Directing

I've been attempting to direct actors for about three years. I am NO expert, it's a world of science that can be quite a mystery. It's very difficult to work with amateurs, kids, animals, and many other life things!!
This really reminds me of a facebook note from back in the day when notes on facebook were cool! I actually found it on my facebook and I love it it's so funny.

Win Wender's Golden Rules

1. You have a choice of being “in the business” or of making movies. If you’d rather do business, don’t hesitate. You’ll get richer, but you won’t have as much fun!

2. If you have nothing to say, don’t feel obliged to pretend you do.

3. If you do have something to say, you’d better stick to it. (But then don’t give too many interviews.)

4. Respect your actors. Their job is 10 times more dangerous than yours.

5. Don’t look at the monitor. Watch the faces in front of your camera! Stand right next to it! You’ll see infinitely more. You can still check your monitor after the take.

6. Your continuity girl is always right about screen directions, jumping the axis and that sort of stuff. Don’t fight her. Bring her flowers.

7. Always remember: Continuity is overrated!

8. Coverage is overrated, too!

9. If you want to shoot day for night, make sure the sun is shining.

10. Before you say “cut,” wait five more seconds.

11. Rain only shows on the screen when you backlight it.

12. Don’t shoot a western if you hate horses. (But it’s okay to not be fond of cows.)

13. Think twice before you write a scene with babies or infants.

14. Never expect dogs, cats, birds or any other animals to do what you’d like them to do. Keep your shots loose.

15. Mistakes never get fixed in post!

16. Final cut is overrated. Only fools keep insisting on always having the final word. The wise swallow their pride in order to get to the best possible cut.

17. Other people have great ideas, too.  (I LEARNED THIS LAST YEAR WITH WHITE LIGHTS!!)

18. The more money you have the more you can do with it, sure. But the less you can say with it.

19. Never fall in love with your temp music.

20. Never fall in love with your leading lady!

21. If you love soccer, don’t shoot your film during the World Championship. (Same goes for baseball and the World Series, etc.)

22. Don’t quote other movies unless you have to. (But why would you have to?)

23. Let other people cut your trailer!

24. It’s always good to make up for a lack of (financial) means with an increase in imagination.

25. Having a tight schedule can be difficult. But having too much time is worse.

26. Alright, so you’re shooting with a storyboard. Make sure you’re willing to override it at any given moment.

27. Less make-up is better.

28. Fewer words are always better!

29. Too much sugary stuff on the craft table (or is it Kraft?) can have a disastrous effect on your crew’s morale.

30. Film can reveal the invisible, but you must be willing to let it show.

31. The more you know about moviemaking, the tougher it gets to leave that knowledge behind. As soon as you do things “because you know how to do them,” you’re fucked.

32. Don’t tell a story that you think somebody else could tell better.

33. A “beautiful image” can very well be the worst thing that can happen to a scene.

34. If you have one actor who gets better with every take, and another who loses it after a while, make sure they can meet in the middle. Or consider recasting. (And you know whose close-ups you have to shoot first!)

35. If you shoot in a dark alley at night, don’t let your DP impose a bright blue contre-jour spotlight on you, even in the far distance. It always looks corny.

36. Some actors should never see rushes. Others should be forced to watch them.

37. Be ready to get rid of your favorite shot during editing.

38. Why would you sit in your trailer while your crew is working?

39. Don’t let them lay tracks before you’ve actually looked through your viewfinder.

40. You need a good title from the beginning. Don’t shoot the film with a working title you hate!

41. In general, it’s better not to employ couples. (But of course, there are exceptions!)

42. Don’t adapt novels.

43. If your dolly grip is grumpy or your electricians hate the shot it will all show on the film. (Also, if you’re constipated…)

44. Keep your rough cut speech, your cast and crew screening speech and your Oscar speech short.

45. Some actors actually improve their dialogue in ADR.

46. Some actors should never be forced to loop a single line. (Even Orson Welles wasn’t good at that.)

47. There are 10,000 other rules like these 50.

48. If there are golden rules, there might be platinum ones, too.

49. There are no rules.

50. None of the above is necessarily correct.

#4: we went over this in class today!!

#6: I have a friend I interned with two years ago that was the script supervisor for a film I interned on! It was awesome having her around because she's gone on to do AMAZING productions: to name a few- Paranha 3DD, LOL (starring MIley Cyrus), Scream 4 (2011), and A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. Never really in big time A list movies but she does VERY well for herself and I had the privilege of working very closely with her. I also love seeing her facebook posts on what she's doing with her career. She's always got a ton going on and I think that could be the secret to her success. I've always wanted to try having a script supervisor for a film of my own! 
#17: I learned this in White Lights last year, I couldn't possibly take as much credit for what that film was with out Jackie Campbell, Josh Best, Dave Howelle, Maxwell Melhman, Courtney Herman, Harlan Green-Taub or R. Aaron Walters, or Benni Lee Janssen. It takes a crew to make a film happen you litterally can NOT do it yourself. Unless of course you're Jeffrey R. Newell.

#24: ALWAYS HAD to deal with this issue. I think it's made me a better film maker and a person. 

