“On Film-Making” by Alexander Mackendrick

Back in January, I wrote what is easily the most popular post on my blog: The Big Filmmaking Book List. While I was writing that piece, I solicited other filmmaking book suggestions from Twitter, and I put together my Film Book reading list. My hope is to spend a big chunk of my free time in 2012 working my way through this list, and seeing if there are any gems to share with the rest of you. You can see all of my film-making book reviews at the Film Books tag page.

So that brings us to the first in the series…

“On Film-Making” by Alexander Mackendrick

This is by far the best book I have read on the topic of traditional narrative filmmaking. How is that for a hyperbolic compliment? But seriously, the book is incredible.

Mackendrick worked in the film industry as a storyboard artist, screenwriter, and director. He directed SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and THE LADYKILLERS, among others. He was a studio director at Ealing Studios, and when they shut down he moved to LA to work as an independent director. Facing frustration at the Hollywood studio system, Mackendrick left to become the dean of the film school at the California Institute of the Arts (CalArts). After about a decade, he gave up the position to focus on teaching. He taught at CalArts until his death in 1993.

On Film-Making was not designed to be a book. It’s a well edited collection of materials that Mackendrick created for his classes. It’s an incredible collection of study plans, handouts, storyboard examples, and essays. The book is broken into two sections: Dramatic Construction and Film Grammar. While both are full of gems, it’s the Dramatic Construction section that contains chapter after chapter of brilliant insight into narrative fimmaking. Mackendrick manages to cover screenwriting from both the writer’s and director’s perspective, creating an invaluable resource for the aspiring filmmaking.

It’s a waste for me to try to paraphrase Mackendricks’ insights, so I’ll just give you some quotes directly lifted from the book.

  • “Your only mistake, as you work in this medium of communication, is to produce in your audience an effect you didn’t intend, or fail to produce the effect you did.”
  • “Primitive magical rituals use rhythmic movement, repetitive gesture and musical noise to give sensory unity and comprehension to some otherwise disturbing and fearsome mystery. A myth, it is said, is the verbal equivalent of a rite that serves the same archaic need: to help the primitive mind take hold of a mystery. Stories, even in the contemporary context of mass entertainment, would seem to be successful when they, too, fulfil such a need, something audiences need not even be aware of.”
  • “Drama, so said drama critic William Archer, is almost always the effect of ‘anticipation mixed with uncertainty’. A good director, therefore, is always asking himself certain fundamental questions. What is the audience thinking? In relation to what has just happened and what might or might not happen next, is it approving, disapproving, fearing or hoping?”
  • “A dramatic character is definable only in relation to other characters or situations that involve tension. A dramatic scene is usually one in which something happens: an incident or an event takes place, the situation between the characters is different at the end of the scene than from what it was at the beginning. The equilibrium has been altered and there is some narrative momentum that drives the characters (and us the audience) to a new situation in the next scene.”
  • “Most stories with a strong plot are built on the tension of cause and effect. Each incident is like a domino that topples forward to collide with the next in a sequence which holds the audience in a grip of anticipation. ‘So, what happens next?’ Each scene presents a small crisis that as it plays out produces a new uncertainty.”
  • “The task of a storyteller is thus often the invention of a structure along the principle of Chinese boxes. A situation is created where our curiosity is whetted by the desire to uncover or disclose a solution, or to unravel a knot of tension, but when the discovery is made or the knot unravelled, it shows only another box, another hiding place.”

And these are all before page 50. The book is a treasure trove for the aspiring filmmaker. It gives you a skillset for analyzing your own work, and methods for pushing against the limits of your current abilities. Mackendrick pushes a philosophy of understanding how an audience interacts with a film, and developing the skills to shape an audience’s reaction.

I can tell this is a book that I will come back to over and over again in my career, as I struggle to get a grasp on my own path as a filmmaker. Mackendrick opens the books with a simple concept: “Film writing and directing cannot be taught, only learned, and each man or woman has to learn it through his or her own system of self-education.” Well, I’m well on my path of self-education, and I feel like I made leaps and bounds thanks to this book.

Star Wars The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo Drive

These are the films that were featured at least three times on the curated #film tag on Tumblr over the last 30 days, in order of descending number of mentions.

  1. 19 Mentions - Star Wars (the original trilogy)
  2. 15 Mentions - The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
  3. 10 Mentions - Drive
  4. 9 Mentions - The Lord of the Rings trilogy
  5. 8 Mentions - Inception, Pulp Fiction, The Avengers
  6. 7 Mentions - The Amazing Spider-Man
  7. 6 Mentions - Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Forrest Gump, Jurassic Park, Reservoir Dogs, Se7en, The Phantom Menace, The Dark Knight
  8. 5 Mentions - 500 Days of Summer, Ghostbusters, Inglourious Basterds, Prometheus, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Dark Knight Rises
  9. 4 Mentions - Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Fight Club, Harry Potter franchise, Lost in Translation, The Muppets, Pierrot le Fou, The Artist, The Big Lebowski, The Hobbit, The Social Network
  10. 3 Mentions - American Psycho, Back to the Future, Batman Returns, Beetlejuice, Evil Dead, Gremlins, Groundhog Day, Hunger Games, Robocop, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Shame, Taxi Driver, Wall-E

These are the ten directors whose films were featured the most on the curated #film tag page over the last 30 days, in descending order.

  1. David Fincher
  2. George Lucas (sort of, since he didn’t direct all three Star Wars films)
  3. Christopher Nolan
  4. Quentin Tarantino
  5. Peter Jackson
  6. Marc Webb
  7. Steven Spielberg
  8. Nicolas Winding Refn
  9. Robert Zemeckis
  10. Tim Burton

This post was prompted by me thinking to myself “Why is there another god-damn Dragon Tattoo picture on the tumblr film page?”

For the curious among you, from my count there were 286 different films featured on the #film tag page in the last 30 days.

