Low-Budget Directing -- Starting With Pre-Production

It's tough. Your mind is in a million places but it's also nowhere at all. You're making a movie and if it's going to happen, you have to pull in the favours. You already owe your friend Mary 16 favours and you still need to replace the lamp you broke when you shot a short film in her house, but still; you need her again. You need everyone a little more than you're comfortable with -- but it's the only way to make a feature film work when you have a tiny budget. And by tiny budget I mean somewhere between zero and the 'Clerks' shooting budget.

You have to be passionate all the time. Truly passionate. Everyone has a film, or a play, or a band that they're flogging -- and everyone is bored. You need to somehow capture their attention. You do that by being as excited by your idea as when it first entered your head. It sounds like fun------ but it's tough. In the last week, seventy well intentioned people have asked "how is your film going?" and you want to say "I'm tired! I still don't have the warehouse location and we don't have an actor to play the Doctor! And we need more money!" -- but instead you talk about how excited you are and how passionate you are because the only way people will be with you is if you are fulfilling a dream project or if you can guarantee them money. I can't guarantee them money, because I don't make horror films with big-breasted women running about. I make the films that could be masterpieces, could be complete borefests. It's a risk. You know it. I know it. But I've got to stay excited and positive because otherwise no-one is with me. If the leader of the pack is fed-up or exhausted or unsure, what effect will that have on the lead actor, or director of photography, or the friend who's printed your scripts out for free to be helpful? You have to know that you're making a masterpiece even though there's no proof of it.

You meet people about once every four years who get it. They get turned on by the same things you do (creatively). They post YouTube clips on your Facebook that they know you'll love. You email each other endlessly talking not just about films but about politics and about hamsters and about conspiracy theories--- because you know that you get each other and you know that it makes sense. But the problem is that these people often live across the world and you can't afford to get them involved in your project and they can't afford to help out for free. And this is where your directing of the film is tested right from the beginning. You have composers who want to compose for you and runners who want to make tea for you and sound guys who want to record the sound for you -- and once you pick one, that's it-- you're trusting them with your world. This film is going to take up two years of your life and if you pick a dud, or someone who isn't excited, you're fucked. 

I was a producer on a movie a couple of years back--  we had no money but we had a lot of passion.... but, there were thirty people on that ship. Everyone wavers at different times. The CGI fell first, he lost all interest, and then so did the editor--- and this is what's so tricky, when you're doing something that is about art and not a paycheck. We all want to do the work, but we also have time limits on our enthusiasm. That never gets talked about. How do you know the people you bring on board to create the magic are going to last the pace? You don't. There's no way of knowing. 

At times you wish you were just a cog in Hollywood, because sometimes the product doesn't matter so much, or there are eighty identical people to keep the wheel turning. But when you truly create something with vision, your own piece of art --- most people aren't making money doing it. Or they're going to be making money ten years from now. The Duplass brothers made a lot of films that nobody watched before they made 'The Puffy Chair' -- and then when they finally got to make 'Cyrus' - the studios made the trailer nothing like the film and before long they're struggling to stay completely valid as artists. These low-budget films that we make as we beg, borrow, and steal to bring them to fruition--- they are the best times we'll ever have, the most freeing---- it's just hard to know that when you're doing it, because you're caught up in a million dilemmas, decisions, and concerns. 

But all will be fine -- just so long as people like the movie.

Care to share?

Tweet

When An Actor Says "I'm Sorry, But I've Just Been Offered Paid Work"

It's day four of a six day shoot. You have invested all of your energy in putting this incredible project together. You managed to get an incredible cast, the best DP in independent film and you somehow managed to score an office location for the shoot for free. Everything is perfect. And then your actor awkwardly says "Um, I've been offered a paid job tomorrow, and I have to take it." Actually, they probably don't say that; they text it, or email it, or tweet it. This is one of the big elephants in the room in independent filmmaking. But this elephant gets around, because absolutely everyone has experienced it. So, on the one hand, I'm inclined to go into the big question of -- what do you do in this situation? But I'd rather focus on the one who is creating this conflict, the one who is taking the paid job. Because it is to them that we really need to say; what are you doing?

