Sanjay's Super Team

I have a confession to make. Last weekend I movie hopped. I was with my boyfriend and we went to see The Night Before starring Seth Rogan and Joseph Gordon Levitt. Now don't get me wrong, that movie was phenomenal. Classic raunchy Christmas comedy, as anything would be with Seth Rogan in it. When the movie ended, it was only 7pm and right next door was The Good Dinosaur (Disney Pixar's newest movie) playing at 7:20. We decided to pop in, sit in the back and enjoy the easygoing film. The Good Dinosaur was also a great movie. I didn't last through the whole thing though, as sitting for 5 hours straight isn't really a hobby of mine. The best part of this whole movie-going experience however, was the Disney short at the beginning of our second feature. It's been all talked up and when it came on the screen, I couldn't have been more excited.

This Disney short is titled Sanjay's Super Team. Sanjay's Super Team leads Disney movies in a new direction. This is what I believe to be, the first time that Disney has covered religious topics in one of its films, intentionally and obviously that is at least. This story documents the bond between an Indian boy and his father. They are Hindu, and therefore Sanjay's father follows the ritual of meditation. He tries to teach Sanjay the importance of meditation, but Sanjay is preoccupied with his toys, coloring and television. However, once Sanjay sits down to meditate with his father, he accidentally extinguishes the oil lamp. As a consequence, he is a taken on a spiritual journey and meets the Hindu gods. Once he comes back into reality, his father is upset because he feels like he wasn't able to get through to his son. However, once Sanjay goes back to coloring, he draws a picture of the gods and presents it to his father. His father is ecstatic and we witness a major bond between the two. This is based off of a true story. Once again, Disney Pixar fails to disappoint!

Books and Movies. Movie and Books

Books and Movies. Movies and Books

     Recently the movie Brooklyn came out, based on the book by author Colm Tóibín. You may remember the book as that thing you got over the summer before freshmen year and never read....well I read it. I read it because I like to read, and you know what? It wasn't that bad! Until you got to the ending and then it was just plain terrible. It tricked me into thinking it wasn't a shitty book, but oh...it was a shitty book. On the popular website A.V. Club they gave Brooklyn (the movie) an A-! An A- is a pretty good grade for a movie on A.V. Club, and the author just spoons it loads of praise, it's actually sickening to read. Will I see the movie now? Probably not. Is it really as good as they say? Could vert well be. The reason I bring this all up is because I wanted talk briefly about the sin in Hollywood of turing books into movies. And that may not apply to Brooklyn, but just seeing it brings this idea to mind. 

     Today (and yesterday) in a world of 100% unoriginal ideas it has come to the attention of Hollywood scriptwriters everywhere that the easiest way to make a quick buck is to make an "adaptation" of a movie. The stories already written, tried and tested, so why the hell not? 

     

     You've heard the term "Oh well the movie wasn't as good as the book" in every way possible and at this point it comes across as arrogant to the process of filmmaking and storytelling. That's because it's unfair to do so; movies and books are different and shouldn't be compared to one another. My quarrel isn't with the fact that the books are usually better than the movies, which they are, my quarrel is in the fact that today adaptations have become the staple of Hollywood cinema to the point where I just have to say "Hollywood, take a break." 

     I think there's a lot of good adaptation that will (and have) come out this year, The Reverant, Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl, but there;'s also been a lot of bad. And my biggest pete peeve is when they take a short book and make it into three movie to take the poor suckers money who goes to see them. I would love to go into a case study about this but I'm honestly just exhausted of thinking sbout the state of Hollywood Cinema today so I'll quit while I still have some form of judgement about me. Not my finest blog post, but not my worst. 

     

     

The Green Screen: Just fix it in post (but really)

Not to sound like an old person, but technology absolutely amazes me these days. I was just recently shown the new Snapchat update, which includes new features like being able to put crazy animated features on your picture that track and move with your face on the screen. If you really take the time to think about it, that's pretty freakin' cool. How long would someone have worked to create that effect on a moving picture only fifteen years ago?

Almost every major production involves green screen, or chroma key, in some capacity. Whether it is creating a fantasy land, or making a slight change to the background, green screen technology gives filmmakers the power to manipulate the onscreen world in more ways than one. So, how did we get here?


The first use of a green screen, or at least the idea behind it, came from Georges Méliès. Ol' Georges didn't use a green screen, or any screen at all for that matter. He used a 'matte shot' by actually painting (matting) parts of the frame black, which would stop it from getting exposed. He would then rewind the frame and matte our every ELSE in the frame, and only expose what was originally matted, resulting in two 'different' shots in one frame via double exposure. And thus "green screen" technology was born:

As on screen trickery evolved, another more direct technique was developed. Filmmakers would actually have a piece of glass painted, and then place it between the subject and the camera. Kind of the ultimate perspective manipulation. This technique was perfected by early filmmaker Norman Dawn. 


To solve the problem of motion in film, both primary and secondary, the "black screen" was born, the ancestor of todays green screen. This allowed a entire background to be matted, and also eliminated any matte "line" that actors would have to avoid crossing or else ruin the effect. It was most famously used in The Invisible Man.