Want to know why generations of teenage girls love DIRTY DANCING?Want to know why it’s one of the highest selling DVDs of all time?Want to know why it can still sell out screenings around the world? Because it’s really fucking good. 2012 Movie #39 - Dirty Dancing (1987) For Valentine’s Day, Jess and I decided to see DIRTY DANCING at a theater here in London. this is probably the 4th or 5th time I’ve seen the film, but the first screening for over a decade. It’s also the first time I’ve ever seen the film projected in a theater. I’ve always been a fan of DIRTY DANCING. Unfortunately, as a cultural phenomenon, “Dirty Dancing” has moved beyond the quality of the film, and now exists as a polarizing pop-culture item that people “love” or “hate.” This is a shame, as the film itself is of remarkably high quality. So what the hell, I’m going to make the case for why I believe  DIRTY DANCING is one of the great films of the 1980s. THEME DIRTY DANCING is incredibly dense with interesting thematic content. It contains interesting explorations of class relations, shifting family and cultural dynamics in the mid-20th century, the maturation of father/daughter relationships as a daughter becomes an adult, but mostly it’s a film about believing you can change your world and the importance of helping other people. These last themes are touched on by all of the interweaving storylines and major characters, and is the beating heart of the relationship between Baby and Johnny. THE BABY/JOHNNY RELATIONSHIP Baby and Johnny have a love story built on the belief they have in each other, and their ability to expand each other’s horizons. Johnny teaches Baby how to dance and how to express herself. He helps her take the path from timid teenager to strong expressive adult. Baby in turn gives Johnny the strength to push against the class driven glass-ceiling he feels restrained by. In the most basic and compelling sense, they complete each other. They are simply better people in each other’s company. We fall in love with Baby and Johnny for the same reason why they fall in love with each other, and this is the ultimate success for a dramatic romance. BABY’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH HER FATHER The second biggest driving relationship in the film is between Baby and her father. People generally attribute the Baby/Johnny dynamic as the cause for the film’s rabid female fanbase, but I think the father/daughter relationship has an equally strong appeal and elevates the film beyond just another teen romance. The film uses the events of the narrative and Baby’s character arc to reflect the universal relationship dynamic of a father realizing his daughter is not just a child to love but a person to respect. Baby leaves DIRTY DANCING as a truly realized adult in all her important relationships. THE WRITING The screenplay for DIRTY DANCING is exceptional. If you’ve been following my blog, you can tell that I have pretty strong beliefs when it comes to the power of a well executed dramatic narrative. DIRTY DANCING never lets its narrative tension slack, and every scene is a real dramatic scene, which has become a rarity these days. When I describe a scene as a “real dramatic scene,” I mean something very specific. In his book “On Film-Making,” Alexander Mackendrick defines a dramatic scene as… …one in which something happens: an incident or an event takes place, the situation between the characters is different at the end of the scene from what it was at the beginning. The equilibrium has been altered and there is some narrative momentum that drives the characters (and us the audience) to a new situation in the next scene. It has been a sad trend these days that many scenes are just “stuff happening.” Events will occur, but they have no impact on the film’s narrative propulsion because they don’t actually change the character dynamics or situations from the start to the end of the scene. They don’t indicate to the characters or the audience a new situation that builds on the prior situation, and so we enter the next scene as a blank slate waiting for the next “stuff happening” moment. Boredom is born in “stuff happening.” This idea of indicating narrative progression is hugely important when it comes to structure. It’s well explained in Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s NYU lecture on story structure that went viral in 2011. We found out this really simple rule… We can take these beats… of your outline and if the words ‘and then’ belong between those beats, you’re fucked. You’ve got something pretty boring. What should happen between every beat you’ve written down is the word ‘therefore’ or ‘but.’ If you have “and then” between your scenes, it means that you aren’t writing using true dramatic scenes. You aren’t using your scene to build a changing situation in the world, and indication of how that changing situation effects the overall narrative progression of your story. DIRTY DANCING is almost entirely structured using strong dramatic scenes. Every scene propels the plot and the characters, and this is what allows for such dense thematic, narrative, and character content in a brisk 100 minute running time. This alone would make DIRTY DANCING an impressive screenplay. What makes the writing exceptional is that you never notice this expert craftmanship! Hell, I’m always looking for this stuff, and it took me a few viewings to realize how well crafted the script is. You never feel the invisible hand of the author forcing the story along. The scenes exist as natural moments between characters, where you believe they are making decisions and experiencing the world exactly in that moment. As a result, the audience also lives within the moment of every scene. THE DETAILS It’s certainly not enough to have a brilliantly structured and told story. Having a strong dramatic structure definitely helps make a film compelling to watch and avoids the cardinal sin of boredom, but it’s not like most people look back on a film they loved and say “it was amazing how every scene had narrative propulsion.” The things you consciously remember and love about a film are the details. The iconic shots, the memorable marriage of dialog and performance, the shocking peripeteia (reversal of circumstances; turning points), the powerful scene or sequence, or the twist ending. The moments and the details. The red pill or the blue pill? Indiana Jones shooting the swordsman. Bruce Willis was dead the whole time. Darth Vader reveals he’s Luke Skywalker’s father. Gene Kelly singing and dancing on a rainy street. “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Slim Pickens riding the bomb. “I Fart In Your General Direction.” Johnny lifting Baby above the water of a Catskills lake. “Nobody puts Baby in the corner.” DIRTY DANCING draws us in with its expertly conceived narrative, and hooks us eternally with its exquisite details. What I’ll Take Away: Everything. High-res

Want to know why generations of teenage girls love DIRTY DANCING?
Want to know why it’s one of the highest selling DVDs of all time?
Want to know why it can still sell out screenings around the world?

Because it’s really fucking good.

2012 Movie #39 - Dirty Dancing (1987)

For Valentine’s Day, Jess and I decided to see DIRTY DANCING at a theater here in London. this is probably the 4th or 5th time I’ve seen the film, but the first screening for over a decade. It’s also the first time I’ve ever seen the film projected in a theater.

I’ve always been a fan of DIRTY DANCING. Unfortunately, as a cultural phenomenon, “Dirty Dancing” has moved beyond the quality of the film, and now exists as a polarizing pop-culture item that people “love” or “hate.” This is a shame, as the film itself is of remarkably high quality.

So what the hell, I’m going to make the case for why I believe  DIRTY DANCING is one of the great films of the 1980s.

THEME

DIRTY DANCING is incredibly dense with interesting thematic content. It contains interesting explorations of class relations, shifting family and cultural dynamics in the mid-20th century, the maturation of father/daughter relationships as a daughter becomes an adult, but mostly it’s a film about believing you can change your world and the importance of helping other people. These last themes are touched on by all of the interweaving storylines and major characters, and is the beating heart of the relationship between Baby and Johnny.

THE BABY/JOHNNY RELATIONSHIP

Baby and Johnny have a love story built on the belief they have in each other, and their ability to expand each other’s horizons. Johnny teaches Baby how to dance and how to express herself. He helps her take the path from timid teenager to strong expressive adult. Baby in turn gives Johnny the strength to push against the class driven glass-ceiling he feels restrained by. In the most basic and compelling sense, they complete each other. They are simply better people in each other’s company. We fall in love with Baby and Johnny for the same reason why they fall in love with each other, and this is the ultimate success for a dramatic romance.

BABY’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH HER FATHER

The second biggest driving relationship in the film is between Baby and her father. People generally attribute the Baby/Johnny dynamic as the cause for the film’s rabid female fanbase, but I think the father/daughter relationship has an equally strong appeal and elevates the film beyond just another teen romance. The film uses the events of the narrative and Baby’s character arc to reflect the universal relationship dynamic of a father realizing his daughter is not just a child to love but a person to respect. Baby leaves DIRTY DANCING as a truly realized adult in all her important relationships.