Of course, the simple wisdom is 'pay them something' and 'get them to sign a contract,' and these things sound lovely - but people still walk out after four days to do something else. So firstly, before we go on, I hope we can all agree that this happens, and in fact - it happens quite often. It's very rare for the person leaving to go to a paid job instead and feel good about it. They will defensively say they have to or that they have no choice, but they will feel bad doing it and know they are in the wrong. You know this because they'll text you their excuse and you'll probably never see them again.

The two main reasons given are: "I'm sorry, but it's paid, and I'm so broke right now that I have to take it." The other one is "This is a great opportunity, the guy who was AD on that spin-off from that show who made that thing that used to be on NBC is directing it!" - this, of course, is especially true with actors who think it's their big break.
But it's this idea of a big break which is the troublesome thing--- because, the big break doesn't exist. Being in a commercial or having two lines in a feature film directed by someone reasonably established isn't a big break. Real acting, like real directing, isn't about a big break-- it's about constantly creating opportunity through your body of work. A big break, if it happens, is temporary, and fleeting. One minute, you're in a magazine as "The Star of 2007" and the next thing you know, it's 2010 and you've not had a job in three years. A real 'big break' happens once a year, and it happens to Kristen Stewart or Andrew Garfield. If David Fincher wants you in a movie - I understand. But if the paid job you're ditching your indie flick for is a yogurt commercial - you really need to think seriously about your priorities, and your career.

Let's imagine it's 2005, and Mark and Jay Duplass ask you to be in their independent film "THE PUFFY CHAIR." They're shooting it for $15,000; they can't pay you anything. The film is about relationships and it's mostly improvised. You get a role and it seems like fun-- you don't know much about them and you don't totally know if it will work, but you take the role.

And then two days into the shoot you get a call from your agent, if you have one; and they've got you a role playing a young parent in a McDonald's commercial, and they're paying you two thousand. What happens here is most people take the two thousand, and go do the McDonald's commercial.

Now, of course, on the shoot -- the Duplass Brothers would be pissed because you've monumentally fucked up their movie, which you know; so you keep avoiding them, meanwhile you do the McDonald's gig because you desperately need the money and you want to get that big break.

So now it's 2010. Five years have gone by and that two thousand is long gone. Would you rather have done the McDonald's commercial or starred in one of the best independent films of the last decade? Which one is the best for your career? Reality check--- if you're in this business for the money, or for stardom, you really shouldn't be wasting your time in independent films in the first place. If you want to be doing good, meaningful work -- do it now, and dedicate yourself to it.

There are two very different roads to be taken on the way to 'success' in this industry. One is financial; it involves stardom, magazine covers, and the hope that one day you'll be Johnny Depp or Megan Fox. The other way is to do projects that move you, inspire you, and challenge you. You can start deciding to do those right now, TODAY. You can find the writers and directors who are really trying to do something that is about having something to say, and about putting out meaningful art. You can align yourself with them and there's the hope that one day you'll be Mark Duplass or Patricia Clarkson.

Next time you are caught between the paid job, and the great job - it's really a decision about who you are and what you're in this industry for. ESPECIALLY when the two of them collide, and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY when you have already agreed to do the no-budget project.

This isn't an article about being pretentious or about being purely about art. It's about realising there are different things we can be chasing. And if you get too caught up in success, you're going to lose out on a lot of amazing experiences. I know a lot of filmmakers who have been majorly let down by actors for these very reasons. And more often than not, the filmmakers go on to do great work and the actor's are still chasing down jobs and struggling. A 'big break' to me is either a) Getting cast in a big franchise and getting stinking rich --OR-- b) Getting cast in the next 'Once' or 'The Puffy Chair." As an actor, you should decide which one you're after. And then go for it completely.

Care to share?

Tweet

So where the fuck is my footage?

This is a sad but true fact, a lot of actors don't get their footage. This is how it goes.