As technology advanced, several different colors emerged in efforts to perfect the matte process, but in the digital age green has emerged as the industry standard. 

It seems like each year some new, visual stunning film comes out that totally blows us away. From Jurassic Park to Avatar, Gravity to Interstellar, Alice in Wonderland to The Hobbit,  green screen digital effects seem to be taking over cinema. They allow a surreal escape into fantastic worlds, or, as technology continues to advance, it just might be easier to "green screen it" and literally fix it in post.

Some interesting examples:

Top 3 Movies

In one of my other classes, we were discussing what makes good films, and what makes our favorite films our favorites. So I have decided to post what my 3 favorite films are and what makes them my favorite.

1) To Kill a Mockingbird

This is in my opinion, is one of the greatest films ever made. I absolutely love how the story was adapted for this film. It is an incredibly well written screenplay, and still is able to capture the best and most important parts of the roughly 300 page novel in only 120 page screenplay. Also the camera seems to be able to capture the perfect moments of the actors performances. Not to mention the score of this film works so well in bringing out the emotion of the film.

2) Back To The Future Part II

I absolutely love all of the Back to the Future films, but part II has always risen just a little bit above the other two. I think the art direction and production design in this film are awesome. All of the so called "futuristic" things like clothing and cars, and technology are just crazy and funny. This may not have won any awards or anything, but its still great.

3) Monsters University

I was a kid when I first saw Monsters Inc. which was great because it was a kids movie, and now getting Monsters University when I am in college, is only part of the reason that I love this film. The color and beautiful animation alone are enough to make anyone love this film. However, even though it is targeted at children, the film actually is relatable to any college student. It blends fantasy and reality in a well written, and beautifully shot film.

Some of what I synthesized from David Mamet's book, "On Directing Film."

Some of what I synthesized from David Mamet's book, "On Directing Film" by Josh Tomany.

     When I took Fiction Field 1 at Ithaca College in the Spring of 2015 I was pleasantly surprised to receive a rather small book, 107 pages, in the form of "On Directing Film" by David Mamet. I was told before hand to keep in mind that perhaps his views were skewed or extreme, quoting "If he could I think he would only make silent films." The book itself was divided from his own narrative and ideas and lectures he gave at Colombia University in the fall of 1987. I was unsure of how such a man who if he could only make silent films could make a book on Directing Film in a little over 100 pages, but I was eager and curious to find out what I could. I read a couple chapters, thought it was good, and then...I put it down. The weight of short films and projects that do tend to happen at the end of the year arrived and reading wasn't a luxury I could afford. However just recently on a camping trip I brought it along to pass the time and I would like to share with you my surprises and insights that I gained on the concepts of Film and how to approach it.

     Not that our prelude together is over, and in the interest of time (your and mine),  I won't go into the minute details and relationship that Mamet has with his Students (however hilarious), and I won't go into anymore large paragraphs or write the next Great American Novel, and I certainly won't give you all the knowledge I gathered from this book (that is for you to discover on your own). Instead, for all you BuzzFeed listicle readers, bloggers, tweeters, and Facebook stalkers (all myself included) here's a list. Plain and simple, and the thing that you scrolled down to read first. Because that's really the most important part anyway, right?


     1) The best writers are the one's that know how to cut, to strip away everything that is fancy, moving, descriptive and that takes away only the story, "the essential progression of incidents."
   
     2) A film is not a record of what the protagonist does, a directors aim should not be to follow the actors around. A true film should be in some ways Einstein's own theory on film, "a succession of images juxtaposed so that the contrast between these images moves the story forward in the mind of the audience." This is absolutely essential to understand, take away this if nothing else. Don't tell the audience why something is important to the story, the only important thing is to tell the story, let the audience be surprised by it. "Let the cut tell the story. Because otherwise you have not got dramatic action, you have narration" (Mamet 2).

    3) "The purpose of technique is to free the unconscious" (Mamet 6). This goes into the very important concept that the dream and the film are the same thing. Refer to the very important quote I have highlighted above. What is a dream? What is a film? It was like a dream, it was like a film. Can they both be the same? Aren't they? Truly free your unconscious and and you will be free.

     4) Beats, Objectives, and Super-objectives. These are tools to keep you on the path, to make sure you tell the story, "Keep It Simple Stupid" (K.I.S.S). Refer to these concepts to make sure you aren't adding more than what needs to go into the scene. Keep It Simple Stupid.

     5) Back story is shit. Defining character's are horrible and nobody cares. "Hi let's sit down because I just came back from Vietnam." That's how movies in Hollywood now and in 1987 were and are made. "Character" and David Mamet puts it, is the what the person literally does in the pursuit of the super-objective (Mamet 13). So don't give me a load of crap on how a kid's first bicycle ride with his dad made him like baseball, SHOW ME.

     6) The only thing that matters in a scene, in a movie, is the want (the lack). That is the only thing you should be answering and showing through a juxtaposition of images because that's the only thing the audience actually cares about, what happens next. "You tax the audience every time you don't move on to the next essential step of the progressions quickly as possible. You're taxing their good nature" (Mamet 60).