THE WRITING

The screenplay for DIRTY DANCING is exceptional. If you’ve been following my blog, you can tell that I have pretty strong beliefs when it comes to the power of a well executed dramatic narrative. DIRTY DANCING never lets its narrative tension slack, and every scene is a real dramatic scene, which has become a rarity these days.

When I describe a scene as a “real dramatic scene,” I mean something very specific. In his book “On Film-Making,” Alexander Mackendrick defines a dramatic scene as…

…one in which something happens: an incident or an event takes place, the situation between the characters is different at the end of the scene from what it was at the beginning. The equilibrium has been altered and there is some narrative momentum that drives the characters (and us the audience) to a new situation in the next scene.

It has been a sad trend these days that many scenes are just “stuff happening.” Events will occur, but they have no impact on the film’s narrative propulsion because they don’t actually change the character dynamics or situations from the start to the end of the scene. They don’t indicate to the characters or the audience a new situation that builds on the prior situation, and so we enter the next scene as a blank slate waiting for the next “stuff happening” moment. Boredom is born in “stuff happening.”

This idea of indicating narrative progression is hugely important when it comes to structure. It’s well explained in Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s NYU lecture on story structure that went viral in 2011.

We found out this really simple rule… We can take these beats… of your outline and if the words ‘and then’ belong between those beats, you’re fucked. You’ve got something pretty boring. What should happen between every beat you’ve written down is the word ‘therefore’ or ‘but.’

If you have “and then” between your scenes, it means that you aren’t writing using true dramatic scenes. You aren’t using your scene to build a changing situation in the world, and indication of how that changing situation effects the overall narrative progression of your story.

DIRTY DANCING is almost entirely structured using strong dramatic scenes. Every scene propels the plot and the characters, and this is what allows for such dense thematic, narrative, and character content in a brisk 100 minute running time.

This alone would make DIRTY DANCING an impressive screenplay. What makes the writing exceptional is that you never notice this expert craftmanship! Hell, I’m always looking for this stuff, and it took me a few viewings to realize how well crafted the script is. You never feel the invisible hand of the author forcing the story along. The scenes exist as natural moments between characters, where you believe they are making decisions and experiencing the world exactly in that moment. As a result, the audience also lives within the moment of every scene.

THE DETAILS

It’s certainly not enough to have a brilliantly structured and told story. Having a strong dramatic structure definitely helps make a film compelling to watch and avoids the cardinal sin of boredom, but it’s not like most people look back on a film they loved and say “it was amazing how every scene had narrative propulsion.”

The things you consciously remember and love about a film are the details. The iconic shots, the memorable marriage of dialog and performance, the shocking peripeteia (reversal of circumstances; turning points), the powerful scene or sequence, or the twist ending. The moments and the details.

The red pill or the blue pill? Indiana Jones shooting the swordsman. Bruce Willis was dead the whole time. Darth Vader reveals he’s Luke Skywalker’s father. Gene Kelly singing and dancing on a rainy street. “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Slim Pickens riding the bomb. “I Fart In Your General Direction.” Johnny lifting Baby above the water of a Catskills lake. “Nobody puts Baby in the corner.”

DIRTY DANCING draws us in with its expertly conceived narrative, and hooks us eternally with its exquisite details.

What I’ll Take Away: Everything.

The Big Filmmaking Book List

I write this blog for a specific audience. It’s all written to be appealing to the “me” of ten years ago. By that, I mean the young eager person who loves film and is avidly trying to absorb as much knowledge and experience as possible. I hope I can help share some insight, and help people realize that everyone in this industry is still trying to learn how to make a good movie.

In that spirit, these are some books that I’ve read over the last decade or so that helped shape my approach to filmmaking and my understanding of the film business. I think these books all have considerable educational value to the aspiring or working filmmaking. The list is broken into categories, but I recommend cross-pollinating your knowledge. I find that breakthroughs in one filmmaking discipline often come from knowledge and experience acquired in another. The art, craft, and businesses of filmmaking are not orthogonal; they intertwine and it’s expected for an expert in any field to at least have a basic understanding of how their work impacts their colleagues.

This list is just a starting point. I will spend a lot of my free time in 2012 reading more books related to filmmaking. Check out the list of filmmaking books on my “to read” queue, and if you want to recommend a book please shoot me a note on Twitter. I will update this list if I find a book of exceptional value, otherwise you can follow my responses to other books by browsing the “film books” tag.

Some disclaimers:

  • Obviously I have not read every book on filmmaking, and please don’t take the omission of books from this list as a sign that the book does not have value.
  • That said, I have omitted some well known books intentionally because I think they don’t have any meaningful value. For example, most screenwriting books.

GENERAL FILMMAKING / PERSONAL ANECDOTES

Rebel Without a Crew by Robert Rodriguez
At the age of 23, Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi for $7,000 (excluding post-production and delivery). This book contains his personal journal from that period, and is a fascinating read. It also includes many wonderful practical tips on guerilla filmmaking.

Getting Away With It by Steven Soderbergh and Richard Lester
This is my favorite film-related book of all time, and one that I have revisited a few times over the years. At a low point in his career, before the huge success of the Ocean’s Eleven films and his studio system re-entry of Out of Sight, Soderbergh sat down for a series of interviews with legendary director Richard Lester. This book is a fascinating look at both artists, and you can see the conversations shape Soderbergh’s future path as a filmmaker.

DIRECTING

Making Movies by Sidney Lumet
This is the single most useful book on directing that I have ever read. Lumet is obviously a legend, and this book contains priceless nuts-and-bolts wisdom. If you are going to read one book before shooting your first film, this is the book.

My First Movie edited by Stephen Lowenstein
If you are going to read two books before shooting your first film, this is the second book. This book contains interviews with twenty directors exclusively on the subject of shooting their first film. It covers the anxiety and stress of making your first film, and contains priceless tips that will help any aspiring filmmaker get over that hump. Note: there are two volumes in this series, and I think that the first volume is vastly superior to the second.

Film Directing Shot by Shot: Visualizing from Concept to Screen by Steve Katz
Another book that I read a long time ago, but I’m pretty sure helped to formulate by thoughts on visual storytelling. This book analyzes many of the options and reasons for planning composition and shot selection for a film. I haven’t revisited the book for well over a decade, so I’m not sure if my opinion would change today, but I remember liking it as a novice.

On Directing Film by David Mamet
It’s fascinating reading Mamet’s thoughts on directing. He has some opinions that I definitely disagree with, and I think his approach to directing has also limited the cinematic potential of his films. That said, there are some real gems of insight, and I recommend it mostly as a divisive book that can help foster your own original thought on how to approach the art and craft of filmmaking.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Painting With Light by John Alton
Supposedly the first book on cinematography written by a working director of photography (in fact one of the inventors of the film noir look), this somewhat dated book is a true classic that focuses on the use of light on film.

