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.