     7) How do we direct our actors? For Mamet we Keep It Simple Stupid. "Just as the shot doesn't have to be inflected, the acting doesn't have to be inflected, nor should it be" (Mamet 68). If the actor is going to walk down the sidewalk and tie his shoes, tell him, "walk down the sidewalk and tie your shows." Literally tell him that? Yes. How else would you do it?

     8) "'Where do I put the camera?' That's a simple question, and the answer is, 'over there in that place in which it capture the uninflected shot necessary to move the story along'" (Mamet 73).

     9) "The shots are all you have. That's it. Your choice of shots is all you have. It's what the movies going to be made up of. You can't make it more interesting when you get to the editing room. And you also can't rely on the actors to 'pick up the slack.' You can't rely on them to make it more 'interesting,' That's not their job either. You want them to be as simple as you are in your choice of the shots" (Mamet 104)


     In conclusion (though I primarily just used quotes from Mamet's text) I would say this. Though Mamet may be rather extreme and passionate about his views, the essence of what he's saying and what he's saying should be able to influence and resonate through all of us. A film is a story, a dream, a myth. The film has a goal, the scene has a goal, the beat has a goal. Stick to the basic, keep it simple stupid, and you will be able to create something less crap...it could still be crap, but it would be less. And you audience will thank you for that. As Mamet says, "It's only up to you to do your job as well as you can, and when you're done, then you can go home." Go home.

Sincerely,

     Josh Tomany

You Don't Need Money to Scare the S*** Out of People

As a college student looking pursue a career in the movie industry, I have heard the same advice on countless occasions: 

"Movies? Yikes...You should probably study something more stable; like psychology, or art history." 

However, upon realizing that I'm pretty set in my decision to make films, people in the industry give me another piece of advice: 

"Start by producing horror. They're relatively cheap to make, and they have a built in audience." 

I decided to do my own research on the topic. How small of a budget can horror films have and still make a profit? Does a bigger budget necessarily guarantee a better movie? I started by comparing two horror films with very different budgets.

This is the trailer for the 2010 thriller, The Wolfman directed by Joe Johnston. It cost $150,000,000 to produce.

This is the trailer for the 1978 horror film, Halloween, directed by John Carpenter. The independent film had the minuscule budget of $325,000.

When looking exclusively at box office sales, The Wolfman outperformed Halloween; grossing a whopping $139,789,765 as opposed to Halloween's $70,000,000. Despite this, in the end, The Wolfman lost $10,210,235 while Carpenter's Halloween made $69,675,000. This comparison isn't the only example of low budget horror films ultimately earning more money than bigger budget productions.

Director Tobe Hooper's 1974 film, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is my all-time favorite example of the little budget guys coming out on top. The thriller cost under $140,000 to produce and ended up grossing $26,000,000. Not bad Tobe. Not bad. 

For those who haven't seen it:

Horror movies will *almost always sell tickets.

 ( *I use the word "almost" due to the failure of the horror film Playback which earned exactly $265 at the box office in 2012.)

Horror films will always sell tickets, but they'll never be blockbusters. Some people just don't like scary movies. They never will. Luckily, there will always be those high school couples and adrenaline junkies that will go out and see anything classified as a horror film. Keeping this in mind, it doesn't economically make sense to spend millions upon millions of dollars to produce a genre of movie that targets a relatively small (although stable) population.

So in the end, the second piece of advice is correct. Scary movies are a great place to start when you want to break into the industry but don't have any money. Still, if horror isn't your thing, there's always porn.

Help Save Drive In Movie Theaters!

As the digital age progresses many icons of our past are being left behind, including drive-in movie theaters. Since 1933, drive in theaters have been a staple of American Past-time for youth and adults alike. It is no secret that movie theaters, especially drive ins, have not been doing so well due to the economy and the rise in pirated movies. All theaters are being forced to switch to a new kind of digital projector if they want to be able to play current movies at a high quality. This means spending tens of thousands, possibly even hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single projector in order for the theater to still function. With less than 375 drive in theaters in America left, this has become a real concern of many movie fanatics. Honda (yes the car company) decided to do something about it.

I have only ever been to 1 drive in during my lifetime so far. I was on a family vacation to Wisconsin when I was in 8th or 9th grade (don't ask me why my family chose to go to Wisconsin...) and one thing my mom planned for the trip was a stop at a drive-in movie theater. We saw a double feature, first was Journey to the Center of the Earth, and after that was The Dark Knight. Despite how awful Journey to the Center of the Earth was, the drive-in movie theater proved to be one of the least shitty parts of my shitty family vacation. It was honestly an experience I remember to this day, and one I would not wish to forget. There is something about the atmosphere of a drive in that changes the movie-going experience. There is more of a sense of community and family. I hope that I get the opportunity to return to another drive-in during the near future.


