Shoot Your First Short Film In Your Home On Your Phone

Are you a first time director? Are you struggling to get funding? Here's a tip:

Shoot everything in one location.

How? Why?

• Everyone is locked in the house. 
• Everyone is locked out of the house. 
• Everyone is waiting in the house for the thing to arrive. 
• The house is where the treasure is. 

Or perhaps:

•  There's a break-up (remember that episode when Ross & Rachel spent the whole time breaking up in Monica's apartment?)
• It's the rendezvous point (remember 'Reservoir Dogs'?)
• It's the place to muse about life (Reminds me of a great episode of 'One Foot In The Grave', where Victor spent the whole time in a Doctor's waiting room)
• They're stuck there (Saw? Big Brother?)

You can't afford a big beautiful HD camera to film it on?

Film it on your video phone:

• The world is about to end, there's a poisonous gas outside, and you video it for evidence. 
• The film is about someone secretly filming someone in a house. 
• It's a video of someone doing an audition via their iPhone, when suddenly; horror-type-things-happen, or there's an argument, or an unwelcome visitor. 

Film it on your Dad's old video camera:

• It's a rare-look-what-we-found-footage-film (Cloverfield, Blair Witch Project, The Troll Hunter)
• It's made to look like old camcorder footage (a film about memories, or a dead person, perhaps)
• It's a YouTube style sketch.
• It's a documentary/mockumentary

 The point is -- it's not about equipment. It's not about amazing locations. Ever seen a great viral video? We love them because they have heart. They surprise us. The same goes for short films. You don't need the latest HD camera to do something great. Pick up your iPhone, shoot your first movie.

"Perhaps it sounds ridiculous, but the best thing that young filmmakers should do is to get hold of a camera and some film and make a movie of any kind at all."

-Stanley Kubrick

Care to share?

Tweet

Midnight In Paris

I loved it. I loved 'You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger', too. Here's my analysis of Woody Allen's career.

1965-1976 - Discovering himself.
1977-1997 - Genius. 
1998-2007 - A bit lost. Lots of changes to his crew, changes to his filming locations, uninspired writing. 
2008-Present - Wisdom. Assured genius.

The thing that's great about 'Midnight In Paris' is how funny it is. The concept is hilarious, and the dialogue is full of the Woody Allen magic that we have been treated to so often in the past forty years (I am not actually that old, so I can only assume it was a treat). But now it's different. Woody doesn't chase after your laughs. He was always good like that, anyway, he'd make a joke without making a joke -- but now he does it to the extreme. The humor is so quietly embedded into the story and characters that you could quite easily miss it. 

I've seen 'Midnight In Paris' twice, in two different countries. Woody Allen has a big European following. Curiously, when I saw it in Poland, there were no laughs from the audience. Yet they turned out in big numbers. Back in London, yesterday, the audience was smaller but the laughs were bigger. 

The film isn't about laughs though. It's about Paris. It's about not appreciating the present. Gil (Owen Wilson) is not happy in the present; but finds contentment is the 1920's, where he is mystically transported back to. Ironically, once he's there, he finds that the characters are yearning for the 1890's. Everyone thinks the past is some golden era. Everyone thinks that. My seven year old cousin thinks that.

'Midnight In Paris' isn't a totally new idea. Woody did it with his short story 'The Kugelmass Episode' - in which the main character finds a magician who can transport him into any work of literature. He finds himself dating Madame Bovary in the 1850's.

What he didn't realize was that at this very moment students in various classrooms across the country were saying to their teachers, "Who is this character on page 100? A bald Jew is kissing Madame Bovary?"

This exact same device is used in 'Midnight In Paris'. 

Woody fans will also see a similarly to 'The Purple Rose Of Cairo' - a film in which Mia Farrow's character, Cecilia,  falls in love with a film character, Tom Baxter, and also the actor who plays him, Gil Shepard. But it's not a rehash of ideas, these aren't remakes. Instead, we see an artist digging again and again into his fascinations, preoccupations and interests. That's what art is, finding your corner of the world and pounding away at it, constantly trying to bring meaning to it. 

I think that Woody Allen fans are relieved to see his recent output including this film and 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona', because it shows that the legacy isn't finished yet. Woody is still here. The true artists will always have times of failure -- and that's sure to be the case for Woody. 

'Midnight In Paris' is an artistic success as well as a box office one. Woody matters, his work matters. Cinema is full of the voiceless, the rehashes, the obvious. Mr. Allen represents something different, and there are few like him. Even the perceived auteurs working the studios today; for the most part, they don't take any risks -- here's someone who does, and we cherish him for it. 

Care to share?

Tweet

Is Art Only Good For Selling These Days?

Yesterday there were thirty minutes of commercials before 'Midnight In Paris'. There weren't even any movie trailers -- just people selling me products. I felt like a complete idiot, paying money to sit and be brainwashed for thirty minutes about cars, clothes and drinks.

Here's the thing though; I think this is a really wonderful advert:




It's beautiful, it captures the magic of youth, and it-------- sells jeans. It would be so beautiful as a stand alone piece -- an ode to youth and adventure. Beautiful.

