HENRY'S CRIME

If it was a DVD, you'd turn it off, because life is too short. But when you're in the cinema you work harder. And bad movies make you work harder, because you have to make a lot of decisions in order to stay interested.

Henry's crime begins with Keanu Reeves being an accidental accomplice at a bank robbery, he goes to jail and he meets James Caan, who talks for ten minutes about the meaning of life and prison and he throws in some movie cliches and reworks what we loved about Shawshank Redemption into something far more trivial. As a viewer, you notice the trickery, you know it's just a setup and a bunch of character information they're trying to force feed you. But you stick with it because Caan is a joy to watch, he's a real pro.

And then Keanu is out of jail and he can rebuild his life. But he decides to rob the bank he was accidentally caught up in last time. He does it for two reasons; 1) he heard a cliche in jail about how if you did the time you may as well have done the crime, and b) because while he was peeing he saw an old newspaper pinned up on the wall about how, 80 years ago, there was a tunnel between the bank and the theatre across the road.

Vera Farmiga runs over Keanu with her car. Luckily she's the lead actress in the theatre play, and luckily when he casually says during a date "I'm robbing the bank," she's pretty chilled about it and decides to sleep with him.

So you're sitting there in the cinema and you know the script is a hack job and you know that the film isn't carrying you along so you need to do your own work to keep you from walking out. After so many bad films, you know what to do-- you latch onto things you like and you excuse all of the major holes in the plot. It helps when you get a little scene where characters share their feelings that 'life is tough when you go legit' because it gives you that little bit of empathy for the characters. But really you're relating to the part of yourself that says 'life sucks' because you can't relate to Keanu in that way because he was written badly. He has no motivation for robbing the bank other than what he told us, that he realised he could change life by making a decision. But the viewer doesn't buy it because we can't see why he didn't just get a new haircut or go and study Greek history.

So Keanu is fucking Vera Farmiga on a regular basis, and know he's starring in the play at the theatre (so that they can access the secret tunnel). Vera knows they're robbing the bank by digging through the theatre, and she knows the play will be ruined: but she's not asking for a slice of the deal, and she's not planning to run away with Keanu or marry him. So she's just casually sleeping with him whilst he plots to rob a bank and disappear forever. It makes no sense, in fact nothing about her story makes sense apart from the fact she's a disgruntled actor, which was probably not a stretch given the film she was making. But Vera is also a way in and a way of staying interested because not only is she extremely beautiful but she makes everything believable. Even during the insane ending that was seemingly written by a pre-school drama club, we believed her, we felt something for her. How many actors can make you momentarily forget how bad a movie is? Not many, but Vera can. Keanu isn't so bad either. He gets a lot of criticism but he's alright, he puts in a shift and does what's required.

Bad movies are strange. Most people love them which leaves you scratching your head, feeling lonely and confused. Other people hate on them and bitch about them for eternity. But after a while you need a different angle otherwise you'll never love movies again and you'll bore everyone you meet because you'll sound like a bitter film student. Instead you need to find your way in to the movie. Find that one thing that makes it real for you and hold onto it until you're safely outside of the movie theater, wondering why there's a heap of popcorn stuck to your shirt.

Care to share?

Tweet

BLOGGING

I don't think I've ever blogged about blogging. I don't think I've ever been consciously aware of the fact that I write a blog. That sounds a bit dumb, I know. I've been here for two years and of course I'm aware of my blogging. I just mean; it's been separate. I always judge my creativity based on the screenplays I'm writing and the films I'm directing and the work I am doing. And then, outside of that, I write blogs. 

But who am I kidding? I write twenty five articles a month here. I could have published three books by now (I'm not saying anyone would read them-- but quantity-wise, I've written the words.) Where does it all come from? Is the creativity of my screenwriting linked to the productivity of my blogging? If I blog more, do I write less? How would I know? I often think of my film career as a chance to leave a legacy --- but is a blog the same thing? Of course, my inner-critic says "it's just a blog, nobody cares about blogs." But you guys are here, and you keep showing up. That means something. The fact we write our blogs and we read other people's blogs, that stands for something. But what is it? What is Kid In The Front Row? What are we doing here? 

I'm not meaning to overanalyse, and I don't mean to ramble narcissistically -- but I was just hit by the insight that, wow, this blog exists, it's here. I've been here for nearly two years and I keep writing articles and keep interviewing people and keep talking about 'The West Wing' and 'Adventureland.' 

I think blogs are great because they fill a gap. I can moan to myself that the world doesn't like the films I like or doesn't view them in the same way, and that's probably what I used to do. But now, I can just write about things here as if it's what everyone cares about. And then, crazily, people often do. Sometimes people write the exact same things as me. 