So far Honda has donated 5 projectors to drive-in movie theaters across America and helped raise enough money for 4 more. They are urging for you to help however you can, whether it be a monetary donation, visiting a drive-in or even spreading the word. More information can be found at http://projectdrivein.com/.

For anyone interested in attending a drive in movie theater, the closest one to Ithaca is in Elmira, and about an hour away from school.

The Place Beyond the Pines

A few days ago I was finally able to see The Place Beyond The Pines, a movie I had been trying to watch all summer. While the movie was visually stunning, well-written, and above all else beautifully shot, other aspects, such as how the film was marketed and how the themes were presented, are what really took me by surprise. I was expecting the whole movie to revolve around Ryan Gosling, a red herring presented to anyone who had seen the preview. The film's depth ended up spanning over three generations with Gosling killed within the first third of the total running time, something I found to be rather unexpected. But it was a smart move if you ask me. Over two thirds of the film are about something related but completely different than Ryan Gosling's character. I can only imagine how many teen girls were distraught after finding this out. The movie contained three mini plots within the main plot, each one with a beginning and end, and each one expressing a totally different theme about life, vengeance and passion. In an era of witless hollywood movies, it was quite refreshing to see a storyline as complex and unique as this one. However, I do have an issue with how in-your-face the themes were presented. For example, it was quite obvious that Bradley Cooper's character had to deal with a looming cloud of regretfulness after murdering Luke, which will most likely never be eradicated by his success, yet there was a fifteen minute scene of him describing his feelings to a psychiatrist. It was both boring and redundant. There are other examples of this throughout the film both big and small, but overall the film was one of my favorites this year, and it is without a doubt one of my favorites in the father/son genre.

"Oldboy", and The Vengeance Trilogy

This is a movie (or rather a 'trilogy') that I've wanted to bring up for some time now. I've always been a fan of foreign films, particularly Asian horror. However, this movie not only takes the cake, but the whole damn bakery.

Oldboy is the 2nd in a series of South Korean films referred to as The Vengeance Trilogy. From the mind of director Chan-wook Park, The Vengeance Trilogy are a series of films all connected not by characters or plot, but by one central, menacing theme: vengeance.

The other two movies are called Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, and Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, the former of these two being the better one, in my opinion. However, this post will focus on the middle child of the triplets that I mentioned earlier, entitled Oldboy.

Oldboy is the story of a man named Oh Dae-su, on his quest to find the man who has, for some inexplicable reason, imprisoned him for the last 15 years of his life. When he's released, he is given money, a phone, and clothes. While searching for answers, Oh-Dae su starts to put his pieces together and figures out that his kidnapper has much bigger, complex, and painful plans in store for him.

Without giving anything away, I will assure all readers that Oldboy is a FANTASTIC movie and a complete and utter mind f***. It received an 8.4/10 on IMDB, and is what I consider to be the best movie I have ever seen.

While Oldboy definitely satiates my desire for graphic horror, gore in some places, and twisted plot lines, it goes above and beyond your typical thriller/horror flick. Oldboy connects the audience to the protagonist better than I've ever seen. The audience is just as much in the dark about what is going on in the story as Oh Dae-su is, and as a viewer, it draws you in like no other. The cinematography is utterly phenomenal, with a fight scene taking place in a hallway that is, in some reviews I've read, being dubbed as a "classic" fight scene (I'll post the link to it down at the bottom). Min-sik Choi is a fantastic Korean actor who puts on a beautiful performance as Oh Dae-su. Simply put, I cannot think of a single thing that is wrong with this movie. Every single aspect of it functions to tie together the story being told and, at the very end when the big reveal of the plot is made, leaves the viewer saying, "Holy crap, that was amazing".

I have watched this film about 3 times and enjoy it more and more every time I watch it. It is my favorite movie of all time and I recommend it to ANYONE who wants to see how a good thriller is made. Go on Netflix right now and watch Oldboy. You may have to look away and you may be uncomfortable at times, but I guarantee you will not regret watching this movie.

It's also got one of the best quotes from a poem ever. Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone.


Here's the trailer, and the fight scene I mentioned earlier. Thanks ya'll.

-Nick

Trailer

Fight Scene (skip to :37)

ADR? The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Recently I, for the first time, watched the classic Clint Eastwood western, "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". I thought it was a great a movie and I think Clint Eastwood is one of the best actors/directors of all time.

But something that really threw me off the entire movie was the audio. At first, I thought Netflix was giving me a problem...but then I realized this was in fact a flaw in the production. I had no idea why/how a movie could be so monumental with such horrible ADR? Then, upon further inspection, I realized that Clint Eastwood was the one character who did not have bad syncing on his audio.

I did some further research...it turns out that the film was in fact filmed in Italy, and quite a few of the actors are Italian. I also found out that the movie is, in comparison to many others, fairly low budget. But I wonder if maybe the bar for things like this was much lower back in the '60s? Anyway, this was something that really stuck out for me. Regardless, Clint delivers a great performance in this classic movie, and I thoroughly enjoyed it (despite the audio side of my brain screaming at me the whole time).