#28: I learned this in script writing last semester! It's ver difficult to deviate from thinking your actors need to explain everything they're doing. They don't need to! Trust me it makes it a lot better when they don't explain anything: as we've seen in The Artist (oscar winning best feature film 2011).  (see above video)

#41: When I directed a short adaptation called "The Flea" in 2010, it was a HUGE mistake casting a couple that was together to play my main couple. It was also a mistake trying to edit my film on a crappy old computer using a bootleg copy of a really lame editing software, but that's another story for another day! In the middle of my shoot the couple had broken up (WHICH would have been AWESOME for believable acting since it was a break up story), but He decided to screw my film because he was too broken hearted to leave his room to do a one hour shoot (tops) and have it be the end of it! My film sucked but it was the best I could have done given the circumstances! I can't say I regretted this film because I learned more doing this film alone than any other film I've ever done (directing). (see above film...and please!!! don't judge)
#42: This leads me to my next point. NEVER EVER EVER adapt a novel unless you have a bjillion dollars and you don't care what people think of your films anymore because you have so much money that you don't need fans anymore. It's so hard and I don't think the general public will ever understand how hard it is to adapt a screen play from a novel. Therefore, they automatically won't appreciate anything you put out there. If a film maker adapted a novel word for word it would literally be a three day film. It takes a magical person to please anyone when adapting a novel to screen. I took a class on it the year I made The Flea! I honestly believe that the only way to appreciate a film based on a novel is by being extremely open minded, not expecting anything upon entering, and understanding the film as a "take" on how they saw the novel visually and how they made it work. I personally don't like to read a book before I watch the adapted film, because, this way I don't form my own visuals before I see others take on it. I like to see the film first and then read the book because then I can see more clearly how the film maker had seen it that way. I also enjoy the experience of reading it and seeing the story in more depth, rather than seeing a summarized version of the story after you already know what happened and why it happened. To me it's just not worth risking my career over someone being too close minded about my take on a novel. So I personally try and avoid it at all costs. However, some may strongly disagree with me on so many levels. They can go make their films and I wont judge them for that adaptation, in fact if anyone does it, I have a whole new respect for them. However, I feel most people dont see it the same way I do.
#49+50: None of these rules need apply to anything. Do you're own thing. This is more of a good advice list from a professional. By all means go out and make mistakes, it's great to learn from them! I wouldn't have agreed with any of this if I hadn't made mistakes thus far in my own career.

I 'm learning about my self, I have learned that I don't personally take enough risks, I don't like to leave my comfort zone. No one has ever made anything of themselves by just waiting for miracles. Some how, I need to do what I don't want to do so that I can do what I love.

Anyways, I found this mostly relevant and fun too!

Louie

Louis C.K.'s "Louie" is one my favorite shows on TV right now. With its hilarious and sometimes painfully awkward and dark moments, "Louie" shows depth that a lot of other shows (especially comedies) fall short on. If there's anything that "Louie" gets across, its that being a touring stand-up comedian doesn't mean life is always funny and lighthearted, rather it is merely an average person's life, often mundane and sometimes dark. This season, "Louie" has taken a turn for the surreal- with an episode arc displaying the more bazaar aspects of life- which is why last week's episode "Late Show Pt. 2" featuring Mr. Absurdity himself, David Lynch was the perfect crossover.

I am a huge David Lynch fan, so when I saw him appear on screen I was pleasantly surprised. Lynch played Louie's raving, eccentric late-night comedy coach, forcing Louie to rehearse Nixon-era jokes in preparation for the potential opportunity to replace David Letterman on The Late Show. Lynch's role highlights just how weird show business is, as well the antiquated but persisting late night talk show format. At one point, Lynch's character is modeling for Louie how to properly tell a joke on a late night show. Lynch comes out from behind the curtain, smiling and waving enthusiastically to the audience that isn't there as Louie watches on. Frankly, he looks like a absolutely insane. Then Louie looks down at the camera when suddenly the sounds of music and the audience accompany Lynch pretending to host, and it looks completely natural. Being the extremely self-aware person that he is, Louie sees this contrast, and realizes that he is perhaps unfit for the gig, unsure he possesses the ability to ham it up for the late night talk show format. The episode ends in a Rocky-like fashion, as Louie, after being instructed by Lynch's character, heads to the gym to box where he is promptly beat up by a young, lean, boxer. A very adequate metaphor for Louie and his career in the entertainment industry.

TLC Changing

When I was younger I remember spending my Sundays afternoons with my mom and sister watching shows like "Trading Spaces" on TLC. This station was originally introduced as The Learning Channel. This summer i completed an internship with the hit TV show "Cake Boss". Ever since then I have been very interested in knowing what TLC produces.  With in the next few months they will be introducing 3 new shows called Breaking Amish, Abby and Brittney, and High School Moms. It amazes me how much the shows standards have change with in 10 years. Instead of teaching people how to dress better (What Not To Wear) or improve their homes (Trading Spaces) they are creating shows about a hick family in Georgia called "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo".

Breaking Amish is a series about 4 Amish an one Mennonite young adults who move to New York City. The show follows them around and tracks the drama that takes place throughout their lives

Abby and Brittney is a show about dicephalic parapagus twins, meaning they have one body with two heads. This show is basically a documentary of their lives and how they live it day to day.