Julie The Actress: "So, will I get a copy?"

Jonny The Director: "Yeah, of course. And it'll be in a lot of festivals."

Julie: "That's great!"

Jonny: "It's delayed a bit at the moment. I'm having trouble with the special effects."

Julie: "Okay, no problem."

Jonny: "........................."

Julie: "Hi Jonny, I've not heard from you in eight months, just wondering how the film is going?"

Jonny: "......................................"

Julie: "Hi Jonny. I'm moving to L.A. next month. I really liked your film, and I really need some footage for my reel. Just send me anything. I did it for free, and I just want my scenes."

Jonny: "I'm so sorry I haven't been in touch. My Grandma was ill, and then I moved house. Things got a bit crazy."

Julie: "Okay, no worries. I understand. Could I get the footage?"

Jonny: "............."

Julie: "Jonny?"

Now - I'm a Director. I'm not an actor. Luckily though, I have always been extremely good at getting actors their footage. I prefer to give them the finished film only, but in the past, if I've made a really bad short film that hasn't been completed, I make sure they get some footage. This is how it's meant to be.

But here's the strange thing, NO DIRECTOR EVER IDENTIFIES AS BEING THE ONE WHO DOESN'T GIVE OUT FOOTAGE. Yet EVERY upcoming actor I know is waiting on A LOT of footage, and most of it never comes. So, I'd really like us to find some of these Directors who never give out any footage -- and maybe we can come to a new understanding of why it happens. At the moment, Julie is left thinking "This guy is an asshole, he won't give anything." - but I want the Jonnys of this world to have a defence. If you are a Director who has ever failed to give an actor their work, or if you repeatedly do it - please let us know why. Are you ashamed of the work? Did the cat eat it? Are you waiting five years for financing to complete it? Genuinely, I think we'd all like to know what's going on.

Care to share?

Tweet

But is the film any good?

All Directors make bad films. Of course, they don't plan to do it. If you'd asked Kevin Smith at the time, he'd have told you that 'Jersey Girl' was going to be his best ever film. In fact, he's on record as saying that very thing. It's one of the sad facts of life that our favorite Directors will, from time to time, make films like '1941' and 'Elizabethtown'. It's just the way it goes.

The same, of course, is true for upcoming filmmakers. "This is going to be my best one yet!" you tell everybody. And it'd better be, because you've only got about one film left before everyone says "actually, yeah, you really need to get a real job." Even the greatest young film directors are going to go through the same patterns as Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, etc-- there are going to be duds. This can be quite a painful thing, especially when you haven't yet made the masterpiece you're destined to make.

Take comfort in the fact that, whoever your favorite Director is, they've made bad films, apart from Billy Wilder.

Care to share?

Tweet

Make Your Short Film On a ZERO Budget.

I meet some crazy people. In fact, I meet some sane people, too -- both types seem to be under this crazy illusion that making a short film has to cost money. I have had my zero-budget films screened in festivals next to films that cost $20,000; and the difference in quality has been minimal- and quite often my films were better received than the big-budget ones.

Now, I'm not saying that bigger budget short films suck, nor am I saying that a zero-budget film is better; it of course comes down to talent, luck, script, etc etc. But the way I look at it is: if your film is going to suck anyway, you're better off doing it for $5 than $5,000. I've made some TERRIBLE short films, but have been lucky enough in that they only cost me about ten coffees to make.

I write this post because I have met many upcoming Directors who have erred on the side of doing nothing because they "need $5,000 to make this short film." I am here to tell you that you need about $80 to make your short film, if that.

So you need locations. Locations can cost $1000, or they can cost nothing. And it's entirely up to you. You can say "I would like to film in your Doctor's surgery, how much does it cost?" or you can say -- "I am a young, upcoming film director and I would love to shoot in your surgery. I've been coming here since I was three years old, it's a part of my life and I'd love for it to be in my film. I'm doing this film on a zero-budget, using actors and friends from our community to help out. Would we be able to film in your surgery? It would only take one evening, we can do it after you close."

And they'll say "No.".