Burn one bridge you burn them all

So I'm going to try and stay positive in this post since now we know, big brother is watching! By the way Hello, Big Brother! Weather's lovely here in Ithaca! Anyways, moving on.

I'd like to point out the qualities in people that I like to work with. Perhaps one day that can be useful to not only me, when it comes to hiring people but also in terms of who I am.

Adults: I love working with adults because they have things to do. They're always busy and hard to get as actors. They've always got something to do at 4pm and they can't do anything for you past then! I like this because it keeps me on track, I might have dedicated my whole week/weekend/day etc. to my shoot but they have lives too. This gets things done quickly for me and keeps me on track enough for me to also be an adult and get my own things done!

Good Friends: I love people who as soon as you call for help, they jump at the chance even if they live 2 hours away. I like working with friends as long as they're not distracting. I think it helps in their commitment if they know me more personally. I'm not just a director or a producer to them, I am Lucy, their friend.

Honest people: I like working with people who say they're going to show up at a certain time, and surprise! They do! They stay through the whole shoot, if they find themselves borred, they don't leave the shoot and go eat tocos with their friends they seek out someone on the shoot who looks like they're struggling and stressed and they ask them "Is there anything I can do."

Not emotionally attached: Never count on two people's relationship to last through your shoot. Even if they've been together for 12 years and your shoot is only three days out of their lives. I love the people who DONT bring in their emotional ties to the crew/set. When you can turn the sad face off and do what is asked of you, I'm in debt to you.

Talented people: This of course goes with out saying. I enjoy working with people who know what they're doing. However, it's not my first priority. I'm more intrigued by people who are honest and committed.

Reliable ones: I love the reliable ones. The one's who send you a Facebook message years after you worked with them saying, "Hey I found something you might be interested in doing, here's the information let me know if you need help with money!" and "Hey, I know you're cleaning houses on the side for money, someone came in to work the other day saying something about needing his rental home cleaned, I gave him your number, I hope that's ok!"

The brave ones: I like the people who show up to set to help and hang out with you after the shoot. You loose an actor last minute or you didn't have time to plan for back up, you ask your friend, "Would you be willing to step in as our bad guy?" and they say "Well, I'm not a very good actor but sure I'll try." It works especially well when they wind up being a genius bad guy!

Guerrilla filmmakers: I love guerrilla film makers in the sense that they're so eager to work! They love to just make films so instead of going through what we (really should) do, Pre-production, they just get up out of bed and they make a film! Even if it means they had to steal a few things from their job to make it.

Loyal people: I love the ones who drank all night long, got in a huge fight with their ex/boyfriend, got home at 4am, tried to sleep for a few hours, called you at 7am and asked you where the location is and an hour later they show up to the shoot dressed in their finest, not emotionally derailed, there on time and ready to work.

Non-credited, don't care: I try to make sure everyone that works with me is credited. However, I love the ones who you ask to be your DP and if we can use their brand new camera on set and even though they're the producer of another set that's shooting that day, they say "heck yes"! Sorry I couldn't give them class credit for the project, but they got money out of it for winning the film festival.

Cry on demand: I've worked with a couple of people who know how to cry on demand. It's truly incredible especially when everyone around them is laughing and goofing off like fools. As you're reading this tell me if you can cry on demand! It's hard right?! I give them props...sometimes literally! *Pun intended*

Make up!: I love make up artist. It may take a long time to get them to get things done but when you can give them the time, their work is phenomenal! The same can be said if they're a set decorator or many other film spots!

Sorry I can't be there: I like it when people I have assigned as extras actually call me in a timely mannor and tell me they can't be there instead of just not showing up. Then when I ask them again the next time if they would be available for another shoot, they say " I owe you one, I'll be there!"

Home owners: I love working with home owners who let you borrow their whole house, let you move all their stuff into one tiny room and sleep on the couch with their dog while you finish up production. In fact they help you move all their stuff into that tiny room. Then they go out side and smoke with your producer! People like that should win nobel prizes!


Got to work at 10 am, no problem: I like when a main actress/or finds out the shoot was not on the day they thought it was and even though they have to work 10 minutes after the shoot, they don't bail on you they get there on time and I wrap them early!

The ones who want to work with you!: I like the folks who will come up to you one day and say "Lets work together on the final project!" It may not be realistic but hey that's awesome they WANT to work with YOU! I'm flattered.

Sympathetic people: When you're a surprise stand in on set and you're going to be covered in fake puke, the make up artist makes sure you're comfortable and that your shirt doesn't get wet. It's always good to keep your people happy!

The Chillest: The assistant directors that you come up to the day before the shoot and say "Ok, so here's the news: Our set designer quit, our location house burnt down, our props master threw out all the props, we have no audio." and they say calmly "Alright! Cool! We'll figure it out. No worries, man!" Such a joy!

People with Kids: Oh boy so your writer changed his mind at the last minute, He wants the kid playing on the floor watching tv while his mom's cheating on her husband on the couch! Great where are we going to find a kid!!!!???? You're lighting intern says "I could bring my 2 year old daughter she'd love it, oh and I'll bring the toys too!"