High School Moms is a show about teenagers who are pregnant while still trying to attend high school. It will show their daily interactions with their peers and how they struggle to provide for their new family.

How I Met Your Mother is probably my favorite show. I'm pretty obsessed with other shows like Dexter, True Blood, and Breaking Bad, but in a different way. I can watch reruns of HIMYM all day and not be sick of it. If you haven't seen it, the narrator is the voice of Ted Mosbey, speaking to his children in the future. The show is made up of flashbacks of his life, telling the story of how he met his wife / their mother.

It's a weekly, 30 minute sitcom. A lot of people don't like the fact that there is a laugh track, but I don't really mind it. The writing is hysterical and the character development throughout the series just keeps getting better.

I need to start watching a movie a week instead of my normal brainless television shows every night before bed (South Park, Family Guy.. etc. -- even though those shows are awesome!)

Fore Score and Seven Years Ago

      It's that time of year again, when we start seeing previews for this years crop of Oscar bait. One such movie trailer was released this week. In fact this trailer had so much hype that it's trailer had a trailer. The movie in question is Steven Spielbergs Lincoln.

      The movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis as our most revered president. Along with Sally Field, Tommy Lee jones and Joseph Gordon-Leveitt. It seems like forever since Spielberg had a movie he directed in theaters but boy-o-boy does he return with a punch. Everything about this trailer and this movie look spectacular. the movie seems to be shot straight out of time with its crisp HD feel. But what really gets my going is Day-Lewis as Lincoln. Every line he has in the trailer is so powerful and moving it feels as if you are hearing and seeing stock footage of the President himself. Needless to say November can't come fast enough.

.......Boom

Celeste and Jesse Forever

Last weekend I saw "Celeste and Jesse Forever," the new post-romance comedy/drama directed by Lee Toland Krieger, starring Rashida Jones (who also co-wrote the film) and Andy Samberg as the titular married couple. The movie begins six months after Celeste (Jones) and Jesse (Samberg) decide to separate, yet they still hang out everyday, referring to each other as best friends, much to the annoyance of some friends. After Jesse meets someone new, Celeste starts to have regrets about her decision to divorce and goes through a depression regarding her romantic life.

I liked Jones here and I have enjoyed her when she played the straight-woman roles on "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation." It was nice seeing Jones perform a character who is more distressed, showing off the potential of an acting range that we could hopefully see in future films. I liked Samberg in the movie, though his role as Jesse required less range (the movie is more about Celeste) but he was very good and funny in a charming way. The two leads have good chemistry, and it is possible to see that these two people could have been together at some point. Emma Roberts helped add some conflict to the movie as an insecure pop star that Celeste is forced to work with, despite disliking her for her music.

The writing was decent and I would like to see more things from the writing team of Jones and Will McCormack. Krieger, who I am not familiar with, seems like a director who might have potential; one scene that sticks to memory is when Celeste's is on the verge of tears that might shows of Krieger's skill. The way he changes the camera's focus shows the intensity that Celeste feels.
I know that I am really praising this movie, however I would not say this is a must see or for everyone. If you have an hour and a half to kill and you are in the Commons, it's not a bad time waster.

It's All "Elementary" My Dear Watson

Or is it? With the fall season upon us once again, so too comes the plethora of new shows. And much like new born sea turtles, they must try their hardest to make it out alive. I guess you can consider me a hungry grubbing seagull, because I've locked my eyes on one particular aqueous babe and I'm going in for the kill.

On September 25 at 10pm, CBS will attempt to hop on the Sherlock wagon, because come on let's face it, Sherlock is a complete and total BAMF (I know I'm dating myself, I'm sorry). Though I admire their ambition to help keep the Sherlock torch ablaze, I don't think the results will be quite as they hoped. I quote straight from TV Guide (see, it's useful), "a modern take on the crime-solver with Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock, a recovering addict and NYPD consultant. His Watson is his "sober companion," a former surgeon — and a woman (Lucy Liu)." I'm not sure all of the added elements are needed. What appeal does Sherlock being a drug addict bring to the story? Wouldn't the copious amounts of drugs have effected his intelligence? I feel it's insulting to the character and his integrity.

Next off, tackling cases in New York City? It's seems forced and inorganic. Sure the character mentions that he worked with Scotland Yard, but then why not go to some other European country? It certainly would be closer to home then a trip across the pond. An aside from my beratement, I appreciate how they've tried to modernize Watson by changing his gender. I feel as long as they don't try to pull any romance business then that relationship will work.

Overall I feel that the creators are only using the name "Sherlock Holmes" to try and gain attention, they haven't really done anything with their adaption to commemorate the character and his efforts. Don't worry though, I won't just leave you high and dry. There is a solution, Sherlock.

 From this weird pairing of the BBC & PBS, they've created a wonderful show about Sherlock and Watson in the modern day, but do so with respect to the characters and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Two series (in the UK they call seasons series) have already been produced and filming for the third begins in January. The production design, cinematography, and acting are phenomenal.

One Shot Music Videos

I've been thinking a lot lately about the concept of the "one shot story," which seemed a little foreign to me when we first started talking about it in class. Thinking about it more, I realized that I actually had seen many one shot stories in my lifetime, through the form of music videos.