But then you say, "Is there any way you can help us out? It would be great fun for any of your staff who want to stick around, we'll make sure they're well fed and they can even be extras! I really want to film there because I can't imagine the scene being anywhere else, it would mean so much to me just to film inside the walls of the surgery! Let me know what I need to do to make you feel comfortable and safe with us being there, and I'll make sure you are happy with it."

And then people begin to open up, they begin to see your passion for the project and they realise they can be a part of making movie magic happen.

Think of ALL the people you know. You know people who live in houses, in apartments, in disgusting rented rooms that have leaks; you know people who work in schools, in offices, in the government, in the streets, in charities; wow -- you know so many people! Think of all the locations you can get!

Short film making is not about signing cheques; it's about filmmakers discovering their art and pulling off miracles with no money. When you make people realise this; and show them how they can be a part of it, they will almost always be willing to help. Two years ago I wrote a script set almost entirely in offices. I wrote to a company who I found by searching 'rent office space london' in Google, and within a week they had given me new office space for a whole day, for absolutely no cost. I promised them that 'when I shoot the big movies a few years from now, I'll come back to you." And it's the truth; because now, if I need an office location, they're the first people I'd contact.

A camera does cost money, I know this. But you can get creative here. Maybe the film would be great if it had a rough and raw documentary feel. Maybe you could just shoot it on your Aunts old camera. Or maybe you need something better. But you look online and the rental companies say they want $400 a day for the model you want. Well, that price is flexible. The minute you say "student," or "low-budget" or "upcoming" they'll immediately modify their quotes. If you have a script, if you have passion, they'll see it-- they'll smell that, five years from now, you might be in a position to help them more. Also, most rental companies are closed on the weekends; so if you get a one day rental on a Friday, you may get to keep the equipment until the Monday. In fact, I did that on my last shoot when I rented a monitor and four lights. It wasn't free, but it wasn't very expensive either.

Maybe you know film students who have access to cameras, or maybe someone who shoots wedding videos for a living. Whoever you are getting a camera from-- you can offer them a film credit, you can offer them a banner on your website, you can offer to advertise them to your 1,024 Facebook friends-- you don't HAVE to hand over cash to get the equipment you need. Be creative.

One thing you can't avoid is the need to feed everyone on your set. Well, I've seen people avoid it-- but I don't agree with it. Especially when everyone is working on your film for free. Why are they working for free? Because you're working for free. You're making a film to show everyone your genius as a Director, despite the lack of money and resources. You're giving the actors the chance to show their genius despite the lack of money and resources. The same rule applies for all of the crew. Rather than 'oh, there's no money' - make it positive! What a wonderful film, filmed for absolutely nothing!! And we all had so much fun doing it!

Anyways, food. A few years back I was about to embark on making a short film, and rather than spend a heap of money on drinks, I wrote to a big soft-drinks company. I told them all about my project; I told them how passionate we all are- doing this amazing project for no money, just with love and hard-work. They wrote back, said they liked what we were doing, then sent two big parcels of drinks the night before the shoot. Everybody got to drink their tasty beverages, and it hadn't cost me a penny. You can't guarantee you'll get freebies like this-- but if you don't ask, you don't get.

I learned a lot about catering a film last year, on a feature-film I produced. I was authorising hundreds of pounds a day to go on food. As the shoot was nearing an end, I was looking at our bank balance and getting that concerned producer's look on my face. But then two of our lovely runners came over to me and told me they could take care of dinner for about £8 a day.

They brought in a giant pot and the ingredients; on one day they made Chilli Con Carne, on the other day they made a little pasta and meat sauce concoction. Suffice to say, it was the best food we had on the whole shoot and it had cost me less than £20 over two days. Of course, it can be really difficult on a feature film when you are shooting for weeks, if not months-- but your short film is only taking up three or four days. So why not send out a message to your Facebook friends and say "would anyone like to make dinner for my gorgeous actresses?" - there is bound to be someone you know who loves the idea of cooking their signature dish and bringing it to your location. In fact, they'll be so proud of their culinary genius, they'll probably pay for it all themselves.