Sound people: They're one of a kind. I can't hear what they hear and it was so hard to find a good one! Especially one who isn't taken already! Good sound is hard to find!

The rays of sunshine: So everyone's ticked cause it's 30 degrees and we ran out of hand warmers 3 hours ago. Your actress says, "Hey everyone, there's a bright side!" and all of us laugh! I'm glad those people exist.

Inventive: I love the people who can make things happen when there's no budget. The set decorator who figures out how to make police riot shields out of tote box tops, gaffers tape, mailbox letters, a saw, sand paper, and a door handle on the back!

The big ones: The producers with big intense scary looking faces with folded arms and a can-do atitude. Low and behold he's holding a rubber duckling!

The DP: Sure (s)he's always cranky and maybe his/her but crack hangs out but (s)he's the best one for the job, no one can beat him/her and (s)he's there!! Just don't stand in his light or way!

To be honest I could go on and on. I sometimes wonder what if I was in charge of hiring people? Would I be good enough? I probably wouldn't hire them based on their looks or any other physical boundary but by their experience and their personality. I'd probably hire my friends and people who I'm told by reasonable sources that they're the best! I'd give anyone a chance! But only if they know they're quite replaceable!

This is why we don't burn bridges, because when you burn one bridge you burn a lot of them. For every student, intern, kraft services person, lower ranked person on your set, that you don't keep happy, you're got an army of people behind them who wont come asking you for a job. On the oposite side of the spectrum, for every employer in the industry (even if they're just a friend or group member in film school) you've got a sea of people in front and behind them who will take their word for it, you are or you're not cut out for the job. I'll take a good lesson in the people I've worked with, and try to reflect those qualities in me as they were in them. The same can be said for the one's I fired or never worked with again. I can learn from their mistakes, not just my own.

I happen to know the consequences of my actions, and I hope that they will only make things better in my future! I'm thankful that no matter the circumstances,  I will always own up to my mistakes and never blame someone else for my problems or force people to help me. I am human and even if I lose my job because I've made a mistake, I will always find another one. This I've learned from working with so many people, especially my old school where we had a lot of people who had lost their jobs, they didn't just give up. Besides, who wants to work with a company that threatens your job for silly human errors that really wont effect the system that much. Always know your priorities. What's more important to you, your job or your career, your play time or your future, your family or your employer, your heart or your paycheck, your career or your life? Think about it!

Have a nice day, enjoy the weather while it lasts!


-Lucy Lynne' Hall

Product Placement

There's a lot to say about product placement. There are a lot of reasons to try and avoid it as much as possible, aside from the fact that that company can sue you for not asking for their permission to use their product name. One would think that they would consider the fact that it's free "advertising" for them. However, I think company's get paranoid about their product being associated with a bad persona or bad "representation".

Just that fact alone takes me out of a film when I watch it. Which is the oposite of what you want. A film is meant to capture it's audience and give them an escape of some sort and to evoke an emotion at the same time. Things like product placement interrupt that process. As soon as your viewer thinks "Oh, yeah I'm watching a film!" then your message has nearly failed. Often, when I see product placement in a film I automatically think "wow, I wonder if they got permission to use that, and if they did how much they had to pay those companies to use their product name in their film. Granted, it is VERY difficult to remove me from the "film" mentality in that I'm always analyzing the behind the scenes magic of the film it self. I'm always trying to de-code films. This makes it somewhat difficult to enjoy certain things in films. For instance, I watched the film "Ted" in theaters. I absolutely HATED it. I refuse to do a review of it in my vlog but since this blog is not as broad and more detailed I will do a mini-review of why I don't like it.

I know that probably most people don't agree with me in hating this film. However, this changes nothing for me. The reason I don't like this film is because, I'm more of a "Film" than a "TV" person. I literally can't remove myself far enough from this film to enjoy it at all. I was also never a fan of family guy. (Yes I have three heads, feel free to keep staring). Anyways, If you love family guy then you'd love this film. I've always found most of the humor of family guy to be rude, crude and similar to laughing at the handi-capped kid at school. It's usually a very "bully-infused" type of humor. The idea of a talking bear to me is a gimmick and I knew the idea of it would not work for as long as it was attempting to. There was also a story behind it which I feel was completely disconnected to the humor. The story of a man who can't seem to grow up and give up his teddy bear is realistically a sad story and pretty lame at that. Then to attempt to make that funny with a gimmick is to me a recipe for disaster. Granted there were some things in the film that were funny, and I laughed at some things. But over all I was not thrilled by it. It was like sitting and listening to someone spew jokes about things that aren't meant to be funny at all for more than an hour. It was like that one friend we all have that doesn't think there's a moral boundary to what's funny, the guy who starts telling Michael Jackson jokes at his funeral, makes jokes about the holocaust while in a synagogue, or jokes about the bat mat shooting while waiting in line to see it in theaters just days after it happened. These are the kind of people I don't like to encourage. Sure some of these types of jokes seem harmless and sometimes even I can't help but laugh at them. However, these types of joke in my eyes shouldn't be given my money. They shouldn't be something we encourage. That's just my opinion and I'm sure there are people out there who would riot against my argument, and if we were in the appropriate time and place I could be beheaded! Not really, but at least I'm sure that there are a lot of people who disagree with me and I respect them for it. In any case, I think it's a good idea to keep it in mind that there is a demographic out there that won't pay to see a film filled with that type of humor. I wouldn't have gone and seen it myself if my boyfriend hadn't dragged me there by saying "we always watch what you want to watch". I'm glad I gave it a chance just so I could prove how much I wouldn't and don't like it. However, if you love family guy and that kind of humor and talking gimmicks, then you'll probably like the film. It's certainly no the film for me however. If you find you like a lot of the same films I do and also don't have much of a taste for family guy humor, you'll probably agree with me. By the way they even had the audacity to mention "family guy" in the film's dialogue. Which also brings me out of the film and makes me think "oh, yeah I'm watching a film...and they just referenced their own material." I can only hope I would never do that to my audience. I felt violated almost. The other thing is that it was very much a kid-type gimmick in that it was a talking teddy bear. I would never take my kids (let alone anyone) to see that film.