I had to question why an musician would choose to debut their own piece of art through the form of a one shot music video. They seemed, by nature, to be much more difficult than being able to utilize different cuts to get the message across to the audience. Later, I realized that there are actually many benefits of the one shot music video.

One benefit is that it has the potential to be cheaper and easier to make while still being engaging. Bob Dylan famously did this through his music video for "Subterranean Homesick Blues," in which he stands in an alley way and holds up signs for each of his lyrics as his song plays. Though it is pretty simple, the video is actually very interesting to watch, and forces the audience to think about the lyrics and meaning of the song. Watch it here:
http://www.contactmusic.com/video/bob-dylan-subterranean-homesick-blues

Another case for the one shot music video is that it allows quite the opposite- an extravagant display of lighting, effects, and action, all planned out until the last second, as with LCD Soundsystem's "All My Friends"

...Or a meticulously choreographed dance routine, like in Feist's "1234."

I realize now that one shot music videos not only give the filmmaker lots of creative freedom, but perhaps even allows the content of the video and song to resonate with the audience more, as each movement is clearly methodically planned and coordinated. 

One shot story- Palmer

As you guys might remember from class, my one-shot story was undeveloped and I had no direction about where to take this project. After racking my brain for the past few days, I have finally developed my story idea. I am open to suggestions, so please comment and tell me what you think.  At this point, I am worried that the story is a little cliched.

A young man in his early thirties is on the brink of his life. Palmer is recently married, has a child on the way and has finally achieved professional success. He is in good health, works out regularly, doesn't smoke and rarely drinks. One day goes to see his doctor, Dr. Amadi, for a regular check-up. The appointment is going accordingly. The doctor checks his vitals and for obvious lumps and bumps. Everything is going well. Palmer explains to him that he has been experiencing shortness is breath and it is becoming increasingly difficult to breathe. Dr. Amadi scans Palmer's lungs, as Palmer waits nervously on the table for the doctor to process the lab results. The doctor walks in the room, as if he is carrying the world on his shoulders. Palmer's stare is blank. The doctor places his hand firmly on Palmer's shoulders as he zones out into space. His life that was just beginning now had a dim and unpromising future.  This was the beginning of the rest of Palmer's life.

My plan for the shot is to avoid dialogue and represent the severity of the situation only with actions. I want the set lighting to be dark with the exposure of the outside world displayed through natural lighting. I want to portray a real-life feel. The setting will be early afternoon. I want to concentrate on the contrast between Palmer's dark and dismal world and the bright and promising outside world.

Film Safety/ Learning from the worst

In light of recent discussion in class about the way old movies were shot with no doubles. How actors like Charley Chaplin and Buster Keaton would do their own stunts. Pointing this out, there are still some actors who dare do their own stunts. In the eye of a director this can be seen as a pending law suit or not having to pay an extra person on set.

Garrett Brown is the inventor o the steadicam, the olympic under water camera, and the football field/concert cam. He once gave a large lecture in Syracuse NY. I went with a small group from my old college, Cayuga Community College. We sat through his presentation at the end of a TV expo in the Crowne Plaza next to highway 81. He began a discussion about cinematography, and about how it can be dangerous.  This was the point behind his exploration of where we can put a camera and how we can get it there. He was also the cinematographer of The Shinning in 1980. He spoke briefly about his experiences on that film and several others. A very much more specific one for this topic was the film "Indiana Jones" in 1984. Here they had been setting up a shot where Harrison Ford runs across a rickety looking bridge. The above video is probably the scene he was referring to. Durring this scene, they wanted Harrison to runs across the bridge. Durring one of the rehearsals, of this shot either Harrison or one of the stunt doubles almost fell through the bridge on a rotten board. He of course was completely outraged at this happening and demanded that it be re-built, fixed etc. or he would quit. Garrett also went on to describe a scene he was asked to shoot at the top of (what I remember being) the San Francisco bridge. He was harnessed and all but probably afraid of heights. He was too afraid to get the shot that the director wanted and I think he never did the shot since it wasn't (in his mind) safe. As a human being you should know when and where to make that decision. Whether to move forward or step back. He stressed than no shot, and no film would ever be worth your life.

Another instance where danger was a very prominent issue in film was the making of "Noah's Ark" in 1928. Durring the climactic flood scene of the story of Noah's Ark, several extras were asked to swim around in a pool while they dumped water into it. I remember vaguely an interview with Delores Costello (on of the main actresses for the film). She stated that people would get up out of the water because they were drowning and the director told them to keep swimming, that the show must go on. Three people died durring that scene and countless others injured from props and set dressing falling on them and being pushed around by the water being dumped on them. She recalled an extra hanging on to the door of her wardrobe room. She could see that he was badly hurt and that he needed medical attention. She asked if he was alright, he said it was alright, but he thinks someone may have died.  The clip above is that very scene. It's awful to watch knowing that the director Michael Curtiz made the choice to keep those people in the water. This film and many other films that had unfortunate accidents encouraged the laws to be changed and other safety rules put into effect.

I watched a documentary on Netflix once about the making of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre film in 1974. The events of the film were much more horrifying than the story of the film itself. The film is available on Netflix still I believe. I would recommend watching it and absorbing it as a 'How not to make a film' film.  It's incredible that no one died durring the making of it. As an independent film they never had faith in it but eventually it made it very big and it became one of the biggest horror fliks ever.
If you have time I would consider watching it. I have actually found it on youtube. Although, I'm not sure it is the entire documentary.