Whatever you are shooting, whatever you needs, and wherever you are filming -- there are ALWAYS ways to do it for nothing. Be creative, ask around, and don't take no for an answer.

Care to share?

Tweet

What impact can we have as filmmakers? And with impact, do we have responsibility?

I'm interested in whatever any of you might bring to this discussion -- be you a film director, a writer, a film-lover, someone who hates movies, or even someone who's never seen one. Whoever you are, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. What is the maximum impact we can have as filmmakers? Can films really change lives? Can they make us act for social change? Can they change us for the better?.

There is a lot of room for films as pure entertainment. Most of Hollywood's output is exactly that. But sometimes, we can do more. Whether it's a little documentary making you aware about a new topic, or 'Shawshank Redemption' offering you hope-- ocassionally, a film can have an important and influential effect on you. But how big is that effect? On a personal level-- has a film ever changed the way you feel about a matter? Has it ever inspired you to do something that you wouldn't have done without it?

Documentaries, of course-- offer us a direct line into an issue. But what difference do they really make? For example, if you take a look at Michael Moore's documentaries (especially the older ones) they brought a lot of issues to a wider audience, for example gun laws-- and for a while, it looked like he could change America. In fact, he was certain he would with 'Fahrenheit 9/11' - but he didn't.

Of course, the problem for Michael Moore and indeed for most documentarians who touch upon politics and issues, is that they are tainted by their persuasions. They are an extension of a journalist, or a politician; they're just part of the cycle of partisan politics. Even in one of my favourite documentaries, 'When The Levees Broke' - Spike Lee can't steer clear of politics. NOR SHOULD HE HAVE, but my point is that as a result of that, some viewers are going to feel polarized.

As fictional writers and directors; we are able to have a dramatic impact on audiences. Right now, films like the Harry Potter Series and 'Twilight' are watched and loved by millions of teenagers worldwide. Do the makers of these films have only the need to entertain, or is there a responsibility regarding the message and intended meaning of these films?

I don't wish to get into a conversation about whether violence in films causes violence in the streets -- I'd like to skim past that and look at it more positively; and ask--- do we have an opportunity to change the world, for the better, with the stories we tell? And how should we go about doing that? It's a tricky thing to approach. I remember watching 'Wall-E' in the cinema and being completely turned off because of it's overt messages about the environment. Yet at the same time I've watched many other films and enjoyed the political intent behind them. Does it come down to personal taste, or is there a way of storytelling that is appropriate? Do we know where that line is?

It's also worth addressing the fact that It'd be a shame to swing too far in the way of responsibility and political correctness. A film with absolutely no violence, no jokes pertaining to race or sex or sexual-orientation would be boring. It wouldn't be real life. Is it wrong to have pure violence? Is it wrong for Tarantino to rewrite the most important death in modern history? What responsibilities do we carry as people putting our creative ideas into the open?

I often feel a limitation as a writer. It's a ghost role that says 'You will only have a certain amount of impact.' And I just wonder, does that limitation really exist? I am unsure if a film has ever changed the world. And even if it hasn't, I'd like to believe it can. I'd like to believe that motion pictures could fulfill a role that is different to that of leaders, policy makers, and celebrities.

I'd like to facilitate an open forum discussion through the comments section below. I hope we can better understand each other and discuss our beliefs in terms of the true power of movies. What impact can we have? And with that impact, do we have responsibilities?

Care to share?

Tweet

Why We Do What We Do - The Importance Of Leaving A Legacy.

Something really beautiful has come out of Michael Jackson's passing. As I walked down the street yesterday, every car that passed had his music booming out of it. There were black people, little chinese old people, teens; everyone was doing the same thing. On the train, heaps of people had headphones in and it was clear we were all doing the same thing. Some of us even did a very subtle acknowledgement of each other. It was like a telepathetic, subtle nod to each other. Maybe that didn't happen, maybe I just felt it.

