of entries, far less than expected -- so I took on the judging responsibilities myself.

This film stood out far ahead of the rest. Here's why I think it was great:

First of all - doing anything in one single take is hard. A minute is a long time. Most of the films we watch barely go four seconds without cutting to another angle. These actors were able to hold my attention for the full minute. And although I'm judging based on acting, and not direction - it's worth mentioning how the scene was set-up because it aided the scene greatly. The way we're shoved into the corner of the room with only the door to look at really adds an element of humor.

There are two clear characters in this film. We really get to know them. This is hard to get right even when you're creating a ten minute short film. But here we clearly have a struggling actress who's annoying, desperate for a role, perhaps lightly insane - and we have a busy casting director who has no time for bad actresses/weird people. The scene is made interesting by two opposing character types who are both desperate to get something done: i.e. - she's desperate to keep getting back into the room, and he's desperate to get her the hell out of there.

Laura is hilarious in this: I love the smile she does eleven seconds into the film; and the physical humor of practically being crammed out of the door on the twenty three second mark.

The fact that Eric is so interesting on screen is actually quite surprising considering he has his back to camera for most of it. What I like about his performance is that he is always moving; always trying to get to the end of the meeting/scene/day -- it adds a real pace to the proceedings. He also moves swiftly, and naturally, between the subtle, small moments - like when he calls her a 'fucking nutter' and the bigger, crazier moments, when he is matching Laura's energy levels as he tries to kick her out of the room.

It's also worth mentioning the great writing. Well, I say writing but I imagine they improvised most of this. What I am getting at, is the structure. As a short scene, it raises the bar another level by the surprise at the end. First, he kicks her out for her terrible acting, secondly, he kicks her out after she comes back for her bag-- but it's the third moment that makes it hilarious; the hilarity of the fact she's left her shoes in there. Her shoes!? Even though this was down to a great concept, rather than the acting (although the acting was great throughout) it goes to show how actors look better when the time is taken to get good material.

ERIC GEYNES relocated from Toulouse to London in 2003 after a career in professional swimming. Eric has been busy; with roles in films such as CLASH OF THE TITANS and HEREAFTER. He is also a writer-director (which isn't surprising, given the elements that made up the film in this competition) and is currently in post-production on his second short film. You can view his spotlight here

LAURA EVELYN's recent theatre credits include A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM and STIFFED!. Laura appeared in the feature films SCRATCH and POPULAR UNREST --- and she plays the lead role in the upcoming film WILBY PARK, which is a psychological-thriller due out later this year. You can view here spotlight details here

I recommend you visit their page's and watch their showreels. They are very talented and destined for great things. Exciting!

Care to share?

Tweet

"England - The World Cup Movie."

Rumors fresh out of South Africa indicate that film director Fabio Capello is remaking the football film 'England - The World Cup Movie' - only eight years after the last one (there was another remake shot four years ago, but it didn't even make it to DVD).

Fans of the original movie, an unexpected smash hit in 1966; are adamant that new directors must stop remaking it every four years as the newer versions have been appalling, and mostly unwatchable. "Every four years somebody tries to remake it again," said football fan James Innes, "but it's always so predictable." This was an opinion echoed by Greg Baker, not because his opinion was similar but because there was an echo in the room when I asked him.

The problem isn't, as many people believe, that they remake the film every four years - it's that they never have any originality and are always the same. "The film's always start off so promising!" screamed Eric Flump, as he battled to be heard over a passing motorbike, "I always go into it with fresh enthusiasm and belief; and literally, the whole of the UK expects the film to be great. What starts off with lots of energy in the opening stages, soon becomes a pitiful mess towards the end."

"You'd think one of the studio execs would have changed things up a little, or made them a little less predictable, but they're always the same" explained Harry The Hooligan, "but you know exactly what's going to happen---- either halfway through or after three-quarters, one of the character's is going to get angry and cause a scene, or one of the stars is going to leave the movie half way through due to a tight hamstring."