'Kid In The Front Row' - what is that? What does it stand for? Why do I write? The people who read this and the people who write similarly personal blogs (I'm talking film blogs but it could be other topics..) - I think we write because we don't see a place for us in the newspapers, or in the latest fashions, or a Michael Bay movie. "Pearl Harbor" and "Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen" don't speak to me, they don't resonate with me and my life. I guess that's what it's about---- having a place to share what resonates, and finding people who feel the same. And when they don't agree, it's because different things resonate for them. But we're still here, together, because this world dulls things that resonate. We're meant to be turned on by the same commercials, and coke cans, and skin products; and we're meant to spend 3.95 on a coffee in Starbucks because that's what the whole world does.

A good blog is a cup of coffee that costs 0.75, because that's all it should cost--- and instead of being Starbuckized like everyone else, we're finding the little, personal cafes that feel like home. That's the movies we're after, that's the artists we want to be, and that's why we blog.

Care to share?

Tweet

Ross & Rachel

Were they on a break, or not? Whose side are you on?

Take the POLL on the top-left of the blog. 

(and share any thoughts you have in the comments)

Care to share?

Tweet

All In A Day's Work

The plan today was to meet with my producer and then go see 'The King's Speech' with Anna in Camden. But my producer had to reschedule because of a family thing so I decided I'd go see 'Blue Valentine' before meeting Anna. And then Irena facebooked me to tell me she was back in the country and she mentioned something about getting a coffee but instead she came to see 'Blue Valentine.' Actually we were early so we went for lunch in Chinatown, which was great because she offered to pay -- which I accepted after momentarily considering hesitating or offering to pay myself.

The movie was great, but I was a bit annoyed because the concept, of showing the beginning and ending of a relationship play out over a movie was something I'd been wanting to do for years. The difference between my script and the one for 'Blue Valentine' is that they actually wrote their one. It's like that Sorkin line from The Social Network', "If they invented Facebook they'd have invented Facebook"

After the movie I'd had enough of hanging out with a talented and pretty actress so I went and hung out with Anna, a talented and pretty actress, and realised I could give up making the films and just hang out with actresses. Anna offered to pay for the movie which I accepted after momentarily considering hesitating or offering to pay myself.

'The King's Speech' was like all English films funded by America; lengthy, full of strange accents, and simple. But Colin Firth did his thing and did it amazingly and is worthy of the Oscar he'll almost certainly get nominated for. And if anyone says "no way he's getting an Oscar, it's going to ACTORS NAME," you're probably right and it probably isn't important.

The film ended and me and Anna hated the old women near us who'd been talking the whole time. We often thought of telling them to shut their stupid mouths but were worried; due to the nature of the film; that they may actually be royalty. That sounds crazy, but Anna is American and Americans think most people in England know the Queen.

After the film we went to get a tea and Anna chose some Turkish place because apparently they give out free food. They didnt give us free food but they did give us tea so long as we paid for it. They were closing in 27 minutes so we rushed through our topics: favourite Friends episodes, crazy director/actor stories, the American football sucks/rocks conversation, and then the Turkish people began sweeping under our feet, which Anna read as 'time to leave' but I interpreted as 'the free food is coming.'

And then I jumped on the tube and began writing this blog as the guy opposite me picked his nose and the guy to my right had a weird smile on his face which is maybe because he can hear Ennio Morricone's theme from 'Malena' coming out of my headphones, but probably not. And then I stopped typing.

Care to share?

Tweet

It Is Not The Critic Who Counts

For my friend 

 

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

-Theodore Roosevelt.

Care to share?

Tweet

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 FRIENDS Changed A Little

I'm watching FRIENDS from the beginning again. Don't you just love Friends? FRASIER was funnier, and cleverer, but it was the one about six New Yorkers that captured people's hearts. It was Chandler whose sense of humor influenced a generation and It's Rachel who everyone fell in love with. Say to a stranger in the street; "We were on a break!" or "Grandma's Chicken Salad" and they'll probably get the reference.

But something changed. Maybe it's just me who sees it but I'd imagine it's nearly everyone. There are a lot of establishing shots of the World Trade Center. They even used them in the credits. And now, they mean something different. What they mean, it's hard to say, but it isn't comedy.

It's the strangest thing--- you can be in the middle of a hilarious episode, and then as they transition between scenes; you might see a restaurant, a street corner, and then there they are: the two giant towers. It hits you every time.

Would you want them to edit out the towers? Of course not. Does it make the show less funny? Not necessarily. Somehow, the films and TV shows that we love seem to always be changing. Our lives are always going in different directions, our relationships are always growing or falling apart or changing their meanings -- why would we expect anything different from our art? The world changes. What I'm talking about, I'm not entirely sure -- but almost every episode of Friends is different now-- you're hit in the gut for two seconds when you see the image of those towers. There's something extremely sad about that but there's also something very powerful, too. And of course, it happens in everything else you watch in more subtle ways. Every single day we're a little bit more happy, or a little bit more angry, or bitter, or inspired, or lonely, or sad, or courageous --- and when we change, so do the films and TV shows that we take on our journeys, they look a little different.

Care to share?

Tweet