So much for a mini-review. I actually could go through in much more detail of why I don't like it. In any case I am a very difficult person to please when it comes to certain things in film. Since I know the ins and outs I don't tend to like things that seem childish or cheap, at least not enough to give it a majority of my money or time. So perhaps I'm a pretty bias person to judge a film in that I am not the typical audience or demographic. However, I am a consumer in film and it's important to appeal to the widest demographic as you can. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. It's important to know that demographic if you want to make money. If you don't really care about making money in the media (anything that requires a demographic to make money) don't worry about your appeal. By all means don't be afraid to do something new and different, but if you are, don't be opposed to criticism. It can only make you better and more appealing.

Back to the subject, product placement is something that pulls me out of a film. It's ok if it's relevant to the story or the character (and as long as you have the money to support that product placement). But when it's a prop of your character's that has something on it that represents a product, it automatically represents a piece of the character. If your character wears a brand name sweater, then maybe that means they belong to a certain "type" or "group". Maybe they're preppy, maybe they're gothic, maybe they're something that represents that company. But when it's completely irrelevant to the story, it becomes distracting to your character establishment. It may even begin to create a future stigma of other characters that may not even be true. Maybe people who buy "said product" are more likely to "do what the character is doing". Honestly that's a stretch. However, you might want to try to keep products out of it. If your character is using a named product, they are automatically branded to that name. Also, some of my favorite films do use product placement. It sometimes doesn't seem to bother me, but when it's very prominent or clear in the film, it begins to bug me a little. It's one of the smallest things to think about on set but if it's the difference between being sued and possibly making your film demographic more narrow or even distracting your audience, it's important to remember it.

Also, these are fun. Beware of a gratuitous amount of swearing!!! This maybe contradicting what I said
earlier about bully humor, but If an insult is what your character needs to say or hear, these are very creative! I can appreciate them, especially when they're done tastefully, creatively, and given appropriately to characters who really deserve it.

Things I've learned from criticism

Being that I am a film critic myself, I like to get tough criticism on my own films. I am my own worst critic for sure. I can tell you that none of my films EVER will make it on my Favorites List. Incase I haven't mentioned it yet, I have a giant list of my favorite films. None of my films will ever make it on there because I will always know the flaws of them. If one of my films could make it on my own list, I would die very happy. This to me will keep me making films for the rest of my life. I will always think of where I can improve. One might think this would be a depressing thought. However, it actually keeps me going, that there is always room for improvement. I currently have 121 films on my Favorites List (and growing).

My criticism of a movie to consider it a favorite is that it has to evoke an emotion from it's audience (especially if they are resisting this emotion and it happens anyways), it needs to have no questions asked (no cliffhangers (unless they work)and no misunderstandings), It has to be a movie that I would want to see again and if I see it again I either get a new feeling overtime or the same enjoyment with out degradation. For some of my favorite movies I laugh every time I watch it no matter what, I cry at least the first time I watch it (it's very hard to make it on my favorites list as a drama), It's extremely different/creative and there's no other that compares to it and for some of them I just enjoyed as a child and they stick with me forever.

When watching my films I try to pay attention to extreme detail. Then when I move on to a new film (after the criticism of my previous) I really concentrait on improving the things that failed last time. It's almost like studying for a test, you write down all the material you need to know and you go through each thing and cross off the things you already know by heart, and then you study the things you're not confident on.

Perhaps to answer what this most recent project; the one shot film with rotation of jobs, it's about fully expanding yourself in order to say you have done each of those jobs. It's about strengthening your weaknesses. No one is going to be "perfect" in everyone's eyes but I would like to come as close as I can to making my self the best film maker I can be. This unfortunately initials being uncomfortable. I'd like to thank all of those that have worked with me in my learning experiences especially in this project where you had to sacrifice having the best people do the job I was assigned to do, you may not have gotten the best aspect of that part of your film but I'm glad you allowed me to have that experience in learning. To me it is the best way of learning is just simply by doing. We as children learned how to read more by reading with someone. We learned to play video games on our own. We learned how to use a computer by seeking out and playing around. I think that is what we are best at and we learned these things by simply doing them. I can think of a few things I learned how to do on my own just by playing around, one is how to play the guitar, another is how to use a cell phone, how to use my ipod (not all of it's features, but most). If I can learn how to basically do something then I can survive in this business.