The Five C’s of Cinematography: Motion Picture Filming Techniques by Joseph V Mascelli
To be honest, I read this book a very long time ago, but I remember it shaping my thoughts on cinematography and the fundamentals of visual temporal storytelling.

New Cinematographers by Alex Ballinger
OK, so you’ve had enough of these old books with old fogies talking about classic cinematography. New Cinematographers contains interviews with six cutting edge current cinematographers: Lance Acord, Jean-Yves Escoffer, Darius Khondji, John Mathieson, Seamus McGarvey, and Harris Savides.

SCREENWRITING

Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman
This memoir by William Goldman is a must read for any screenwriter. It covers the early part of his career in great detail, and even includes the script for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. This is one of the essentials.

On Writing by Stephen King
This is not a book about screenwriting, but it is a book about writing. Many of the insights and thoughts that Stephen King shares in this book are wonderful. A lot of his suggestions will be totally misleading when applied to the craft of screenwriting, and when reading the book it’s important to keep in mind the differences between the two forms. However, on the whole I think this is a fascinating read on the process of a writer.

EDITING

In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch
If you only read one book on film editing, this is the book. Walter Murch is a master, and covers all the fundamentals of editing with wonderful expertise. This is a book to come back to again and again over the years, always gleaning new insights.

First Cut: Conversations with Film Editors by Gabriella Oldham
This book consists of interviews with 22 amazing film editors, and provides a huge number of insights into their creative and technical process. As I’m sure you can tell by now, I am very drawn to first-hand information from filmmakers, and this is a treasure trove of information on film editing.

The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film by Michael Ondaatje
After reading “In the Blink of an Eye” get even more Walter Murch in this series of interviews by Michael Ondaatje. Walter reveals even more secrets and insights into his trade, making this a must read.

When The Shooting Stops… The Cutting Begins: A Film Editor’s Story by Ralph Rosenblum
There is a trend that my favorite film craft books are written by expert craftspeople, and Rosenblum is no exception having edited films like The Pawnbroker and Annie Hall (both of which I consider to contain some of the finest picture editing of all time). This book is a fascinating insight into his process, but most importantly I think it’s the best source for information on the art of cutting for comedy.

PRODUCING

So You Want to Be a Producer by Lawrence Turman
Larry Turman is another legend. The man produced The Graduate, The Thing, and American History X and now runs the Peter Stark Producing Program at USC. There aren’t many good hands-on books on film producing, and Larry’s book is by far the best I’ve read.

THE BUSINESS OF FILMMAKING

Ovitz: The Inside Story of Hollywood’s Most Controversial Power Broker by Robert Slater
At one point in time Michael Ovitz was the most powerful agent, and perhaps the most powerful person in Hollywood. This official biography was published in 1997 so you won’t hear about his stunning fall from power or any real dirt. What you will hear about is how he helped form CAA (Creative Artists Agency) into a powerhouse, and a brief understanding of how agents and agencies derive their power and influence. The book is so hugely one-sided about what a great person Ovitz is, it actually exists as its own proof of how much power Ovitz could once wield.

Storming the Magic Kingdom by John Taylor
Maybe I have a thing for old books on the film business. The book covers the period in the early 80s when Michael Eisner and his team took over Disney and reshaped it to be the current media powerhouse that it is. It’s a fascinating read, and has a lot of detailed information and analysis of how things work at the top of an entertainment company.

Hollywood A Go-Go: The True Story of The Cannon Film Empire by Andrew Yule
Published in 1987, this book is about the rise and collapse of the Golan-Globus film empire. It goes into some detail on their business model, and holds no punches as it’s clear that the author doesn’t like what he has to see. It’s one of the few books that actually has insight into the world of international independent film finance, production, and distribution. It gives you a sense of the types of people you will end up dealing with if you get into the film industry. Unfortunately this book is long out-of-print, and isn’t even listed on Amazon’s website. The above link should go to a search for the book on AbeBooks, but if the link is broken you’ll have to search for it yourself.

So that’s the list. Was there a book you were expecting to see that wasn’t listed? Perhaps it’s in my to-read pile. If you don’t see it there, please drop me a note on Twitter with a suggestion.

Note: After writing this in January 2012, I decided to read a lot of other filmmaking books, in the hopes that I can help recommend some other gems. You can find the full series of reviews at the “film books” tag, but here are links to other books that I consider to be essential.

ALIEN Polish poster - Style A ALIENS Polish poster ALIENS Polish poster - Style B

These are three of the original Polish posters for ALIEN and ALIENS. I believe all three were designed by legendary Polish poster designer Witold Dybowski.

If this is your introduction to the amazing world of Polish film posters, you are in for a world of delight. The Polish film industry has a history of utilizing creative artistic posters long after most of the world moved to photographs of movie stars. But even if you’re already familiar with the wonders of Polish film posters, I hope I’ve uncovered some hidden gems in this post that can further your appreciation of the subject.

I’m not an expert on the subject, so I don’t want to fill your head with misinformation or my own amateur interpretation, but here is my basic understanding of how Polish film posters became so awesome. In essence, there was a single film distribution entity in Poland from the mid 1940s until 1990. Film Polski was the state run film monopoly, and all non-Polish films were released through this entity. The lack of competition and unorthodox approach to commercialism certainly provided an environment where poster artists were able to flourish, but I like to think the high quality of Polish advertising was mostly driven by people and a culture that wanted to embrace great art. The focus was on making stunning images that could stand on their own, not just a sales tool to promote the stars of a film. You can see incredible artistry in Polish design across almost all forms of print advertising including opera, theater, film, concerts, and even normal product billboards.

The Kemistry Gallery in London will be having an exhibit entitled “Mr T: The Posters of Jerzy Treutler” from February 2nd to March 17th. Jerzy Treutler designed Polish film posters through a big part of the 20th century, and has this to say about his work on Polish film posters:

The Polish School of Posters can be best described as being bold and colourful with painterly orientation and one I embraced as a graphic artist with all my heart, it was an exciting and creative time for me.