Either way, despite people reading about what drugs may have killed him and being reminded of what he may or may not have done to children -- what stood out most, what we were all reminded of, was the indeliable mark he has left on the universe with his art. When you really think of the power of that, it's enormous.

What really hit me - was his message. It was one of peace, one of love. I have always loved 'Man In The Mirror' but always heard it on a simplistic level. The message to me was 'make a change and improve your life!' But that really isn't the message, the message is about improving everybody elses lives by getting past your own ignorance.

"I see the kids in the streets,
with not enough to eat,
who am I to be blind?
pretending not to see their needs"

This message is in a lot of his songs - 'Earth Song', 'History', 'Heal The World' - in fact, it's probably in nearly every song. Even going back to 'I'll Be There' by Jackson Five; a song about being there for each other, about togetherness. The themes he cares about - if we all cared about them a bit more, the world would be a better place.

And I began to realise exactly what his legacy was. This is a man who, without his existence, without his creativity and his passion; there would have been a lot less dancing in the world. A lot less good times. I began to recount LOTS of memories of my childhood where his music played a central role - and I'm sure you could do the same. Whilst we can often get distracted by his controversies, underneath all that is this beautiful, moving music - this guy really cared about us. He really cared about the world. He did a lot to improve it.

That's really important to me. It makes you realise the effects of your own work. I know a lot of writers who simply want to 'get hired' and get paid. They'll take a job anywhere, because they want to be working screenwriters. But I think people at least need to be aware of the effect of their work. When you write an action film with lots of violence and little meaning; this has a knock on effect on the audience, and on the world. You are responsible for what you write, for what you do.

"I'd like people to remember me as someone who was good at his job and seemed to mean what he said"
-James Stewart

There's another quote I've been trying to find, but I can't find it - or at least, who it was by. It was "It's never too early to have principles." That's so true. Some people talk about doing whatever they have to do to 'make it' and then they will write the more meaningful stuff. I find that hard to accept, it's time to build our legacies now.

One of my favourite singer/songwriters is a man who has never had a record deal. We struck up a friendship after I found his music online. Sometimes he posted beautiful video versions of his songs on YouTube and they average only a hundred views. But this music is his legacy, and it's amazing - and it means more to me than so much of what counts for popular music today.

As creative people we get to do exactly what Michael Jackson did. We get to let our imagination play. We get to create. When we write a script or direct a film or act in something; we are bringing into existence things that don't even exist yet. When you think of that, it's really amazing.

"Be the change you want to see in the world"
-Gandhi

I only began to truly understand that quote recently. For me, relating to this industry, it's about not moaning about what films are out there, or how meaningless things are or how movie studios keep ruining films -- YOU CAN BE THAT CHANGE. You can be the exception to the rule. You can do things that are beautiful.

What is your message? What do you feel? Where is nature leading you? Be the change that you want to see in the world. What is your legacy?.

If you keep writing what people want to read; i.e. if you keep worrying about what the BBC want from a writer, or if you keep worrying about what is expected of a director; you will never reach your potential and you will never be happy.

Some of us do what we do for money, or for fame, or to look cool; but we can do something far more powerful; we can bring amazing material into the world that will have a positive effect on peoples lives. Let's do that, let's start today.

Even if you are caught up in the machine; maybe you write for the studios or you're writing a film about a serial killer, or you and your friends are making a short film with lots of blood -- but I'm sure, even in these films, you can find somewhere to put the humanity. Even if it's by writing a secondary character differently, or by putting more beautiful blue sky shots in your zombie film -- let's start thinking about who we are, and how we want to be remembered.

Care to share?

Tweet

Watching as your baby drifts violently away. The Soul-Destroying Job of a Low-Budget Film Director.

"That's why I think you should turn, go back, and be a lawyer or something. But I can tell from your face that you won't." -

Lester Bangs, in 'Almost Famous'

It's a day before the shoot on your zero-budget short film, or the feature you've strung together for about four dollars and a pizza. You've managed to get this far despite ten or fifteen or thirty years of people saying 'but what do you really want to do with your life?' and 'film director, right. yeah. that's nice.' - and 'have you got your big break yet?'