The only remake of the world cup movie that was even mildly loved by fans and critics was the 1990 version, although some felt that the choice of ending was an unfair penalty for what otherwise had solid performances. Betsy Betson, former editor of SoccerWeekly, is hopeful for a fresh approach in the 2010 version but is hardly optimistic; "Jesus, it's pointless, isn't it. Absolutely insane, mental. Outrageous," shouted Betsy, in near meltdown, before following it with, "sorry, what was the question?" As I asked her again about the poor state of the remakes, she instantly blamed Hollywood. "Jesus! They're clearly out of ideas! They think by casting Wayne Rooney they stand a chance of succeeding, but it's ridiculous. Pointless. It's written into their contracts that the film has to die pathetically at least ten minutes before the end."

Various drafts of the screenplay for the 2010 reboot have been read across town (and by town, we mean West London) - but various elements are since believed to have been dropped. Carlo Ancellotti, a talented and experienced screenwriter/director, added in elements where footballers sleep with each others wives, and team captains take large payments for stadium tours, but they were deemed too unrealistic by the producers.

In summary - the new version is believed to be in keeping with all the others. Hugely promising, with a large and overpaid cast. There'll be signs of good dialogue, fun action sequences and occasional inspiration-- only to be let down by a sloppy ending.

Care to share?

Tweet

Favorite FRIENDS Quote.

"It was Summer. And it was hot. Rachel was there. A lonely grey couch. "Oh look!" cried Ned, and the Kingdom was his forever. The end."
-Chandler Bing.

...Is my favorite quote. What is yours?

Care to share?

Tweet

Five Question Film School With Writer/Director Scott Prendergast.

Rather than ask questions about where he grew up and what his pets were called, I decided to get straight down to business with first time Writer/Director Scott Prendergast, whose debut feature 'Kabluey' (starring himself, and Friends star Lisa Kudrow) is now available on DVD.


1. What is the one dumb, stupid, silly, idiotic mistake that you made when making Kabluey?

I wish i had gotten to know - and hired - a Director of Photography long before we began pre-production. I did not know any DPs and I had never worked on film as all my shorts were on video. I wish I had had an ally who knew all the technical ins and outs. I wish I had worked with someone incredibly talented. I wish that I had a DP who I had worked with for years who I knew very well, and trusted.

2. How do you direct yourself? How do you know when you've got it right?

I've only ever made short films where I was the writer/director/actor. So I kinda knew what I wanted and just hoped that I was getting it right. Because I had written the material I had a pretty firm grasp on what I wanted to do. And every now and then I would turn to my producer Sarah Feinberg and I would ask her "Am I doing this OK? Am I awful? Was that good?" I think you can just feel it when it's going right. It's better to FEEL good about it than to obsess over "does it LOOK right?" I think that's a good rule of thumb for directing yourself and for acting.

3. How did Lisa Kudrow get involved?

We sent her the script - she read it - and she called me and said yes. It was kind of a crazy miracle. I really respect her for being so adventurous and doing this tiny movie. She was perfect in the film and wonderful on set. It all just fell into place very quickly. Which I guess is kind of rare and weird. But I am very very happy we were so lucky.

4. What is the one part of the film that makes you think "wow, I really nailed that!"

Lisa walking down the road crying. I had worked on that a lot - thought about it forever - planned it out a million times. And lisa just walked on and nailed it. I love that scene. She's so good. Also I'm very happy with the look of the suit and the physical comedy with the suit out on the side of the road.

5. What's the hardest thing about directing a feature?

Everything is hard. But the hardest thing? Hmmm... just getting the money probably. Finding people who will give you their money and not demand that you turn over all creative control. Getting a movie made at all is a miracle.

Check out the trailer!

Care to share?

Tweet

Dream Analysis Needed.

I am about to embark on writing a new screenplay. I have these two ideas that have been swimming around; one is a comedy - guy meets girl, guy can't get girl, guy does insane things, etc. The other is a more serious tale about twentysomethings and their struggles.

