1980s Movies That Shaped Our Humanity

How The Last Jedi Defies Expectations

Stalking for Love

End of Porno the Clown

In drips or dribbles over the course of a year a few things got back to me about the aftermath of a project that had to be abandoned. So it isn't like I am completely out of the loop. I get the fact that those who are regularly circulating and socializing will have the chance to put a spin on the why and how of a project being shelved. I've taken a few stabs at speaking to a camera about it. But ultimately the issue initially was that a collaborator wanted to make a different movie than I did. My commitment was to my script and storyboard sketched vision of the movie - following that was the way to vindicate me for my leap of faith in a live action cartoon with its own world of unusual names and stylized patter of dialogue. This would not have melded well with an improvisory approach, and would have been a nightmare if there was a looming team leader within the team who was not the writer-director. It would be like building a house on quicksand. And it would have been a process of trying to fix something that was not broken. The sensibilities of some in the clown or improv community would have clashed with my own. You don't write a screenplay called The Adventures of Porno the Clown - or even create such a character - and expect this porcupine to be something cuddly for all. You know that every cast or crew member would if he or she had their druthers pluck a quill or two from it. And if I were afraid of abandonment or mutiny enough to placate that I would end up with a sickly looking porcupine. I even made the effort to write a simplified draft for the sake of cheaper production, but this did not get the attention or discussion it deserved from the lead. This person actually e-mailed me saying I was "a good writer but a terrible communicator" and this coming from someone I had often sent a series of pointed questions of which he would only answer the least important, if any. I suspect based on circumstantial evidence that for him it was more about the clown community and for me it was not. For me it is about making sure people want to make the same movie. Otherwise it devolves into a popularity contest and big personalities would steamroll the would-be writer-director whose vision would be clouded over and whose credit would be an inside joke. That would be the opposite of vindication and I likely would have had to take my name off of the resulting mess. After ten years of trying to spit in the wind defending and explaining how the term "Porno the Clown" is not pornographic and is not a scary clown, I have done two things. I adapted the script I had planned to shoot into a novelization and one way or another that will be available at some point. It will stand on its own. The embellishments in the prose ended up also being somewhat a jab or two against the process and personalities that prevented that movie from being made. The second thing I have done - as a distant last resourt - is to salvage something of the movie to actually shoot. I have taken this time to finally knuckle down and re-conceive my script somewhat. No more clowns. Even the main character is re-conceived as famale and the median age of the cast has been dropped considerably. There were major handicaps in carrying an unfilmed project on my shoulders for ten years. I still want much of my dialogue to be actually performed, quills and barbs intact, and instead of being killed by the hastag me too movement it might be able to benefit from that. But it will still be risky. It just won't have to worry about power struggles with an actor or the spectre of clowns turning people off. There will be mention of clowns but none seen on screen. It will be like a reboot of something that was never made. It would be nice to have production infrastructure to carry into this movie, a budget and volunteers, but I will be keeping it fairly contained. The bigger something gets the more compromised it can get. I have meanwhile quietly been shooting something else to cleanse the palate. For me it has to start with a script and something to rally around. Though I've done improvised movies as a joke with family and friends over the years, I would not get a sense of satisfaction that I get from projects I have written and storyboarded and had the fun of seeing those images brought to life. The experience of having to shift gears has meant I understand how people talk to themselves and become insane from letting the world run them down and attempt to hijack their plans. At this point I likely have to do this revamped version for therapeutic reasons if nothing else. I also feel that in future I'll be less defferential and let people know that if they don't like the script or something in it that is a valid reason to stay away from it because I will choose the script and vision over a specific actor or collaborator every time. Otherwise people may blow smoke up your rear and then have a tug of war when there is no turning back.