As a director I always keep this in mind. I try to put myself in my actors shoes and wonder. How would I feel if a director asked me to do that. What am I putting my actors through, is there any other option we could do in order to get the same effect without putting anyone in danger.

Archer

I've recently gotten into the TV Show Archer. My initial reaction to the show was, "Wow this animation is poorly done!" Two minutes in, I was about to shut it off, thinking it looked like a waste of time, but I soon found that what the show lacked in graphics, it made up for in writing. The witty, quick-paced dialogue is so entertaining that I started to overlook the ancient animation. I find this style of television production interesting. The writers clearly drive the show and it is the dialogue and subtle jokes that make the show so great. As someone who is interested in writing, I really like that the script of the show has gotten the most attention. It goes to show that the story drives every episode, and even with lackluster graphics, the show can be successful. Although I love the show, it is clear that it is made for a niche audience. I assume it resonates best with men 18-25. The show's raunchy humor and the impossible proportions of the female cartoon characters leads me to believe men of these ages would definitely enjoy watching at least an episode or two. Although I don't fit into this demographic, I still find the humor wildly entertaining. If you like shows like Family Guy or South Park, I would definitely check this show out!

FS100 settings

This video shows some of the picture profile settings that optimize the Sony FS100 for a couple of lighting situations:

Courtesy of AbelCine

No need to freak out. I'll explain it in class:-)

One Shot Story

After contemplating for a while on an idea that would satisfy me for the one-shot story project, I think I have finally thought of what I will shoot.  I have decided to focus on a person that is rising out of slump so-to-say.  I think it is very inspirational when people who are down because of one reason or another, and then they rise up and move-on or move past what is bringing them down.  As a one-shot story, there is a ceiling on the amount of detail I can include.  That is why I was planning on shooting a character who is down in the dumps, and then begins to act out to rise and change his ways.  However, we do not know what has made this character in a negative state, and we do not know what triggered the character to begin to change.
     One possibility I was thinking of showing how the character is in a negative place is maybe showing him/her in their room with garbage all over the place, dark lighting, and food containers scattered all over the floor.  That would show is probably in a depressed place.  And then if the character gets out of bed and starts to clean up and turn on the lights, that would show a change in the characters feelings.  One problem I have with this idea is that I feel like this is a very overused scene of a character that is depressed and then gets out of the funk.  So for the next couple of days, I will try to think of another way to show this negative to positive character transformation.

One Shot Film & The Dictator

Hello all! Let me start off with The Dictator. If you haven't heard of The Dictator, shame on you! The Dictator is a film directed by Larry Charles and starring Sacha Baron Cohen as the dictator. You all know Sacha Baron Cohen right? Starred in Borat and Bruno? To be completely honest, I personally do not find comedy films to be very funny most of the time. This may be because I am a critic of comedy and have my own expectations of comedy since I perform comedy myself, but comedy films normally do not interest me and I dont watch them. This movie however caught my attention and I thought it was very funny. Was it racist? To an extent I believe it was. It played into a lot of stereotypes of middle eastern countries. I questioned whether it was these stereotypes that generated the laughs and in fact I think they were, but of course there were other funny parts. I think you should check out the film and see where your laughs generated.

As for my one shot film, I love my idea. There will be a guy drinking out of a bottle in a dimly lit room looking at a sealed envelope. He will then get up and the scene will fade to black. Suspenseful right? The idea is to get the audience thinking about the envelope, what can it be? Is it important? Why is he drinking? What is he drinking? Can you have some? I'm joking, but im excited about shooting this with my group and seeing how it turns out.

These Interesting Times

Something that I always think about is that I'm so lucky to be alive during these very "interesting times" (the Chinese would consider this a curse). Sometimes I wonder what would I be doing if I lived during the Renaissance. Would I have approached Leonardo or Michelangelo? beg them to take me as an intern in their workshops? I probably would have. We take for granted that we share this particular time with some outstanding geniuses and then it happens that they are suddenly gone and you missed the opportunity to meet them, or talk and learn from them.

On the other hand, because I am talking about artists, writers, and in particular filmmakers (the ones I consider artists) we are lucky that they left a body of work which allows us to continue this dialog.

Sidney Lumet died last year at the age of 86. He is one of the directors that made an everlasting impression in my life and career. He made over 50 films of which many are masterpieces of American Cinema. The first one I saw in the early 60's was The Pawnbroker which left me stunned with its raw power and its fearless look into ills of society that were not the stuff of Hollywood movies, but then again, he was a New Yorker and his films were as unadorned as the City can be.

After that film I made sure I saw everyone of them. In just two years Fail Safe and The Hill came out. I was in film heaven, a very angry heaven!

Maybe you have seen Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Prince of the City, The Verdict, or his last one, appropriately called, Before the Devil Knows you are Dead. He worked with some of the best and most important actors that any director could wish to work with, and got extraordinary realistic performances out of them.

He made history, and he lived during our time.

Taken.......AGAIN!!!!