Last night, I had a dream. A dream that I stole a car, drove it into a bunch of shops, smashing all the windows. People started getting pretty pissed at me, but I blamed it all on Steve Martin. Steve Martin and me argued a bit, but then I got away with the crime, with Steve Martin left behind. At this point, I woke up.


Now, I see two potential meanings:

1. Steve Martin is a comedy guy. And me stealing a car, smashing things up, and blaming him is quite funny. So it makes me think I need to focus on writing my comedy screenplay.

2. Steve Martin has made terrible comedies now for many years. Also, in the dream, things are getting smashed up. Would me writing this comedy be a car wreck?

I can't figure it out. Any thoughts?

Care to share?

Tweet

Adolf Hitler - The Funniest Man In Comedy.

The first time you see 'Downfall' is a powerful, overwhelming experience. There's something uniquely fascinating about Germans exploring their own history on film. When English or Americans make films about Hitler or the Nazi's, there is always going to be an element of bias or opinion that seeps in -- but Germans making films about a topic which can still be very raw and present for them is... well, it's important. Important to the world, I think. 'Downfall' is a masterpiece. A powerful, riveting, and upsetting film that I think everyone should see.

The problem is-- I don't think I could ever watch it again. The Adolf Hitler presented in that film now represents something very different to me, and it's something very funny. Who would have thought this could happen? I don't know who the first person to do this was, but they were a genius. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about-- over the past couple of years, there has been a phenomenon on YouTube of re-editing scenes from 'Downfall.' To give you an idea, here is a recent one about the new Apple Ipad.

The beauty of them is that they are all completely ridiculous and nonsensical, but they are just so damned funny. Here are two twenty second clips that had me laughing.

And..



Fuck it, here's a third one.



I find these hilarious. I can understand that some people may find it offensive, that we're laughing along with Hitler - but I think most people agree with me. So why are they so funny?

The image of Hitler and what he stood for is one of the most recognised images in our culture. Wherever you are in the world, even if you are uneducated and disinterested in World War 2 -- chances are you know all about Adolf Hitler. There is something unique about World War 2 in that it will always get a reaction from people, they are sensitive to it. You could make a terrible documentary about Auschwitz, but it would still resonate with people. The images are too depressing and upsetting to not affect you. Likewise, the image of Adolf Hitler will always create a reaction. More often than not - it is one of disgust, or bewilderment, or anger.

These YouTube videos get big reactions. Say what you want about them, but they wouldn't be funny with anyone else in them. If it was Tony Blair from 'The Queen' nobody would be laughing. Sometimes I despair at how young people aren't interested in World War 2, whereas for me - keeping alive the story of what my Grandparents and their generation did is a big part of my life. But maybe these YouTube videos are the way that younger people can relate to what happened. I mean, if Hitler was just some random old German guy, these videos wouldn't capture the imagination of young people as much as they do.

The reason we find them funny is because the image we all have of Hitler -- everything we learned about; his obsession with war, with conquering Europe, with mass killing. So, the idea of him going crazy over Oasis breaking up, or going insane because Michael Jackson died is completely hilarious.

Here is Adolf Hitler being informed that he gets killed in 'Inglorious Basterds'

The thing about these Hitler videos is that, for the most part - they are very cleverly written, I laugh at nearly all of them. Whoever came up with these is a genius. I keep thinking it'll be tough to keep them fresh and original, but at the moment - I'm still finding them all funny.

Care to share?

Tweet

The Bizarre Case Of Dane Cook - The Unfunniest Man In Comedy

I went to see Dane Cook in Madison Square Garden tonight and, I have to say, I was completely blown away by the complete lack of anything funny happening during his entire set. I bought a ticket because, being in NY, it seemed like something to do, especially as the Springsteen shows this weekend had sold out. So instead, I went for some comedy, and I was assured that this guy was the biggest name in comedy right now.

