Tuesday, 13 April 2010

Dito Montiel - Writer-Director Series, Part 1.

Dito Montiel, thus far, has only written and directed two feature films. One of them, 'Fighting', I didn't love; although I did enjoy it. His debut film, 'A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints' - is one of my favorite films. When people ask me what my favorite movie is - I name three; 'A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints', 'The Apartment' and 'Cinema Paradiso'.

I think Dito's first film is a work of art, something truly truly masterful, his second film was pretty cool - and his third one, 'Son Of No-One' is currently in production. It could be genius, it could be awful; I have no idea. But based on 'Saints..' I will always follow his work and always believe in what he is capable of. And there are not many writers I can say that about.

'A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints' is about growing up in Queens, New York, in the 1980's. It's about friendship and family and violence and loyalty and many other things. In fact, it might not be about friendship and family and violence and loyalty, I don't really know - I've never really thought about summarizing or intellectualizing it before. All I know is that I relate to it, heavily, and exactly why is hard to say. I have nothing in common with the characters, have never had to deal with any of the issues that are dealt with in the film: yet somehow every time I watch it I feel like Dito Montiel understands my life. What the hell is that about?

That is exactly why I love 'Saints', because it's so real. It has real truth to it. It touches on something meaningful. And I think you know a film is really something important, and special, when it completely polarizes opinion. I made my brother watch the film, and he turned it off half way through. "It's boring," he said, "nothing happens!." This made no sense to me. Everything happens, I thought. Here's the thing though, I watched it with my girlfriend a few years ago, and she was in tears all the way through the film. Come to think of it, maybe it's because she was going out with me, but I think the tears were because of the film. It touched something deeply inside of her. She went out and bought it the day after I had shown it to her. I LOVE IT when a movie has this affect; the effect of love or hate. When I write a script, if someone says "yeah, it's alright, pretty funny. Good job," I worry. If they say "it's fucking awful!" then I know I've got something worthwhile. There are people that hate 'Saints', as there should be - it's a work of art, it's something personal. And when it's something truly personal, you either get it and are moved by it, or you reject it. Or it just doesn't speak to you personally.

So why is Dito Montiel one of my favorite writer/director's? I mean, I loved 'Garden State' but I would never think of having Zach Braff in my list. So what's different?

What makes 'Saints' something special is how everything was done for the art of it, based on feeling. In my interview with the film's editor, Jake Pushinsky (which you can read here), he talked constantly about feeling. He edited based on feeling and instinct, and he had the freedom to do that because he had the trust of his Director. So many decisions were based purely on instinct. The film was set in the eighties, but many people criticised the film because the costumes looked more like they were from the seventies. Dito's response? "It just felt right to me." There's a moment on the director-editor DVD commentary when one of them mentions a subway train in the background is clearly more modern than the year the movie is set in. Dito didn't care, it wasn't important. They chose what felt true rather than what was true: and that to me is art.


"I still remember when Anthony Ripoli (the greatest Assistant Editor out there, and now an editor too) came to me and said, "you can't do that, you're crossing the line." I had no idea what he was talking about. I still don't really get it. If it feels right, it feels right. If it doesn't, it definitely doesn't. But back to the scene... Editing to me is all feeling. I always go to performance first. If the actors don't feel real, the scene won't feel real and then movie doesn't feel real. Dito and I are always trying to get the real emotion out there. Ask anybody that hasn't been to film school if it bothers them when the line is crossed - there will be no response. But if you ask them if they are bothered by a bad performance? I don't know if there's a person out there that isn't."
-Jake Pushinsky, Editor.

People have said the editing is disjointed. Doesn't matter, it felt right. People say Eric Roberts casting is unrealistic. Doesn't matter, it felt right. People say the age difference between Robert Downey Jr and Rosario Dawson is stupid, doesn't matter, it felt right. People say there are continuity/realism issues, doesn't matter, it felt right. The film was written, directed and edited based on what the director felt was right. That is courageous. You might think every film is based on what the director feels is right but in reality, that is rarely the case. Of course, continuity is important; if in one scene Robert Downey Jr has a pony tail and in the next he's bald and in the one after that he has a German accent, of course; that doesn't work. But in 'Saints' - the Director's view was if there's some little issue/mistake, it's not important - the film is about the characters and what they're going through.

More than anything, this film just clicks for me in a way precious few films do. I love every piece of music (composed and source), I love every actor, every bit of dialogue - and throughout the film there is a tone, pace, style and level of emotion that holds consistent throughout - and for that, Montiel should be applauded. It happened, I can only assume, because of how in touch he was with what he had in script form, and where he wanted it to end up.


It's amazing to me how improvised/accidental/unscripted so many of my favorite parts of the movie are. Again, that's something Jake Pushinsky shed light on in his interview - they filmed extra things just to try stuff out, they filmed bits when Dito wasn't sure what he wanted, they acted on suggestions from actors; there were key moments that came together by a complete accident in the editing room. Dito was open as a writer and a director; open to suggestion and influence, but at the same time; held everything together so expertly.