            Once in a generation we come upon an action movie that defines the genre, for our parents it was James Bond or Indiana Jones. For us it was 2008’s Taken, starring Liam Neeson. I bring this up now not only cause I am a HUGE fan of the actors, but also because the film is a nonstop entertaining action romp. The film was what the Bourne movies, or even the Mission Impossible movies tried to be, and that is the next standard in action movies. Ever since Taken came out there have been movies that have tried to dethrone the king (Even Neeson’s own The Grey) but have come up short. On October 5^th we might see the next action movie to take the genre to new heights, the movie that I am talking about is Taken 2. Yes, yes at first it may seem ridicules that there could be a sequel that involves Mr. Neeson’s daughter and wife getting caught in some fashion. But as you can see from the trailer below that this next chapter in this families unlucky vacation outings it looks like it has a chance to live up to and maybe even surpass the original.

Let Us Not Forget

I'd like to take a moment to talk about documentaries. I had never really paid attention to documentaries, besides the average docudrama (noun: a fictionalized drama based primarily on actual events). Then I enrolled in Documentary Workshop the rest, they say is history. Within the last week I've watched at least four documentaries. Here are two of my favorites from the week:

A subjective documentary directed by Larry Charles and starring Bill Maher that tackles the always touchy subject of religion. I appreciate how this documentary doesn't target one single religion, but rags on them all. Also a bonus to this film is watching political and religious figures stumbling over their answers. And now, the trailer:

 

And now onto something completely different (but not really):

Freakanomics is a documentary based off of the book (with the same name) written by journalist Stephen J. Dubner and economist Steven D. Levitt. This film was directed by Heidi Ewing, Alex Gibney, Seth Gordon, Rachel Grady, Eugene Jarecki, and Morgan Spurlock. The reason for so many directors is because this documentary is actually compiled of a series of mini documentaries with the same theme: with the correct data you can determine the true outcome.

I feel like a lot of kids in our major never give documentaries a second thought. And why should we? Leave it to the journalism and doc studies kids! Well my fellow peers, believe it or not there is a lot of potential in documentaries. It's actually a bonus if you come from a creative/fiction background because it helps to form creative shots, help development a sort of story line with your main character (if you go with a story driven documentary), and you can help bring an important issue to light.

One-Shot Film

Hidey ho everybody, ever since class on Wednesday I've been thinking about our One-Shot Story Assignment. My group was bouncing back and forth some great ideas but I was having a lot of trouble getting my creative juices flowing. By the time we left class I knew that I wanted to do something that built suspense but I had no idea of how I could achieve this.

I finally got a short story idea and wrote up a rough draft but before I reveal too much here is the script. I'd love to hear what you guys thinks and any constructive criticism would be appreciated.

-nickp

Breaking Bad

With the conclusion of the show's fifth season last Sunday, creator Vince Gilligan has yet again left his audience feeling anxious, excited, and maybe even a bit sick for what is to come. I don't want to give anything away, but I will go ahead and make a bold statement: Breaking Bad is the best show on television. First of all, it is shot beautifully- often featuring creative transitions, disturbingly violent montages set to upbeat music, time-lapses and wide shots of the barren New Mexico desertscape. The way it is shot even gives it almost a cinematic quality. More importantly, all of the main characters are equally complex, going through their own transformations as each season progresses. Each episode is darker and more intense than the last, somehow all without going too far or jumping the shark. I admire Vince Gilligan's dedication to the storyline of his main character, Walter White, a once-sympathetic awkward high school teacher turned meth kingpin and ruthless killer. In a recent interview Gilligan said that for the final season he plans to fulfill the show's constant need of "shock and surprise and showmanship," and that he plans to "carry that through to the bitter end- if indeed it is a bitter end." Clearly, Gilligan is not one to tie things up with the conventional "happy" ending, and is unafraid to confront what might be at the end of the dark direction we've been heading in. Breaking Bad is not only an endlessly entertaining, well-crafted show, it also leaves the us looking at the big picture, and questioning the idea of morality itself. How far should one go to "protect" his family? How far can one push his luck before finally being caught? Is Walt beoming a total sociopath? I guess my final thought is: I'm scared for next season.

Childrens Hospital

Lately I have been watching "Childrens Hospital," Rob Corddry's comedy on the Adult. Each episode is about 11 minutes long, but in that short time span, the large ensemble cast packs as many jokes as possible. The humor is very dark and absurd, so it's not for everyone.

The show is a parody of hospital dramas such as "Grey's Anatomy" and "Scrubs." Corddry's show is actually filmed on the same sets as the latter show, a fact that one of the character's references in one episode, an example of the show's meta-humor. The show is about a group of doctors and nurses, most of whom have slept with one another, a parody of the many relationships doctors have in melodramatic hospital dramas. Characters include Blake Downs, a clown doctor who believes in the healing power of laughter, The Chief, the head of the hospital who is part Cherokee, which explains her name, and Sy, a hospital administrator played by Henry "The Fonz" Winkler. The show has great guest stars, including Jon Hamm, Ed Begley Jr., Nick Offerman, and Michael Cera as the voice of the PA system.

Together, the team of doctors face challenges like quicksand, amnesia viruses, Death (played by Michael McKean), criminally insane children, heat waves prompting a "Do the Right Thing" parody, crampt living situations, cancer guns, and Big Pharma. The show also messes around with format; one episode is a fake-live episode, while another one takes place in the 1970s.