I never figured I would love him. I mean, I've seen his movies and he always just seemed like a weak Ryan Reynolds. But hey, I don't mean to sound like a Dane Cook Hater. After getting home tonight and being extremely discombobulated by how this unfunny guy had taken the comedy world by storm, I began to google him to find out answers. What I found, was quite horrible really - people really hate on this guy, they really make it personal.

And I don't mean to do that, honestly I don't. I'd like to be more mature about it. Comedy is extremely important to me; most of my writing and filmmaking revolves around comedy. It's everything to me. So, I couldn't help but sit there in amazement at what was going on. Thousands of people were laughing uncontrollably, and I just sat there completely lost. He doesn't tell jokes, for one. I've read a lot about him tonight saying he tells 'observational jokes' - but I don't really see that either. He observes things, but he doesn't build jokes around them.

And that's what disappointing, I guess, is that rather than being a storyteller who cleverly crafts material and punchlines, he just talks about internet porn and sex like a guy in a bar would. He's very loud and confident. And I kind of liked that about him, he's great with a crowd, very fun. Problem is, I'm just not sure why they were laughing. The reason it troubles me is because, I'd like to think I have a good idea of what comedy is, and I'm writing a screenplay I'd like to think would appeal to the masses. But the masses, evidently, find Dane Cook hilarious. It confuses me because - I JUST DON'T GET IT! I don't see where the funny is! Why are people laughing?

He seems like a good guy, it's not personal. I'm not saying this because he's wildly popular and successful, he's done very well and evidently deserves his success if he can fill up Madison Square Gardens -- but it's left me confused by how we define comedy, and what people want to see/hear.

Care to share?

Tweet

A Story About Tea Addiction.

Last week I posted a short story about Understanding Your Dreams which to my great surprise many of you found better than terrible, so I hope you don't mind my indulgence if I post one more short story today, and then I promise to get back to the reason you are all here, films. This is an article about the tragic and often misunderstood problem sweeping many parts of the world, but is particularly prominent here in the U.K.

A Short Story By The Kid In the Front Row - Understanding Tea Addiction

Tea addiction is generally classed as one of the least bothersome addictions. The main signs of tea addiction are headaches, brown teeth and dressing like your grandparents. Those who have been inflicted with tea obsession often feel helpless due to how unversed medical professionals are on the subject, as they normally say to patients, "let's have a cup of tea and discuss this."

Tea is the third most common reason for not sleeping, coming in slightly behind depression, and the main reason - that it is not yet bedtime. People often think that people addicted to the caffeine in tea don't sleep well as they drink too late at night, whereas actually it is usually because the person is laying awake anticipating the morning's first cup of tea. This can lead to problems, especially if you wake up to find you are all out of tea bags.

Tea can be drunk with sugar, with sweeteners, and with relatives, who will often complain, "this is too strong for me." Tea is also versatile as it can be consumed in any situation, although I rarely drink it during sex - but that's probably because I've never had it.

Tea is great in all situations. Often after good news people will say, "lets have a cup of tea." It has also been used over the years during arguments, mainly because a fresh cup of tea can cause major burns if poured directly onto a moaning partner. Tea has also been customary at funerals over the years, although in recent years there has been debate as to whether there is any justification for causing major burns to corpses.

After the success of the AA for alcoholics, many people who were addicted to tea joined the TA, but were left baffled when their first assignment was a 9 month stay in Afghanistan. Of course, after realizing the TA was actually the Territorial Army, they instead set up Teaholics Anonymous, a place where groups of people of from all backgrounds can sit around discussing their experiences. Tea is strictly forbidden, so members tend to bring strong alcoholic beverages. Things get very confusing on every third Sunday of the month as the AA and TA have to share a hall, and members often claim to belong to a different group than they came in with.

Farmers in some parts of Africa have been blamed for the epidemic of tea addiction. Harold Frumbleby, Director of Purchases at Starbucks said, "Ethiopian farmers make their tea available for less than $0.02 per cup." He went on to claim, "this is why we charge $2.45 per cup, to stave off buyers from being driven to addiction by those careless Ethiopians." World Leaders praised Starbucks and other big coffee chains for continuing to extort prices by up to 7995%, and believed it would save the Western World from tea addiction. President Obama is rumored to be planning a "War On Caffeine," but he may cave on the decaf option.