Some of the weaknesses in my own films/films I've worked on (not even my own mistakes but others as well) are very big key things I needed to learn in order to be a film maker. One of the first things I learned in criticism of film is that you need to pay attention to continuity. It's very important to keeping your audience interested in the story.
Another thing I learned was that in certain cameras, horizontal close lines or white/light colors can mess up the vision of the camera by blowing out the color by the light or by creating a crazy moving pattern on someone's shirt or a couch.
I've also learned how to tone down an actor or actress.
How to give the shot the time it needs.
I learned early in my career that the use of a tripod can make a world of difference when you want to real critics to take you seriously. I had a DP once who flat out refused to use a tripod for the longest time. I eventually replaced him because he was lazy. After that I made sure my DP's were comfortable using a tripod before I assigned them to the job.
I learned in my scripting class last year how to write effectively with no dialogue let alone too much. It's one of the hardest things to master because you really dont know if your audience will get what you're trying to say. You're literally trying to play charades with a mass amount of people who will never see you personally.
Through this project so far I've learned how important it is to keep as many options as possible and try them all if you can, keeping it within reason and being time aware.
Also It's good to get things done in a timely manor as long as it doesn't hurt creativity. The best way I found out how to do this is by rehearsing a bunch times and planning your butt off for the shoot.
Being over prepared is a great thing. Keeping your crew fed and alive is a wonderful thing.
Another thing I try to always do for a shoot is research realistic situations. For last years project White Lights I researched a lot about people's out of body experiences and the similar things between each story including the biggest thing I noticed was that they all described a white light. Hense, the name of my film being White Lights.

Criticism is very important in growing if you want to be the best film maker you have to make more films than anyone else and you have to absorb the toughest critics so that you can learn and grow from your past. That's what we're all paying the big bucks for here at Ithaca.

So now, Keep calm and watch some movie mistakes where people still made billions!

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.

I Chipwrecked All Over The Movie Screen, Sorry Guys

Hello, everyone!

I suppose by now you're all sitting comfortably in your homes with a piping cup of tea by a fire reading your Christmas stories and spinning your dreidels and singing Kwanzaa songs. But I, being a heathen and a soulless man-fellow, have arisen from the dead to bring you a movie review. And oh, is it just in time for the season to be jolly... it's so bad even Santa will want to cry.

Witness the above and weep with me.

Chipwrecked is good in one respect; it's got the Chipmunks! How incredible is it that in today's world we can digitally render Alvin, Simon, and Theodore into reality? How titillatingly tubular that we can incorporate the virtual with the practical? ...Well, not really. This kind of animation isn't new anymore; and even though it's still cool to watch this magic in action, it's nothing to flip any lids about.

The problem with Chipwrecked is that it totally bastardizes the Chipmunks. Their mischievousness takes a back seat to pop culture references and covers of recent hits, making this movie seem more like a long episode of Glee than anything. The story is so plot-driven that instead of the characters I knew and loved in my childhood, we're left with one-dimensional cardboard cutouts of them. Odd, since the movie's being shown in 3D. I would have expected different. And then there's the Chipettes. They sexed up the Chipettes. How could you do that to anyone anywhere ever.

See, Chipwrecked is family-comedy schlock 101. It's got corny jokes, cheap plot devices, a light-hearted story, loud noises, bright colors, and the music is so poppy and sweet that your ears feel sticky. You want a good fam-com? Go see The Muppets. Or take your kids to see Breaking Dawn. (Jeebus, I can't believe I'm recommending that.) But at least with Breaking Dawn, you're taking your kids to see a film instead of 80 minutes of vapid saccharine.

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Peace out, Hanukkah-scouts.

~Will

The Muppets

This week I had the wonderful opportunity to see the newest Muppet movie named properly, "The Muppets" I have to say this is one of the best movies I have seen in awhile. I completely agreed to a review I saw, I was smiling the entire time.

The movie is about Walter a Muppet and his non Muppet brother Gary (played by Jason Segel) travel to Los Angeles where they meet Kermit and find the rest of the Muppet Gang and raise ten million dollars to save their old theater. The plot itself is not the best in the world, but it is just the backdrop for the real reason why you are there: Muppets telling jokes, and believe me they are hilarious. It seemed that every notable Muppet had a chance to do a great joke. And just because I know you are asking, Fozzie Bear is still a riot.

The cameos are also an absolute treat to watch. Donald Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, Dave Grohl, Neil Patrick Harris, and Mickey Rooney are just a few that are in this movie. Seeing the Muppets on a big screen just feels right. It is really good to see them again at the rightful place.

All in all an amazing movie and I highly recommend this to all ages.