A Guide for New Movie Directors

I may have to re-post to save the formatting. The most obnixious and worn out line about film directing is, "Once the script is in shape and the right actors are cast Ninety percent of the director's job is done." An obvious response to this might be to suggest that any conversation about the director's potential duties can skip talk of the casting and the screenplay development. A TV series director rarely has a choice about the main cast and the scripts. And a writer may not be excited upon learning that the chief talent a chosen director is to re-shape a script. If a director has the right support team on a crew, with Assistant Directors and other department heads, the ability to "run the office" is not a priority skill - nor is it interesting to the average movie goer if he or she pays any attention to directors. Is the director willing to approach a project as if it matters how the frame and the cut are used? Or is this person just shrugging off the way a movie is shot and/or delegating the concepts of shots to the cnematographer? Is this person going to treat each scene as if it is an event being covered or recorded, or will it be shaped and informed by how the frame is used? Often, camera placement is just a matter of pragmatism and it may not mean anything. But if the psychology of the frame and the displacement impact of a cut are motivated by the context and characters, it can make the director's contribution more thoughtful and satisfying and less a matter of just following the rote way of doing things. Every camera set-up has been done hundreds of times by most of the people on a crew, and there is a short hand for most of them. There will be pressure to do things in a generic and expedient way. But some people in leadership positions experience The Imposter Syndrome and so it may be helpful if the director is bouyed by preparation and a vision. Why are you the director? Is it affirmative action? Did someone hire a woman to make sure there were not too many shots of breasts and buttocks? Do you shotlist, sketch storyboards of each shot, or draw camera positions on an overhead view map of the set or location - or do you see value in all of these? Even some people who regularly work on film sets will scoff at the idea of the motivated camera shot or move. This might be an uphill battle. But if shots follow each other in an interesting way and if characters are introduced effectively on screen, the viewer unconsciously gets a sense of confidence in the person directing his or her attention. When people ask what is the most important thing a movie director directs it is the attention of the audience. Many people from theater mistake the cinematographer's job for the director's job and vice versa. In a play, the text and the actor are the most important elements. In a movie, the addition of the frame can make the audience feel detached from the very same content or even more engaged. That makes it more than a mere recording of what is said and what happens in a scene. Sometimes detachment and the objective camera are the right call, and the subjective or motivated camera or a flourish that energizes and externalizes the psychology or tension of a scene is the best call. If I do not go through my script and doodle thumbnail storyboards and then refine those and I merely show up and wing it on the day of a shoot I will feel fraudulent even if every decision comes directly from my own mouth. I can think on my feet and often have, but it is best if even that is motivated by contemplation of what the scene means or represents and any undercurrent that would usually be applied to the storyboarding or pre-vis. It is the thought process and the chance to challenge that process and discover problems and solutions that makes the storyboard process valuable. Deciding when or how to conceal or reveal something, for example. Or finding visual motifs or images and set-ups that echo each other and help tie a story together can come from storyboarding. The old saying was, "Paper is cheaper than film." Today, it is cheaper than making your mistakes and changing your mind under the gun on a tight schedule with your cast and crew watching the clock. You may discover that one angle is enough on a scene - keeping the audience oriented following a more hyper sequence. Do your key collaborators all want to make the same movie? Is the script a fixed point of reference? Will the dialogue as written get its day in court? Are the actors willing to find the rhythm of the dialogue and vest it with pressence and personality or will they only be satisfied if they are making up new dialogue themselves? Is the cinematographer willing to follow storyboards? Is the editor willing to accept the pattens of design? Do you need an editor or can you hire someone as assistant editor to ensure that he or she has technical proficiency but also is not coming with the baggage of expectation and pretense? Can you just promote and credit someone as "edited by" as a reward for being competant and aggreeable? Are their leaders and resources on your crew that have unspoken expectations? Try to draw those out. Sometimes arriving at the end of a production with the wrong movie is worse than not having begun shooting at all. Some performers want to be the entire show, and to shrug off any script or directorial vision and simply be kept in focus with clear sound. In that case the sound recordist, cinematographer and the director will all be on the same level of heirchy: a low level, a cog in the machine. But as long as you know this is the gig and you all want to make the same project, no harm done.

Official Clip ft. Jason Spencer | Ep.2 | Who Is America? | SHOWTIME

Comedy versus acting

When the script that would become Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein was presented to Bud and Lou they dismissed it - not because it was a bad screenplay but because it was not a bad screenplay. What they wanted frankly would have amounted to a terrible screenplay, a repository for their radio bits, one after the other, with little concern for story. Luckily either need for money or a persuasive director was able to get them focused and willing to simply perform written roles in a movie that actually had a story to tell. Not that their earlier films did not have stories, but this one had such a genre commitment that any shtick they imposed would have stood out. When Airplane! was to be made, executives pushed for comics to be cast but the directors held firm for the main speaking roles to be dramatic actors - what was happening and being said was the wavy line element and so the actors had to ground the piece and provide the straight-line aspect. There are some lovely comic actors brimming with personality and ready with their own material or quick improvisations that they might use to replace the scripted dialogue in a comedy so that they can feel a sense of authorship or that the humor is coming specifically from them and not the suspect "writer" who might to distinguish himself/herself with a stylistic sort of banter. In one of my own projects, I backed myself into a corner by expecting that actors knew my intention was to shoot what I wrote and that I would be casting them for acting ability and personality or presence and not as co-writers or co-directors. There are certain creative initiatives that I need to have vindicated and that won't happen if I trade out my ideas and vision to placate a cast member who is there for the wrong reason. Actors can be funny without planting their feet in a joke stance like Rodney Dangerfield. As much as I like Caddyshack, my screenplays won't accommodate stray scenes that are just riffs or tangents. One actor kept mentioning that we needed Bill Murray, which could either mean that he is mad enough to think we can cast the most unreachable actor in Hollywood or that we need the principle of the way he works - throwing out script pages (for comedies) and improvising - something that would only be tolerated from someone in his position. I know that I will always want my own writing to have its day in court. Making a "live action cartoon" requires some discipline and may not be artistically satisfying to a self-possessed comedy creature. So there are performers I may enjoy watching in live theater that I can't cast because they will not be satisfied in gearing down and just surrendering to my own sense of humor and serving as an actor. I can only blame myself for not just auditioning a wide range of people instead of just expecting real clowns to fall in line. In theory, if I had funding, I could still make a version of that film and it would be to either avoid drawing from the pool of improvisation groups or the clown community or to have a strict understanding that actors need to be of utility and willing to embrace the script and not frustrated by the rehearsal process and how rare it would be for an unwritten line to make it into the movie.