Some of my favorite Polish film posters…

AIRPLANE polish film poster

AIRPLANE (1984) designed by Witold Dybowski

BACK TO THE FUTURE Polish Film Poster

BACK TO THE FUTURE (1986) designed by Mieczyslaw Wasilewski 

DANTON Polish Film Poster

DANTON (1993) by designed by Wieslaw Walkuski 

JAWS Polish Film Poster

JAWS (1977) designed by Andrzej Dudzinski 

JAWS 2 Polish Film Poster

JAWS 2 (1980) designed by Edward Lutczyn 

ROCKY Polish Film Poster

ROCKY (1978) designed by Edward Lutczyn

ROSEMARY'S BABY Polish Film Poster

ROSEMARY’S BABY (1984) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski 

STORMING MONDAY Polish Film Poster

STORMING MONDAY (1988) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski

THE GRADUATE Polish Film Poster

THE GRADUATE (1973) designed by Maciej Zbikowski 

THE OMEN Polish Film Poster

THE OMEN (1977) designed by Andrzej Klimowski

UN CHIEN ANDALOU Polish Film Poster

UN CHIEN ANDALOU (1996) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski 

To explore more of the world of Polish film posters, I suggest the following links:

2012 Movie #22 - Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) For my first viewing of the film in over 12 years, I was lucky enough to watch it in 35mm at the BFI in London. On second viewing, I’m less enamored with the Elliot (Michael Caine) and Lee (Barbara Hershey) storyline, but hugely charmed by the journeys of Hannah (Mia Farrow), Holly (Dianne Wiest), and Mickey (Woody Allen). The film features some of Woody’s best work as a dramatist, with impeccable scene and sequence construction. This is exemplified by the restaurant scene with the three sisters. The construction of this scene is simply incredible, with the dialog showing both clarity and subtlety, an unfortunately rare combination. Each sister has something they want to get out of the scene, and despite all of them having the best intentions towards each other, their goals are at odds. We see this in what the sisters are saying, and in what they are obviously struggling not to say. The scene serves to propel the narrative, give insight into character, shift the character arcs, and still remains highly compelling and entertaining. And it’s just three sisters talking at a table. Too many writers don’t understand the narrative point of a scene. Characters interact with each other to advance their personal goals, and we see a scene because the outcome of that interaction advances the narrative. If you don’t have a sense of character goals and you don’t have an interaction and you don’t have a resulting narrative drive… then it’s not a scene! Cut it from your script or figure out a way to turn it into a real scene. It’s astonishing how many films have scenes that serve no narrative or character purpose. This can be fine if the artistic point of the scene is to undermine traditional narrative expectations, or the filmmaker is seeking an alternative impact, but the problem is that you see it all the time in films that are ostensibly traditional narratives. If you don’t have a proper scene, it just becomes “stuff happening” which is the path to audience disinterest. What I’ll take away: Woody Allen sure knows how to write. High-res

2012 Movie #22 - Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

For my first viewing of the film in over 12 years, I was lucky enough to watch it in 35mm at the BFI in London. On second viewing, I’m less enamored with the Elliot (Michael Caine) and Lee (Barbara Hershey) storyline, but hugely charmed by the journeys of Hannah (Mia Farrow), Holly (Dianne Wiest), and Mickey (Woody Allen).

The film features some of Woody’s best work as a dramatist, with impeccable scene and sequence construction. This is exemplified by the restaurant scene with the three sisters. The construction of this scene is simply incredible, with the dialog showing both clarity and subtlety, an unfortunately rare combination. Each sister has something they want to get out of the scene, and despite all of them having the best intentions towards each other, their goals are at odds. We see this in what the sisters are saying, and in what they are obviously struggling not to say. The scene serves to propel the narrative, give insight into character, shift the character arcs, and still remains highly compelling and entertaining. And it’s just three sisters talking at a table.

Too many writers don’t understand the narrative point of a scene. Characters interact with each other to advance their personal goals, and we see a scene because the outcome of that interaction advances the narrative. If you don’t have a sense of character goals and you don’t have an interaction and you don’t have a resulting narrative drive… then it’s not a scene! Cut it from your script or figure out a way to turn it into a real scene.

It’s astonishing how many films have scenes that serve no narrative or character purpose. This can be fine if the artistic point of the scene is to undermine traditional narrative expectations, or the filmmaker is seeking an alternative impact, but the problem is that you see it all the time in films that are ostensibly traditional narratives. If you don’t have a proper scene, it just becomes “stuff happening” which is the path to audience disinterest.

What I’ll take away: Woody Allen sure knows how to write.

2012 Movie #21 - Aliens (1986) Last night I watched ALIENS for the first time, even though I was convinced I had already seen the film as a kid. “How is this possible?” you ask. When I was a child, I wasn’t allowed to watch R-rated movies. I didn’t see my first R-rated movie until I was well into my mid-teens. But as a result of this ban, I used to do something very strange. I would see posters for R-rated films in the video store or movie theater, and then I would have dreams or day-dreams about what the movie was about. I would have an imaginary version of the movie in my head based on a poster or whatever friends told me about the film. This happened with a lot of horror films like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and FRIDAY THE 13TH. And apparently it happened with ALIENS. The side effect of this is that as I grew older I would forget that I hadn’t actually seen the film. And the imaginary dream version of the film would become the real film in my mind. So every few years I have this experience where I watch an R-rated film for the first time that I’m convinced that I saw as a child (even though when I think about it logically, I realize there is no possible way I saw the film). This happened with A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and I was hugely disappointed when I finally saw the real movie because my memories of the dream version were much scarier. However, after the first scene of ALIENS, I realized that my dream version of the film was vastly inferior to James Cameron’s masterpiece. I suspect I’m going to rewatch ALIENS a few times this year, so I won’t write too much in this first blog entry. But I will say this. ALIENS is without a doubt one of the best action films I have ever seen. What I’ll take away: I want more movies to look like ALIENS. High-res

2012 Movie #21 - Aliens (1986)

Last night I watched ALIENS for the first time, even though I was convinced I had already seen the film as a kid.

“How is this possible?” you ask.

When I was a child, I wasn’t allowed to watch R-rated movies. I didn’t see my first R-rated movie until I was well into my mid-teens. But as a result of this ban, I used to do something very strange. I would see posters for R-rated films in the video store or movie theater, and then I would have dreams or day-dreams about what the movie was about. I would have an imaginary version of the movie in my head based on a poster or whatever friends told me about the film. This happened with a lot of horror films like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and FRIDAY THE 13TH. And apparently it happened with ALIENS.

The side effect of this is that as I grew older I would forget that I hadn’t actually seen the film. And the imaginary dream version of the film would become the real film in my mind. So every few years I have this experience where I watch an R-rated film for the first time that I’m convinced that I saw as a child (even though when I think about it logically, I realize there is no possible way I saw the film). This happened with A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and I was hugely disappointed when I finally saw the real movie because my memories of the dream version were much scarier.

However, after the first scene of ALIENS, I realized that my dream version of the film was vastly inferior to James Cameron’s masterpiece. I suspect I’m going to rewatch ALIENS a few times this year, so I won’t write too much in this first blog entry. But I will say this. ALIENS is without a doubt one of the best action films I have ever seen.

What I’ll take away: I want more movies to look like ALIENS.