But no. It's about Levi jeans.

I don't blame Levi's, they're a company and they need to sell clothes. I don't entirely blame the people who made the video, because they need to make a living. If they'd made this for the fun of it they'd have only made $50 with Youtube ads.

This is the society we live in. Everything's for sale. Is it possible to experience anything beautiful without it being branded?

Check out the video below:




When that came on in the cinema, my friend Stephanie was loving it -- right up until the end, when it turned out to be an advertisement for Twinings Tea. She was so into it. The video and animation was beautifully done. And just listen to that voice. The singer is Charlene Soraia, singing an extremely beautiful cover of The Calling's 'Wherever You Will Go'. 

Charlene is an artist. She's not doing the reality TV shows. She's not getting breast enlargement. She's singing and writing and performing. Twinings have got her some exposure, we can be thankful for that, but she's determined to make it on her own terms, with her own style of music. 

That's the delicate balancing act for artists these days. Getting paid and making art are usually two entirely different things. The people behind the Levi's ad probably have a passion project they want to make which has nothing to do with a corporation. Or maybe not. So many of the best creative minds are happy becoming millionaires by making videos for corporations who sell us shit we don't need. 

Springsteen refused to put out any new material in the late 70's until he could wrestle back creative control from the record company. Woody Allen refuses bigger budgets so that he can keep full creative control. Their integrity, their ability, their vision -- it speaks volumes. Who is going to carry this on when they're gone? We're calling out for a future Chaplin, for the next Bob Dylan -- let's hope they still exist. 

Well you can't turn him into a company man

you cant turn him into a whore

and the boys upstairs just don't understand anymore

well the top brass dont like him talking so much

and he won't play what they say to play

and he don't wanna change what don't need to change

And there goes the last DJ

who plays what he wants to play

and says what he wants to say

hey hey hey

and there goes your freedom of choice

there goes the last human voice

and there goes the last DJ

-Tom Petty

Care to share?

Tweet

One Storyteller's Process

Writing is tough. We all have our own styles; and it can be daunting when we read interviews with writers or listen to podcasts with gurus, because they often have very specific rules, entirely different to our own. 

So it's good to get different perspectives. There is no right way to write -- all that matters is that you get the work done, and you write well. Zoje Stage has written a guest post about her process, which I find very fascinating because it is quite similar to my own. So many 'experts' tell you to get up at 9am and begin writing immediately, in a structured way. Zoje Stage has a different approach, which she eloquently explains in the following guest blog. 

A guest post by Zoje Stage.

Whenever I hear a writer discuss their writing process I am intrigued. Intrigued in a similar way as when I see someone with a really interesting tattoo: I recognize the beauty of the tattoo, yet I have never once coveted another's tattoo as my own. Both of these things are singularly personal. Though I'm sure no one out there really covets my writing style (or my tattoos), here's how I work:

I do not write every day. Or even every month. Yet I consider myself to be a fairly prolific writer. I average three or four new screenplays a year, plus rewrites and polishes. I know it is common for writers to have a set schedule, squeezing in writing time before and after work. And many writers outline first, or create a synopsis or treatment to serve as a guide. These methods don't work for me. I need uninterrupted time, and the only instances when I have not finished a script are when I attempted too much initial research or planning. Because, you see, I am a stream-of-consciousness writer.

I have written this way since I wrote my first screenplay twenty-three years ago. My process requires a certain amount of "down time" - which is when the things I've been influenced by settle into my brain and soul. I keep a notebook of story ideas and I jot things down. But what really gets the process going is, no kidding, a moment of inspiration. Sometimes it comes while I am watching a movie or staring into space. Sometimes - again, no kidding - it comes to me in a dream.

For me, the "moment of inspiration" means that something suddenly gels: a couple of characters, a couple of scenes - and the initial story idea. The next step is to look at my calendar and see when I can fit in some extended writing time - preferably where I can write for five or six days in a row, several hours each day. Then, in the days leading up to my designated start time, I let my mind wander around my story and characters. I jot down notes for scene ideas; I pick character names and occupations.

I write a first draft in an average of seven days, writing for as long as I possibly can on each day. As a stream-of-consciousness writer, I need to be in the story - in the moment - to generate the momentum needed to finish a first draft. Writing has always been a magical process for me, because I don't know on Page One exactly where things are going to go, or how we will get there. As I get into the process, I start to see different paths, and I continually jot down scene ideas as part of each writing day.

My goal for a first draft is simply to finish it as quickly as possible. There are certain tricks I employ to make the process easier, such as: I end each day in the middle of a sentence (usually dialogue) right smack in the middle of a scene. The idea is to "set up" the next writing day so the hard part - starting - won't be so daunting. Sometimes I still find myself avoiding the start of the writing day, inspired instead to empty the dishwasher or scrub a spot of toothpaste off of the floor (yes, I wander as I brush my teeth). 