Here you are, it's the night before the shoot. And you realise that directing a film with no money isn't really directing. It's managing and it's sprinting and it's negotiating and it's compromising and it's being in thirteen places in one day. You realise there are things you wanted to do that you can't afford. There are people you wanted involved who couldn't be there -- and the conditions of your shoot are ever changing and will continue to do so until you say 'That's a wrap'.

And when a non-industry office worker friend says to you "when are you going to get a real job?" you want to smack them in the face. In a 'real' office job, you might work hard - but you work hard for somebody who doesn't care about you. And you might technically, day-to-day, work harder than the film director, I agree.. but you have never felt the pain that comes with being a Director the night before the shoot, knowing that things you had planned and things you had dreamed of are not going to come to fruition in quite the way you had planned.

We don't direct for the glamour. Fuck, there is no glamour. We don't do it for the money, even though we do want to earn lots of it. We do it because we have to do it, we were born to do it. And when problems amount and lights break and daylight fades -- you are left feeling your baby drifting away from you. The film that was meant to show everybody your HEART and TALENT and CREATIVITY instead is just a battle to do something adequate- you are fighting to do something that will at least be able to not totally suck.

And you battle. You really battle. You fight with yourself constantly. You work out how to do things. You work out how to wrap at 4am and transfer the footage at 5am and return the equipment to the rental company at 8am when you haven't slept in forever. And meanwhile, an actor says to you 'why are their no tea bags left? do you not even have tea?' and some production helper apologises profusely for accidentally making a huge hole in the wall of the location you borrowed from someone who was scary enough to begin with -- and you bump into someone you know just moments after wrapping -- and they say "but what if you don't make it? what if you don't get discovered?".

You bite your tongue and you say "I don't know. I'm just trying to make a good film." But what you meant to say was "Go fuck yourself. I don't want to 'get discovered' I just want to keep making movies. I want to find a way to get what's in my heart and put it on the page and then put it on the screen. That's it. That's what I'm doing and that's what I'll always do. I could just go get a real job but then why would I want it so easy?."

The way your heart breaks the night before a shoot; the way you come close to a mental break-down when an actor loses faith in you and looks to the AD for what to do in a scene, the way you want to smash up your home when you realise your final edit is not fit for viewing-- these are experiences that are more painful to your spirit, to your soul -- than anything anyone in a 'real job' ever experiences.

And the dumb thing about us filmmakers is that despite driving ourselves to the brink of insanity - we'll come back around a few months from now and do it all again. Meanwhile we'll smile politely when somebody judges us, our work and ambitions. Because the sad truth is -- there is no way of anyone but yourself ever truly understanding the pure pain of creative underachievement.

Care to share?

Tweet

In the Shadows Of Shawshank: Rising From The Mist

So, I finally got around to seeing 'The Mist'. I wanted to see it when it was on the big screen but due to a variety of factors I never did. I've been looking forward to it for a very long time. Why? Because It's Frank Darabont. But I've also been concerned about it. Why? Because It's Frank Darabont.

As a Director, Frank Darabont made one very big mistake - that mistake was making 'The Shawshank Redemption'. The problem with doing so is that he Wrote & Directed what is, quite possibly, the greatest film of all time - the type of film that he will forever be judged against. The impossibility of this situation is that no film will ever come close. Except, one film did. While many worried that it was going to be too similar to Shawshank, Darabont returned to action five years later with the wonderful 'The Green Mile' - a film that would probably be deemed as one of the finest movies of all time if Shawshank hadn't come before it.


As a Director - having those as your last two films is going to put you under a lot of pressure. You can't go from making two masterpieces to Directing mediocre Eddie Murphy flicks. Luckily, Darabont didn't do that. He followed 'The Green Mile' quite promptly with the low-key but enjoyable 'The Majestic' - a film that was charming enough to please his fans but certainly not as big an achievement as his previous efforts.