In Summary - all I can really do is to advise caution and moderation. You also must not drink tea whilst operating heavy machinery, as this may lead to spillages. Tea can also cause staining of the teeth, which is why tea has been banned in Hollywood since the mid-nineties.

Care to share?

Tweet

When Woody gets it right; a look at 'Manhattan Murder Mystery'

Carol: "Larry, I think she's dead!"
Larry: "Try giving her the present."

Woody Allen is, of course, one of the greatest comedy writer/director/actors of all time. But when he is thought of in this way it is often for his 'earlier, funnier ones' or for the more mature masterpieces like 'Annie Hall'. But for me; the masterpiece of his comedic abilities came with the underrated 'Manhattan Murder mystery'.

I love 'Annie Hall,' don't get me wrong. But it's not laugh out loud funny. Nor is it meant to be. It's a very honest portrayal of the complexities of modern relationships. And some of the insights are inherently amusing; but that doesn't lead to hilarity, and nor was it meant too. Also, whilst I of course find his early comedies funny; for me they have aged - and it's something Woody agrees with; he often states how he thinks comedies age badly.

Many of his pictures have been funny; often hilarious. But I really think that 'Manhattan Murder Mystery' is the funniest. Nearly every single bit of dialogue is a one-liner, especially from Woody; and the laughs just keep on coming. His relationship with Diane Keaton is a lot funnier than in anything they've done together before. They are so at ease together; so confident performing together; it's a real joy to watch.

I definitely think that comedy is funniest when there is no cutting. This is what is so great about many of Woody's films, especially from this period; he doesn't use the camera and editing to tell the story. He uses the story to tell the story. Most of this film plays out in long, roaming master-shots. It gives a natural feel to everything that is happening on screen - and Allen, Keaton and Alan Alda seem to revel in it.

The shooting style of 'Manhattan Murder Mystery' is one of the most impressive things about it; and it's the same for 'Husbands And Wives' which came the year before it. I think if I was to take a scene from either of them and tell a film school I'd shot them; they'd make lots of comments about bad hand-held shaky camerawork, and terrible framing. However, this is what is so great about these films. Woody was known to tell his Director Of Photography Brian Di Palma not to worry if the actors were out of frame. All that was important was that they say their lines and perform well; if they're in shot or not in shot, the audience will still get it. It's a style which is extremely refreshing compared to the typical Hollywood films where any emotion or important information is delivered in a close-up. Here, Woody has enough respect for his audience to let them add up two plus two themselves. The laughs come thick and fast; because they are delivered to us so naturally; not forced on us by cutting to close up or forcing us to see things.

It may only have a 7.2 on the IMDB - and Woody himself has been known to talk about this film as a lightweight comedy - but for me, this is a masterpiece. It's Woody Allen at his comedic best; every line is a killer and the performances are amongst the best I've ever seen in a comedy.

Care to share?

Tweet

Tom Hanks.

I love Tom Hanks. Not in a gay way. But I love him in the same way I love Jack Lemmon and Jimmy Stewart. Hanks was probably the first person I actively begun to follow when I realized I was going to be a film lover rather than an ordinary functioning human. I loved the Ephron Rom-Coms, I loved the Oscar-winning stuff - and I loved all the old stuff like Punchline and The Burbs. Back then, Hanks was really Hanks. In fact, he was probably at his most Jack Lemmon back then.
My concern is that he just doesn't take risks anymore. He just seems to take the pay-cheque. I would love to see him in a low-budget comedy, something that tries to be a bit different; but it's just not something that Hanks ever does. The strange thing is that the Tom Hanks everyman character doesn't seem to excite so much anymore. A part of me would be more drawn to see a Will Smith blockbuster than the latest Hanks flick.