Some Reasons the Feature Didn't Happen

I am not a producer, only a writer-director who often shoots and edits. If I have no resources I may still keep making simple shorts but I never present myself as having the qualities I would want from a producer. If I had that aspect, I might be directing features each year and making a living in that vocation. I was clear and repeated in this over ten years of building up the Porno the Clown feature which had about four producers in total, one at a time, over the years. I did not know how to politely tread the fine line of keeping people interested while standing up for the content that I was creating. I actually did perform one of the quips that might have been considered controversial, and got a laugh, but it may not have been the same character or moment in at issue. A year later, I have turned that meeting around in my head and I might imagine saying the following if I had a do-over: Before anyone is approached in a pitch or to raise money or before any favors are called in, let's make sure we all want to make the same movie. For example, the arrogant character Homo the Clown will still - as written - have his egotistical bubble burst by a couple of quips from Porno the Clown. It is my intention to include the scene and I have given it careful thought. I do not consider any segment of society to be a protected species as each individual will be judged or joked upon based on his or her own merit. When it comes to the concept of "punching down," that is limited to an example like President Trump mocking the arms of a disabled man. If a character needs to be called on his or her bullshit, this will be done and it will play just fine with a general audience. If an actor reads the script and finds it offensive, there is no gun to his or her head to participate in the movie. I would be saddened to lose any person or any resource but there is no better reason than a rejection of the script in its present form - the movie that I am committed to making. I would not be able to commit to a blank slate or a plan to let people improvise to replace my dialogue. It would be like falsely presiding over someone for which I then could not accept responsibility. I wish never to pass the buck on a project I am directing. That means that nobody - even an essential element of a project, like the lead actor - can fully speak for it. All decisions have to be signed off by me, or efforts and labor may be wasted on something we cannot use. This project as defined by my script and sketches of the camera frames indicate a live action cartoon. It would be a gesture of disrespect to assume that the writer would be fine with replacing dialogue with whatever comes to the heads of the undetermined cast on set. Wrangling improvisation might also interfere with anticipating the time needed to shoot at a given location. And it would also throw off the storyboards which are determined by the psychological beats with the written scenes. Throwing all of that preparation up in the air to appease the politics or sensitivities of an actor would be to devalue the vision of the project in the first place. It is okay for an actor to be the wrong fit. Complicating the discussion might be the fact that we assume the net will not be thrown out wide for attracting a broad range of talents in the greater Toronto area and that if we limit ourselves to casting from the improv community or clown community it would be a constant tug of war between approaches in a project that already has Murphy's Law hanging over its head as an unwanted collaborator. I'd like to thank everyone who has expressed interest in Porno the Clown, but the script is the common point of reference. If I make the movie I want, as written, chances are that your girlfriend will hate it. Religious zealots may hate the ending. And I am okay with that. It may be that the project was doomed. When I tell someone I need a producer and that I am only a writer-director, and that a low-to-no budget or micro-budget movie needs a producer who can also be Line Producer, Production Manager, and Location Contact, handling paperwork and even knowing how to get the title onto imdb. . . . it is not something that should be ignored. When this project fell apart, my lead actor who had recommended a couple of producers along the way, said, "You mean you just want to direct?" As if I had not made it clear that I was not a producer. During a submission to CineCoup I sent poster designs to someone we knew with specifics as to what to show and what not to show.... but it is not what got uploaded for the contest. My project partner must have discussed this with the poster artist and approved a change without going through me. Instead of an iconic shot of the character's gloves making a hand-sign, the face was included contrary to my direction and it was given zombie eyes for good measure. As furious as I was with that, and annoyed when a print was made and placed where it would greet me any time I came over to meet my project partner, it ends up as an appropriate image because the character is now the living dead. I have had to separate myself from this version to protect my writing. The new approach to the project as a film will be with a premise that involves investigating the death of Porno the Clown. I won't say much about it, because I don't want to vent my anger and energy. If our lead actor objects to his character being killed off, he need only look into the zombie eyes of the poster he was so fond of. There is a wide gulf of difference between someone helping me bring my vision to life and someone trying to replace it. The new approach will be even more true to my voice, because I am fed up with clowns anyway and the only appeal was coming up with names for satirical wink.