I can think of no better film to clearly show what it is that a writer-director does. Whilst Dito's style, energy, content and talents are completely different to my own - his debut film and his attitude towards creating it is something that inspires me on a huge scale; and I can't wait to see what he does next.

Care to share?

Name The Film! Screenshot Competition.

Look at the screenshots, figure out what films they are and email me your answers. The winner gets a couple of DVD's and a film related book or two. First person to get them right wins! Good luck!


Email your answers to this address!

Care to share?

Monday, 12 April 2010

You're So Lucky!

A friend of mine just got cast in a great TV role. It's potentially a 'breakthrough' role; the type every young actress dreams of. And someone said to her, "you're so lucky that you got that role!". I don't like it when people say that. It's like "you're so lucky you know what you want to do with your life," - it doesn't make that much sense and totally negates all the bad-luck, un-luck, pot-luck and mind-fuck of the past how ever many years of struggle and perseverance. When you don't make it, people don't see it as bad luck, they just think you're not talented enough. But when you make it, well done - you're lucky.

My actress friend - where does the luck begin and end? Is she lucky because at 12 she decided to dedicate herself to acting? Is she lucky because after years of hustling and trying and failing she still kept going? Is she lucky because she has an agent? Is she lucky because whilst her no good agent was doing nothing she went out and hunted down the opportunity? Is she lucky because she had spent years learning and perfecting her trade? Is she lucky because she surrounded herself with good people and had the strength of character to cut away from the bad? Is she lucky because she decided she wanted more from her life than a job for life that made her miserable? Is she lucky because she did whatever jobs she had to do to keep herself in a position to audition each and every day? Where does this luck begin and end and at what point do we give her the credit? Surely it couldn't be that she's actually wonderful or talented or worthy or hard-working?

Care to share?

What is the actual greatest thing of all time?

The answer is, of course, the opening credits of BAYWATCH.




Haven't seen this in years!

Care to share?

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Film Critics Suck.

Film critics suck. I think the least qualified person to review a film is a film critic. Some grumpy, middle aged man who sits probably somewhere around two thirds back in the cinema and close to the isle. When I pick up the newspapers I see devastation, depression and the feeling that life is no longer worth living - and this is from the film reviews section alone. At that point, I normally go to the front page for some lighter disasters.

Films are an art, a source of entertainment. They either make you feel fulfilled, or they don't. I think it's great that people have opinions, and share them - but the authoritative tone of most 'professional' reviews is ridiculous. There has been a lot of talk recently about the future of film criticism, for example this New York Times article and this article in the UK's Guardian, the latter article being full of intellectual pretension, which is exactly the problem. Maybe it's time for a revolution. My idea for the revolution is this: no more film critics.

An interesting fact: When you are making a film; say you're making a two minute short film about bacon; and you're filming it in your house. As soon as you finish it - there'll be some friend, or a neighbour, or some guy called bill_horny86 from Toronto, who will tell you it sucks. And they'll do it in such an expertly authoritative way, you'll believe them. You'll feel crap about your work. All because somebody who can't do what you do shit all over it. Well, this begins in grassroots, zero-budget filmmaking and it carries on up. A bunch of people put $200million together to make a movie, and one guy who writes for The Daily Mail is deemed suitable to tell a lot of readers (or not, with The Daily Mail) that it is terrible and not worth seeing.

A lot of my favorite films are the obvious ones, like Shawshank Redemption. But there are also films I love that have been trashed by the press - The Moguls, Duets, Meet Dave, Hollywood Ending, etc. Sure, you may think they suck - but that's the whole point, who is to say? Films are an art form - different people respond to different things. I think 'Beautiful Girls' is a work of art, true genius, my Brother thinks it's awful. Who is right? Who knows. Certainly, it'd be wrong for my Brother to write a review for a big publication saying "This is awful - avoid!"

It's different with blogs. With blogs - you know the writer's agenda. For example, if I was to write "Clash Of The Titans is terrible, don't watch it!" you will know it's coming from the point of view of a Billy Wilder obsessive; someone who values Chaplin smiling awkwardly at a girl more than a military plane smashing into a robot, or whatever. But with the big film critics - they talk in this God-like tone to the masses, and I think it's ridiculous.

The moment a film really gets you is when a character reacts in a way you didn't expect, and you relate in the moment to it, or it's about when a perfectly written line comes out of the mouth of a perfectly cast actor who by sheer luck was able to nail it perfectly; it's about that feeling you get when the musical score elevates you to the point where you feel you may actually be hovering. No critic can ever know when you or I are going to get those moments. And if we miss one of them because a critic said, "the film is average, give it a miss," then something is very wrong. And that's the whole point - whether a film is technically proficient or "cohesive" or whatever a writer says -- nobody can ever know when or how or where you'll respond personally to a film. Film reviews have very little use.

IDEA: I am going to start a new magazine called REVIEW REVIEW. We will review film reviews. See how they like it. We'll let you know whether a review is worth reading, or whether you should wait for the tweet.

Care to share?