On a full writing day I'll write fifteen pages or more. On a half day, I shoot for five to ten. My style requires inertia... keep going! I am a hunt-and-peck typist, but I do it incredibly quickly. My stories are primarily character driven - and I can see that my style might not work as well with plot-driven material. But I have written a fair share of horror, science fiction and even action, though I think it is the depth of character that sets my work apart even then. 

After I get the first draft, I usually set the script aside for awhile. My first drafts tend to be pretty good - but clearly subsequent drafts are better. But after the initial flurry of activity, I again require "down time" to gain perspective on the story and generate new ideas. Sometimes it helps to have someone read the script and point out holes, missed opportunities, or confusing moments. But, as most writers know, it's very hard to find the reader who responds to the needs of your story without altering it toward their own sensibilities. As a rule, if one person has criticism (or praise) for a certain element, I ignore it. If two or more people criticize (or praise) the same thing, then I take it seriously.

Screenwriting in particular is an art form where people want to stick their fingers in your pie. I am not here to feed everyone. I consider myself to be a conceptual artist, and as such it is imperative that I defend my work. And it is equally imperative that I understand how my work will function (or not) in the real world. I am always open to suggestions that make my initial idea better. I am rarely open to ideas that spin my story in a totally new direction. 

I am somewhat schizophrenic in my writing, as I write both independent films that I want to direct, and also higher concept scripts that I want to sell. But my process is the same. Especially when one is engaged in a precarious occupation that may or may not pay off financially, I think it is vital that the effort feel meaningful and fulfilling. I love what I write. I love the stories that emerge during the writing process; I love my characters; I love how I feel after creating something that didn't exist a week before.

I have believed since I was a teenager that everyone is given a talent, and that it behooves us to recognize our talent and try to make the most of it. Some might look at my twenty-three years of effort as an exercise in masochistic tendencies: a constant cycle of victorious out-put tempered by nearly non-stop rejection. But, in the immortal words of Popeye, "I am what I am." I can't be another kind of writer or another kind of person. I could wish that more people see the magic that I try to produce, but I have no illusions about the reality of marketing or the nature of competition. 

Your style of writing probably won't change for having read this; you may even feel more validated that your writing style is right for you. (And it is.) We are each the accumulation of our own experiences and unique imagination. My stories have been set in motion by being a highly sensitive person living with an imperfect body, influenced by the strange and sometimes dark permutations of human behavior. I think I am a stream-of-consciousness writer because I process the world physically - and I have to spew all that I've absorbed back out into a more coherent form. Being a storyteller lets me breathe - in, out, in, out...  

For whatever it's worth, this is my process.

Care to share?

Tweet

When Did RYAN GOSLING Become THE MAN?

The best artists in the business have to put the hours in. You remember Ryan Gosling from 'Half Nelson' and 'Lars and the Real Girl'. As great as he was in those, they weren't a ticket to the A-List. There's no ticket to the A-list. You just need talent and you have to keep working. Robert Downey Jr was a genius in the 80's -- but he wasn't the man. Sure, you can blame the drugs -- but it's more than that. He wasn't as good then as he is now. The personal problems, the great roles in smaller films (A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints, Black & White, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and his genius turn as Larry Paul in 'Ally McBeal' -- they all led him to the place he deserves to be: one of the most in demand actors in the business. 

Ryan Gosling has talent. Some people knew this in the mid nineties. Every woman knew this after seeing 'The Notebook'. But he still had work to do. 'Half Nelson' set him apart from the rest; his talent was undeniable. Same goes for 'Lars and the Real Girl'. 

There's a key fact on his Wikipedia page - He dropped out of high school at the age of seventeen to focus on his acting career. Now he's in his early thirties. It takes that long to get to the top. And you could argue, he's not even there yet. 

But this year has been something special. He's reached a level where he's getting all the best scripts in town. It's like when Hanks did 'Sleepless In Seattle', 'Philiadelphia' and 'Forrest Gump' back to back -- or when Will Smith went through a period of hit after hit, year after year.

Right now Gosling is cool. The women love him, the men want to be him. 'Drive' is the coolest film of the year. 'Blue Valentine' is one of the truest relationship films we've had in a long time. 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' shows his ability to be slick and funny.

After great roles in 'The Notebook', 'Fracture', 'Half Nelson' and 'Lars and the Real Girl' --- what did he do to catapult himself to the top of the industry? He, uhhh---- he toured with his band for a few years. 

That's what an artist is, someone who follows their muse. He didn't go and get cast in a Marvel flick, he went out on the road with his band. That's why he's so sought after now --- because he's so authentic. He means it. We feel it. Can he hold on to this truthfulness? I have a feeling he can, he's doing it on his own terms. 

It's hard to say exactly how or when it happens: but actors get their moment in the spotlight. They're the one who everyone is writing for, everyone is trying to cast; it was Hanks, it was Will Smith, it was Robert Downey Jr. Right now, it's Ryan Gosling. He did years of ground work, he did the great indie flicks, and now he's the real deal, he's doing big movies.

These next five years are critical. They'll determine his career. This could be exciting.

Care to share?

Tweet