Most of the jokes are throwaway lines, such as "Time of death: 9pm, 8 Central." It's hard to describe, so here's a clip, but it doesn't really do the show justice.

Mark Wahlberg shoots stuff.

Mark Wahlberg is, in my opinion, one of the great actors in modern cinema today. The Departed, The Fighter, Ted, The Italian Job, Four Brothers. All fantastic movies and fantastic acting jobs (at least, in my opinion. Maybe others would disagree). And I don't think its always easy to stand out as a great actor in the world of action movies, where flashy special effects and explosions make up for what's lacking in the story and talent of the actors. Marky Mark still manages to shine.

"Shooter" is the story of Bob Lee Swagger (yes, 'Swagger'), a marksman living secluded in exile after a failed mission left one of his partners and best friends dead. He is recruited by the US Government via Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) to help stop an assassination attempt of the president. However, Swagger doesn't realize that he is soon to be double-crossed by the very country he risked his life for, and framed as the would-be killer. After surviving the double-cross, Swagger goes on the run from the police. Using his special training and skills with a firearm (or in this case many, many, many firearms), he hunts down the real shooter and tries to find out who exactly set him up and why.

Sounds pretty cool, eh? Yeah I thought so too. "Shooter" was one of those movies that looks great on paper but just fails to deliver what I hoped for with the story. I found it to be pretty damn predictable and cheesy. Not to mention, Danny Glover and the majority of the supporting cast just stinks up something awful with their performances. The portrayal of the corrupt head-honchos of US intelligence  was way too cliche. I just wasn't convinced that the actors were really consuming themselves in their roles. They seemed to just play their roles to the most basic characteristics. Not enough feeling, not enough emotion.

And seriously....Mark Wahlberg's characters name is Swagger? Where the hell did they come up with that one?

I wouldn't call it one of Marky Mark's best performances either. But this is one of those movies that really does a GREAT job of making up for the places it lacks in, ... with
ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION ACTION. 

Any scene where Swagger was wielding a gun was pure excitement. He pops headshots on guys from thousands of yards away, takes out like 20 dudes without getting a single scratch on him. This may be typical of any action movie. But they did it damn well. "Shooter" receives praise from me for its kick ass action sequences.

-Nick

"Bang Bang, Fingernails tapping, beyond scared"

As a child, I had a built-in babysitter. This babysitter happened to be my teenage sister, who spent most of the time on the phone with her boyfriend or chatting on the computer. Of all the times I was left alone with her and my two year old brother, one night sticks out in my mind.  I was eight years old and our cousin Crystal came over to keep Ashley, my sister, company. As we were sitting at the dinning room table, finishing dinner, my sister let out a large scream and bolted from the table down to her bedroom. Crystal ran after her.  I sat there clueless, as I tried to decipher the chaos.

I picked my brother up and headed towards the hallway. As I was walking into Ashley's room, banging came from the back door. I was frozen. The door was shaking, as if someone was on the other side trying to get in. I ran into Ashley's room in a panic. She was shaking. I asked her what was wrong and she told me she saw the long fingernails of a woman tapping on the front window in the kitchen. As you can imagine, I was a pretty terrified little girl. The banging then stopped and we waited in the room with door locked. We called our parents and they immediately came rushing home. My mother was sick with the idea of anything happening to us, and my father searched the fallen snow for footprints or tire tracks. He found nothing.

To this day, I am still unsure of the events that unfolded that night. I sometimes wonder if I had let my imagination get the best of me, or if I was feeding into the fear that my sister had expressed. After that night, we were never left in Ashley's care again.  My father was convinced this was a case of our imaginations getting the best of us, but I can still picture the image of the backdoor in my head. 

Best,

Brie

Inja

I recently watched the short film Inja (Australian for "Dog") and found it to be very interesting. It was nominated for an Oscar in the Live Action Short Film category at the 75th Annual Academy Awards and I came across it while watch a collection of shorts. The film exposes racism and the idea that "the white man is boss." I will skip the summary and let you watch it yourself in the link I posted below, but what I really took away from this film was how much emotion it evoked for me; I was in tears by the end. Although I am a woman and an animal lover (double strike in the emotional department), I am not one to cry during films. The fact that this piece caused such an emotional reaction fascinates me. Why did it upset me? I have come to the conclusion that it was the ending that got me. The ending, where the dog has hatred for the boy who has had nothing but love for him, was all too familiar. The dog was mislead by the white man to believe that black was bad. Without ever giving a second chance, the dog that once loved the boy, growled and despised him. This happens in society. Some people despise those different from them because they are conditioned to feel that way. Society conditions us to look with pity on those that have disabilities, to want to normalize those that are different, to hate who our family and friends hate, and to question those who refuse to conform. This film raised many issues in my mind. The hatred the dog had for the boy, and the loyalty he had for the white man can be applied to so many situations in present day society.



Inja

Shots!

Alright! Let's do some Shots! NO, not those kinds of shots, Films shots! (It's not the weekend yet kids!)