2012 Movie #19 - Killer Elite (2011) I’m trying to keep the posts in my film 2012 series positive and instructive, so I will not talk much about the quality of this film. However, I will talk about the idea of “based on a true story” when it comes to narrative filmmaking. KILLER ELITE was released with “based on a true story” as part of its marketing campaign, and gives that clear message in the opening credits of the film. Many of the characters have the names of real people, including one of the characters being Ranulph Fiennes (yes, he’s related to Ralph Fiennes), the author of the book THE FEATHER MEN, which the film was based on. THE FEATHER MEN has alternately been marketed as fiction, non-fiction, and “faction.” In this interview at The Daily Beast, Ranulph Fiennes describes this decision as being relatively mercenary: The idea was to sell more books and at the time, the person who was going to put new books in the bookshop was told to put it in the “fiction” side of the shop or the “non-fiction” side of the shop, and at the time people only read one or the other, so if you put it on both sides of the shop you got both sets of book buyers. The book was originally published including real photographs of the characters in the books, and presented as if its contents could be based on a true story. Today, Fiennes says the book is a work of fiction, but the truth is muddied by the various ways the book has been marketed since its original publication in 1991. In my opinion, some incarnations of the book crossed the line in promoting the “non-fiction” elements of the story, rather than taking on the more responsible genre of “faction.” The film, on the other hand, clearly departs significantly from the plot of the book. It goes so far as to actually drastically change the storyline of Ranulph Fiennes’ character, who is the one person whose participation can be easily verified. Given this huge departure from the book, a source of already dubious veracity, it is clear that the filmmakers have no reasonable belief that they are actually creating a work “based on a true story.” The movie presents real deaths, war actions, and crimes performed by characters with real-world living counterparts, and it presents them under the guise of being “based on a true story.” This is despite the following statement from Fiennes: The publishers and literary agents have written to them and said it was quite clear that they shouldn’t have done that, and that they should change it to words like “inspired by” instead of “based on.” Maybe they’ll change it, but I don’t know. Personally, I find the presentation of this film as being “based on a true story” to be reprehensible. Here’s the weird thing… I have no problem with a work of fiction pretending to be real. I’m fine with it in the case of FARGO and I’m fine with it in the case of the many “found footage” horror films or mockumentaries. These are cases of presenting predominantly fictional characters and situation as being real. They are wholly fictional works being presented as “true” as part of their fiction. However, it’s totally irresponsible to do this once your characters are real people, especially real people who are still alive. I think it’s deeply unethical, and in many cases could considered to be illegal. I assume that the people who made the film feel they are adequately protected legally in their claim that the film is “based on a true story” but that doesn’t relieve them of their ethical obligation of not presenting real people as war criminals and then claiming they’re telling a “true story.” There are actually plenty of suitable alternatives to “based on a true story” that cover situations like this. Some obvious alternatives would be “inspired by a true story” or “inspired by true events” which both weaken the connection to reality. An even better alternative would have been just changing the names of the characters, so they aren’t directly claiming that real people committed unsubstantiated murders and war crimes. This should have been an obvious choice once they changed the story from what was presented in the original book. Of course, the most responsible choice would have been to just present the film as a work of fiction, but then you don’t get the “true story” marketing and publicity hook. The nature of film is that it has a power of becoming real to the viewer. We experience what the characters are going through as if we are going through those same situations. We feel their emotions and think as if we are in their shoes. There is a level of trust implicit in this; that we, the audience, are willing to let you, the filmmaker, control our experience for the next two hours because we trust you will treat that honor with the responsibility it deserves. We want to believe the things we are watching are real, and when you tell us that yes, we did actually watch something real, we take that information with us when we leave the theater. At the very least, we hope that if you are going to mess with the implicit contract between audience and filmmaker you are going to do it for a compelling artistic reason. Not just as a way to market your movie, with the side-effect of causing members of the audience to believe damaging lies about real people and real organizations long after leaving the theater. What I’ll take away: “based on a true story” can provide an interesting marketing hook for a film and can help draw an audience into a film, but should be used responsibly. High-res

2012 Movie #19 - Killer Elite (2011)

I’m trying to keep the posts in my film 2012 series positive and instructive, so I will not talk much about the quality of this film. However, I will talk about the idea of “based on a true story” when it comes to narrative filmmaking.

KILLER ELITE was released with “based on a true story” as part of its marketing campaign, and gives that clear message in the opening credits of the film. Many of the characters have the names of real people, including one of the characters being Ranulph Fiennes (yes, he’s related to Ralph Fiennes), the author of the book THE FEATHER MEN, which the film was based on.

THE FEATHER MEN has alternately been marketed as fiction, non-fiction, and “faction.” In this interview at The Daily Beast, Ranulph Fiennes describes this decision as being relatively mercenary:

The idea was to sell more books and at the time, the person who was going to put new books in the bookshop was told to put it in the “fiction” side of the shop or the “non-fiction” side of the shop, and at the time people only read one or the other, so if you put it on both sides of the shop you got both sets of book buyers.

The book was originally published including real photographs of the characters in the books, and presented as if its contents could be based on a true story. Today, Fiennes says the book is a work of fiction, but the truth is muddied by the various ways the book has been marketed since its original publication in 1991. In my opinion, some incarnations of the book crossed the line in promoting the “non-fiction” elements of the story, rather than taking on the more responsible genre of “faction.”

The film, on the other hand, clearly departs significantly from the plot of the book. It goes so far as to actually drastically change the storyline of Ranulph Fiennes’ character, who is the one person whose participation can be easily verified. Given this huge departure from the book, a source of already dubious veracity, it is clear that the filmmakers have no reasonable belief that they are actually creating a work “based on a true story.”

The movie presents real deaths, war actions, and crimes performed by characters with real-world living counterparts, and it presents them under the guise of being “based on a true story.” This is despite the following statement from Fiennes:

The publishers and literary agents have written to them and said it was quite clear that they shouldn’t have done that, and that they should change it to words like “inspired by” instead of “based on.” Maybe they’ll change it, but I don’t know.

Personally, I find the presentation of this film as being “based on a true story” to be reprehensible.

Here’s the weird thing… I have no problem with a work of fiction pretending to be real. I’m fine with it in the case of FARGO and I’m fine with it in the case of the many “found footage” horror films or mockumentaries. These are cases of presenting predominantly fictional characters and situation as being real. They are wholly fictional works being presented as “true” as part of their fiction.

However, it’s totally irresponsible to do this once your characters are real people, especially real people who are still alive. I think it’s deeply unethical, and in many cases could considered to be illegal. I assume that the people who made the film feel they are adequately protected legally in their claim that the film is “based on a true story” but that doesn’t relieve them of their ethical obligation of not presenting real people as war criminals and then claiming they’re telling a “true story.”

There are actually plenty of suitable alternatives to “based on a true story” that cover situations like this. Some obvious alternatives would be “inspired by a true story” or “inspired by true events” which both weaken the connection to reality. An even better alternative would have been just changing the names of the characters, so they aren’t directly claiming that real people committed unsubstantiated murders and war crimes. This should have been an obvious choice once they changed the story from what was presented in the original book.

Of course, the most responsible choice would have been to just present the film as a work of fiction, but then you don’t get the “true story” marketing and publicity hook.