Some years passed. Now, I'm not sure about everyone else - but I had certainly been strongly anticipating whatever was to come next from Frank Darabont. When it was announced that he was adapting another Stephen King novel I was over the moon. But 'The Mist' was unlike anything Darabont had tried before. It's a genre piece. In fact, very Stephen King-like (which Shawshank and The Green Mile really weren't).

Tonight, I finally got around to watching it.

What it would be like to watch this film objectively, I don't know. I couldn't help but be aware that Darabont was at the helm. So I was disappointed right from the beginning - when Thomas Jane and his family's acting was rather wooden, which was unexpected as there is NOT A SINGLE moment that isn't authentic and true in 'The Shawshank Redemption'. That alone is strange - how can a Director get absolutely flawless, groundbreakingly natural performances in one film, but then below-average performances in another?


'The Mist' is mildly entertaining throughout - but there's no tension, at least not in the manner that Darabont no doubt intended. It tries for a similar mood to 'Signs' (M. Night. Shyamalan) or 'War Of The Worlds' (Steven Spielberg) but falls way short. It's not helped by really poor CGI. The Monsters are embarrassingly unrealistic.

The characters are not believable, often diving headfirst into cliché - and many of the events seem entirely unrealistic. Of course, John Coffey's magical powers in 'The Green Mile' were not realistic for a second -- but as an audience we BELIEVED IN THEM ENTIRELY because of the journey Darabont led us on. Unfortunately, 'The Mist' was merely a genre piece - and one without a scare, without surprise and without notable characters.

For any other filmmaker an average film every now and then is to be expected. But seeing one from the man who up until now dealt only in masterpieces, it's almost a little heartbreaking to see. According to IMDB, Darabont has no films in pre-production (not counting films he's Producing) - I can't help but wonder what is next for him. I do hope he Directs again, and I hope even more that it's a masterpiece.

Care to share?

Tweet

The Defining Character - The Audience.

When you go to see a stand-up comedian the role of the audience is crucial. Whether the night is good or bad is often completely dependent on the quality of the audience. If they're up for a laugh and energetic, that will help the performer. It's the same for a band. When Counting Crows played Brixton Academy in 2002 they said they 'Blew off the roof' -- the perfect fusion of a band on form, in a great venue with thousands of fans who were full of energy. But you assume a film is just a film, It'll play the same anywhere. But in my experience, that is anything but true.

I remember when I saw 'Superbad' in the cinema - we all thought it was absolutely hilarious, a wonderful comedy that all us twentysomething guys could relate too. But a few months later when I watched it with my girlfriend, that magic wasn't there. It wasn't just that my girlfriend at the time didn't like it, but I didn't either - as I watched it, nothing seemed funny. It was as if I had seen the film performed live for me twice, but the second performance wasn't as strong.

Is a good movie always a good movie? When I first watched 'Funny Ha Ha' and 'Mutual Appreciation' I thought they were works of genius, but when I watched them with someone else they lost all of that magic.

Sometimes the reasons are due to technical things - for example, 'Cloverfield' is going to be a lot better in a cinema packed with eighty people than at home with just you and your DVD player. But more often than not - it seems like the energy of the audience can dictate how the film performs. It's entirely possible the same film never plays twice. A strange concept.

I have noticed this as a Director, too. I have screened my films in many different places -- and I've come to learn that it's not just about demographics and finding the right audience, it's also about how well the film plays. There have been times when I have sat there proudly as my work of art plays on the screen, everyone has been mesmerisesd and completely taken in by my work. The actors look great, the jokes are hilarious, and my writing glistens. But on other occasions, within seconds of the credits starting I have sunk back into my seat just wanting to hide from everyone. The scenes are long and boring, the comedy is predictable and stupid and my writing seems amateur. This is just based on how I feel when watching it, but my fears are usually confirmed afterwards when people tell me what they think. I've never had the same reaction twice.

So I don't know, it's a bit of a weird theory - and I don't want to get all hippy on you with metaphysics and 'energy' -- but I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the subject. Is a film just a film? Does it play the same wherever it goes?

Care to share?

Tweet