I see his career in three stages. The first was the 'earlier, funnier ones'. From Splash in 1984 through to A League Of Their Own in 1992. This was a great period for Tom Hanks; whether the films were brilliant fun like Turner And Hooch or pathetic like The Man With One Red Shoe, one thing stayed constant -- Hanks was just so compelling on screen. Whether he was spying on weird neighbours, going on stake-outs with a dog or dating a mermaid; you just went along with it. He was just so appealing to watch, so funny, and so interesting.

The second stage is where he went from being a great comedy actor to being an all-time great, a legend in his own right. From Sleepless In Seattle through to Road To Perdition. Career-wise, he did very little wrong. It could be down to his 'crack team of showbiz experts' as he often jokes. Or it could just be down to the fact that he was a dedicated, passionate, and risk-taking actor. It's hard to see now but to play a homosexual with aids, immediately followed by playing a simple, somewhat retarded Alabamian was a risk. Two risks that rewarded us with breathtaking and ground-breaking performances, and rewarded him with two back-to-back Oscars and a license to pretty much have any role he wanted for the rest of his career. And this is a license that, for many years, he used very well.

In Sleepless In Seattle and You've Got Mail he was perfect. You can write them off as fluffy rom-coms, but I really like the films. Hanks manages a state of complete naturalness. When you watch him talk, think and move; he is not an actor, he is not performing, he just is. In You've Got Mail you can see he's having the time of his life; bringing himself into the role in a way that parallels Jimmy Stewart in The Shop Around The Corner, from which You've Got Mail was adapted.

Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile and Cast Away are, for me, completely perfect films. In these films Tom had perfected the art of acting. The art of becoming a role. Of course, in these films he got to work with masters of modern cinema - Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Frank Darabont and Robert Zemeckis -- so he was in good hands. With great writing and directing backing him he excelled. I could happily watch these four films on repeat for the rest of my life. His journey as a character in these films are like the journeys of the everyman getting through life. These are roles that define who Tom Hanks is and what he means to us. They are roles that proved beyond doubt that he is the greatest actor of our generation and quite possibly any generation.

And then came stage three. From Catch Me If You Can through to Angels and Demons. You begin to see the pattern of him falling into the same films again and again. Rather than playing a complex and flawed character like Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan he played rather uninspired, predictable characters in his two next Spielberg films Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal. Both were watchable, in fact Catch is possibly quite good; but they're safe. By the numbers box-office fare that will happily yield a pay-cheque and a new offer after release. The same complaint could be made about Spielberg as it could Hanks but I'll save that for another time.

The Da Vinci Code is the icing on the cake. Rather than playing a heartbreaking Andrew Beckett or the conflicted Paul Edgecombe, he took on a role in the biggest franchise at the time. The Da Vinci book was hyped beyond control and the movie was guaranteed to rake in the dollars. Where Ron Howard's Apollo 13 was inspired and moving, Da Vinci is just dull, long and - well, you've all seen it, just bland. Of course, it's highly likely that Tom thought the film would be much better than it was; but then here he is again in the sequel Angels & Demons. For the first time in my life; I have absolutely no interest in seeing a Tom Hanks film.

When you rack up his credits in the last seven years compared to those in the decade prior to that, it's sad to see how poor it is. It's not that he misfires; it's just that he is content playing with the big-timers in films that rarely have anything to say and the comedies like The Ladykillers and The Terminal lack the freshness of pretty much every comedy he did prior to the turn of the millennium.

I worry. Not for Tom the working actor, but for Tom the artist. Tom the man who meant so much to us. The man who is now churning out the average on a consistent basis. Whether this is bad choices and safety or just pure bad luck, I don't know. I mean, I'd have thought having him acting out the words of Aaron Sorkin in Charlie Wilson's War would produce one of the greatest films of our time but it wasn't to be the case.

Whatever happens, I feel that we are now approaching chapter four. His next few decisions will determine the rest of his career. I just hope he takes some risks.

Care to share?

Tweet