The nature of film is that it has a power of becoming real to the viewer. We experience what the characters are going through as if we are going through those same situations. We feel their emotions and think as if we are in their shoes. There is a level of trust implicit in this; that we, the audience, are willing to let you, the filmmaker, control our experience for the next two hours because we trust you will treat that honor with the responsibility it deserves. We want to believe the things we are watching are real, and when you tell us that yes, we did actually watch something real, we take that information with us when we leave the theater.

At the very least, we hope that if you are going to mess with the implicit contract between audience and filmmaker you are going to do it for a compelling artistic reason. Not just as a way to market your movie, with the side-effect of causing members of the audience to believe damaging lies about real people and real organizations long after leaving the theater.

What I’ll take away: “based on a true story” can provide an interesting marketing hook for a film and can help draw an audience into a film, but should be used responsibly.

2012 Movie #16 - Merantau (2009) One of the pleasures of bringing a film to a film-festival is the chance to meet other upcoming filmmakers. I find this to be especially true at the Toronto International Film Festival in the Midnight Madness section, where programmer Colin Geddes goes out of his way to foster contact between his filmmakers. I’ve been lucky enough to have three films premiere in the Midnight Madness section at TIFF over the years (ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE, BUNRAKU, and YOU’RE NEXT), and it’s wonderful seeing how Colin is able to build this camaraderie. It’s definitely helped by the odd slot we Midnight Madness filmmakers fill at TIFF, often bringing hardcore genre films to a festival mostly known for launching award contenders. Of the relationships formed between filmmakers in Toronto, and at other festivals like SXSW or Fantastic Fest, some can bloom into real long term friendships. This was the case back in 2006 when we premiered ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY in Toronto the night after Jonathan King premiered BLACK SHEEP. Despite living halfway across the world from each other, Jonathan and I try to meet for a drink whenever we’re in the same town or at the same festival and we’re constantly chatting back on forth via email and Twitter. I also suspect this will also be the case with Gareth Evans, the director of THE RAID and MERANTAU. THE RAID was a Midnight Madness premiere at Toronto 2011, where we premiered YOU’RE NEXT, and I feel like we were sister films at the festival. Adam, Simon, Jess, and I spent a lot of time hanging out with Gareth, Iko Uwais, Joe Taslim, and Todd Brown. Rumor has it Iko and Joe were singing “Looking for the Magic,” the song from YOU’RE NEXT, for their whole stay in Toronto, and long after returning to Indonesia. We’ve all struck up a long distance Twitter back-and-forth, and I’m sure Adam and Simon will be hanging out with Gareth a lot at Sundance next week. So last night we all decided to watch Gareth’s first film MERANTAU. It’s fascinating seeing MERANTAU after seeing THE RAID, because you can definitely see the lessons that Gareth and his team learned making the leap from their first feature to their second feature. The stunt choreography is still unbelievably awesome in MERANTAU, but you can really see Gareth and the fight team embrace their techniques more in THE RAID. There is also an economy of storytelling pace in THE RAID that feels like a direct response to the more indirect storytelling style of MERANTAU. On the whole I definitely recommend checking out MERANTAU. Get a flavor of what Gareth, Iko, and company can bring to the screen, and then blow your minds out when THE RAID is released by Sony in 2012. What I’ll take away: in an action film, you can’t go wrong with punching a bad guy and then dropping them off a building. High-res

2012 Movie #16 - Merantau (2009)

One of the pleasures of bringing a film to a film-festival is the chance to meet other upcoming filmmakers. I find this to be especially true at the

Toronto International Film Festival in the Midnight Madness section, where programmer Colin Geddes goes out of his way to foster contact between his filmmakers. I’ve been lucky enough to have three films premiere in the Midnight Madness section at TIFF over the years (ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE, BUNRAKU, and YOU’RE NEXT), and it’s wonderful seeing how Colin is able to build this camaraderie. It’s definitely helped by the odd slot we Midnight Madness filmmakers fill at TIFF, often bringing hardcore genre films to a festival mostly known for launching award contenders.

Of the relationships formed between filmmakers in Toronto, and at other festivals like SXSW or Fantastic Fest, some can bloom into real long term friendships. This was the case back in 2006 when we premiered ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY in Toronto the night after Jonathan King premiered BLACK SHEEP. Despite living halfway across the world from each other, Jonathan and I try to meet for a drink whenever we’re in the same town or at the same festival and we’re constantly chatting back on forth via email and Twitter.

I also suspect this will also be the case with Gareth Evans, the director of THE RAID and MERANTAU. THE RAID was a Midnight Madness premiere at Toronto 2011, where we premiered YOU’RE NEXT, and I feel like we were sister films at the festival. Adam, Simon, Jess, and I spent a lot of time hanging out with Gareth, Iko Uwais, Joe Taslim, and Todd Brown. Rumor has it Iko and Joe were singing “Looking for the Magic,” the song from YOU’RE NEXT, for their whole stay in Toronto, and long after returning to Indonesia. We’ve all struck up a long distance Twitter back-and-forth, and I’m sure Adam and Simon will be hanging out with Gareth a lot at Sundance next week.

So last night we all decided to watch Gareth’s first film MERANTAU. It’s fascinating seeing MERANTAU after seeing THE RAID, because you can definitely see the lessons that Gareth and his team learned making the leap from their first feature to their second feature. The stunt choreography is still unbelievably awesome in MERANTAU, but you can really see Gareth and the fight team embrace their techniques more in THE RAID. There is also an economy of storytelling pace in THE RAID that feels like a direct response to the more indirect storytelling style of MERANTAU.

On the whole I definitely recommend checking out MERANTAU. Get a flavor of what Gareth, Iko, and company can bring to the screen, and then blow your minds out when THE RAID is released by Sony in 2012.

What I’ll take away: in an action film, you can’t go wrong with punching a bad guy and then dropping them off a building.