Today, in class we spoke about the importance of shots and frame. Ever since we discussed this in fiction field 1, a year ago (time flies), I've payed closer attention to the films I watch and I note the placement of the characters. Sometimes, it helps me understand a little better of what's going on in the film. Have you ever watched a film where you were completely lost? Most people at that point shut it off and never return. I try harder to understand, I like to give em' a chance! They could explain everything later! Anyways, I found sometimes I'll try to interoperate the choice of the camera position, movement or even the placement of props, or the placement of the character's themselves.
In the shot above, The camera frame shows you exactly what the character is looking at, it also shows through camera angle how much bigger this creature is in comparison to the character, possibly imposing a threat. The fact that it's raining makes it harder for the character to run and hide, it gives us a symbolic sense of nature's wrath, unfortunate events etc.

This shot is much less distressing! I would interpret this shot to mean that these character's are getting closer either as friends or as lovers. Judging by the closeness of their bodies and given other cliche shots like this, I would bet that their next action is that they look at each other intimately.

For this shot I suppose you could say the same. Again it's very close and intimate. There's a feeling of safety even in a dangerous position. The expressions of the characters are a combination of amazement and admiration.


Another concept we were touching upon when talking about the way people used to watch film and the way we progressed from where we came from, is the concept that Hitchcock called the Kuleshov effect!

There is also an importance to not letting anything foreign be in the photograph. Set decorating is VERY important. Last year on the Market our art department team made a character who was a religious freak and very uptight person with very intense secrets. We transformed a girl's room from a girly bed room in to a dark, organized, bedroom with a ton of religious symbols everywhere. It looked like an ENTIRELY different place when we got through with it and if you pick the right people to do it, it really doesn't take too long. Here's an example of a set that was designed in the french film OSS 117: Lost in Rio:

The film takes place in the 60's and as you can see, nothing here is out of place or misrepresenting even though the movie was made in 2009! Not one thing in this frame is out of context nor is it distracting. You want things (props, set dec., etc.) to be appropriate but not distracting. I think this room sets up a mood of the scene as well as being absorbing/ believable. 

I have more to talk about but I'll save it for next week! Hope you all enjoy the rest of the week! 

Ta Ta for now!

-Lucy Lynne' Hall

Second place is first to lose.

At the age of five my parents signed me up for out local rec swim team. Little did I know I would continue to competitively swim for the next 13 years of my life. The six-word sentence that I came up with was, Second place is first to lose.  Typically there are 8 swimmers to an event and the top 3 times wins either a ribbon or a medal. Over the years as we all got older and the races began to become a bit more serious the same statement would always play through my head; Second place is first to lose.  Second place as a child was such an exciting thing because it still meant that you beat 6 other girls. As the years go by and you are in the top heat racing for the last open seat to swim at states, second place is the worst possible thing you could get. In a swimmers eyes second place means that all those countless hours spent in the pool morning and night seem to be a waste. It is the most devastating moment when you’ve just finished your race, rip your goggles off your face, and look at the time bored only to find that you were milliseconds away from receiving the gold. At this moment in time you have to accept that you were the first to lose.

- Tori

GAMER

My first official blog EVER! And it involves Gerard Butler, I guess that makes me somewhat cool. This past weekend I purchased Gamer from the Walmart $5 bin. It was either this or Scooby Doo goes to Mexico and I get jealous when I see a dog going to more places thn I have been so I went with Gamer. Even though I've seen this movie before, I didn't watch it through a film aesthetic eye. This time I decided to do so and a bunch of questions rushed through my head. The effects, the budget, the hours that went into making one scene. At the start of the movie, Butler is seen running through what seems to be an abandoned warehouse and as he runs up the stairs there are at least 7 camera angels that catches him going up the stairs. 7! I guess when you do action packed films you have to capture all of those angles to make it seem like the action is going in a lot faster motion then it really is.  Everything was also being blown up. EVERYTHING! The budget for the movie must be quite large to be able to blow up as many cars as they did, which is crazy because i'm still paying off my car! Throughout the movie I had trouble distinguishing what was effects and what was real, I think I have that with every film though. In todays technological age, anything can be an effect. Overall I enjoyed the movie even though I was watching it from a different perspective. Im sure Scooby Doo didn't have much fun in Mexico anyway. 

Soup du Jour

     Hello.  I am a lover of food and I always like trying new things.  Going out to different restaurants in new places is a hobby of mine and I always like to experience new tastes.  You can imagine the excitement I felt the first time I saw downtown Ithaca.  One consistent with my love of food is soup.  Soup has been one of my favorite foods for all my life.  Not chicken noodle, not beef stew, not chili, but all kinds of soup.  I love them all, well almost them all.
     I have recently started cooking soups at home.  Last fall I made a delicious pumpkin apple soup for thanksgiving which got rave remarks from friends and family (I'm sure some were just being nice).  Luckily, I am able to keep my passion for soup with me at school because our dining halls make great soups.
    To end this blog I will let you all know what some of my favorite soups are even though you probably aren't that interested.  My favorites include french onion, chili, my mom's mushroom barely, and pasta fagioli.  These soups are my favorites because I have had them at specific restaurants and they are amazing there, and because I get them consistently and it's always good.
     I hope to continue my passion for soup throughout my life.  I want to cook new soups and try to blends of flavors.  To me, there is nothing better than sitting at a restaurant with people you love and starting the meal off with a good cup of soup.