2012 Movie #13 - Demolition Man (1993) I am an unabashed fan of DEMOLITION MAN. I’ve seen the film probably 10 times, although this viewing is the first time I’ve seen it for over a decade. I need to remedy that, and watch this film again every few years. The most fascinating aspect of DEMOLITION MAN is that it works not only as both a big-budget straightforward science-fiction action film but also as a sly satire of early 90s American culture including big-budget straightforward science-fiction action films! The biggest discovery from this recent viewing resulted from the impetus to figure out what happened to the director of DEMOLITION MAN. When the film ended, I just couldn’t figure out why Marco Brambilla didn’t become a huge Hollywood director. He only directed two features, DEMOLITION MAN and EXCESS BAGGAGE (not as good as DEMOLITION MAN). He directed the miniseries DINOTOPIA in 2002. He also directed a segment in the DESTRICTED anthology. And that’s it. At first I thought he was just another case of a director who maybe got screwed around by the studio system, maybe was a difficult personality, or any other reason why talented people somehow get a series of unlucky breaks. But the credit on DESTRICTED is what gave me the clue to keep searching. DESTRICTED is an anthology film with segments directed by Marina Abramovic, Matthew Barney, Larry Clark, Gaspar Noé, Richard Prince, Sam Taylor-Wood, and…Marco Brambilla. Now this list contains a lot of high-profile “auteur” filmmakers, and I was fascinated by the inclusion of Marco Brambilla. A director whose only other IMDB credits are DEMOLITION MAN, EXCESS BAGGAGE, and DINOTOPIA. Despite my love of DEMOLITION MAN, none of these are considered artistic high-points or “auteur” driven works. Why was Brambilla included in this anthology? So my search continued, and I quickly stumbled onto Marco Brambilla’s personal website. The answer became clear. Brambilla is a successful and in my opinion, quite incredible, video artist. You’ve probably seen at least one of his video art pieces, as he created the promo for Kanye West’s POWER, setting the stage for what I consider to be the defining work of Kanye’s career with the release of “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.” Amusingly, back in 2001, Brambilla had an exhibition called In Action, at Henry Urbach Architecture in New York with a piece called Sequel described as: “Film footage of Sylvester Stallone in Brambilla’s 1993 debut feature-film, Demolition Man, is re-photographed through the gate of a 35mm projector. The movement of the film is gradually slowed down until the intense light from the projector arc lamp starts to disintegrate the celluloid.” The scene in question is the one of Sylvestor Stallone being cryogenically frozen. Here’s a still image from the piece, and you can clearly see Stallone’s figure. I feel oddly validated in my love of DEMOLITION MAN seeing what Marco Brambilla has been doing since then, and I suspect he’s finding more creative satisfaction in his new career than many of his fellow 90s action directors. Some more excerpts from Marco Brambilla video art. (I believe that full versions of most of his pieces aren’t available online, but you can find his work in many galleries around the world.) Flashback (POV), 2010Christopher Grimes Gallery, Santa Monica Flashback is the first in a series of sampled works exploring subliminal collective consciousness in film. This piece weaves together Film Noir imagery to create a kinetic video canvas visualizing the spectrum of human emotion and recall using the principles of cognitive psychology. Civilization (Megaplex), 2008Collection Fundacion Sorigue, Lleida, Spain Civilization is a multi-layered tableau of interconnecting images that illustrates a contemporary, satirical take on the concepts of eternal punishment and celestial reward. More than 300 individual channels of looped video are blended into an expansive landscape that continuously scrolls upward, from the depths of hell to the gates of heaven.  Sync, 2005Private Collection, HoustonCollection Metronome Foundation for Contemporary Art, Barcelona Sync features three screens of densely edited film footage, each organized around a different theme—fight scenes, sex scenes, and theater audiences—all progressing at the rate of 12 shots per second. Overlaying all three is a violently percussive audio montage. The result is a new visual choreography that rapidly builds to a state of sensory overload, emphasizing how viewers develop a resistance to graphic sex and brutality, both in the movies and in the news media in general.  See more on Marco Brambilla’s website or on the Christopher Grimes Gallery website. High-res

2012 Movie #13 - Demolition Man (1993)

I am an unabashed fan of DEMOLITION MAN. I’ve seen the film probably 10 times, although this viewing is the first time I’ve seen it for over a decade. I need to remedy that, and watch this film again every few years. The most fascinating aspect of DEMOLITION MAN is that it works not only as both a big-budget straightforward science-fiction action film but also as a sly satire of early 90s American culture including big-budget straightforward science-fiction action films!

The biggest discovery from this recent viewing resulted from the impetus to figure out what happened to the director of DEMOLITION MAN. When the film ended, I just couldn’t figure out why Marco Brambilla didn’t become a huge Hollywood director. He only directed two features, DEMOLITION MAN and EXCESS BAGGAGE (not as good as DEMOLITION MAN). He directed the miniseries DINOTOPIA in 2002. He also directed a segment in the DESTRICTED anthology. And that’s it.

At first I thought he was just another case of a director who maybe got screwed around by the studio system, maybe was a difficult personality, or any other reason why talented people somehow get a series of unlucky breaks.

But the credit on DESTRICTED is what gave me the clue to keep searching. DESTRICTED is an anthology film with segments directed by Marina Abramovic, Matthew Barney, Larry Clark, Gaspar Noé, Richard Prince, Sam Taylor-Wood, and…Marco Brambilla. Now this list contains a lot of high-profile “auteur” filmmakers, and I was fascinated by the inclusion of Marco Brambilla. A director whose only other IMDB credits are DEMOLITION MAN, EXCESS BAGGAGE, and DINOTOPIA. Despite my love of DEMOLITION MAN, none of these are considered artistic high-points or “auteur” driven works. Why was Brambilla included in this anthology?

So my search continued, and I quickly stumbled onto Marco Brambilla’s personal website. The answer became clear. Brambilla is a successful and in my opinion, quite incredible, video artist. You’ve probably seen at least one of his video art pieces, as he created the promo for Kanye West’s POWER, setting the stage for what I consider to be the defining work of Kanye’s career with the release of “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.”

Amusingly, back in 2001, Brambilla had an exhibition called In Action, at Henry Urbach Architecture in New York with a piece called Sequel described as:

“Film footage of Sylvester Stallone in Brambilla’s 1993 debut feature-film, Demolition Man, is re-photographed through the gate of a 35mm projector. The movement of the film is gradually slowed down until the intense light from the projector arc lamp starts to disintegrate the celluloid.”

The scene in question is the one of Sylvestor Stallone being cryogenically frozen. Here’s a still image from the piece, and you can clearly see Stallone’s figure.

I feel oddly validated in my love of DEMOLITION MAN seeing what Marco Brambilla has been doing since then, and I suspect he’s finding more creative satisfaction in his new career than many of his fellow 90s action directors.

Some more excerpts from Marco Brambilla video art. (I believe that full versions of most of his pieces aren’t available online, but you can find his work in many galleries around the world.)

Flashback (POV), 2010
Christopher Grimes Gallery, Santa Monica

Flashback is the first in a series of sampled works exploring subliminal collective consciousness in film. This piece weaves together Film Noir imagery to create a kinetic video canvas visualizing the spectrum of human emotion and recall using the principles of cognitive psychology.

Civilization (Megaplex), 2008
Collection Fundacion Sorigue, Lleida, Spain

Civilization is a multi-layered tableau of interconnecting images that illustrates a contemporary, satirical take on the concepts of eternal punishment and celestial reward. More than 300 individual channels of looped video are blended into an expansive landscape that continuously scrolls upward, from the depths of hell to the gates of heaven. 

Sync, 2005
Private Collection, Houston
Collection Metronome Foundation for Contemporary Art, Barcelona

Sync features three screens of densely edited film footage, each organized around a different theme—fight scenes, sex scenes, and theater audiences—all progressing at the rate of 12 shots per second. Overlaying all three is a violently percussive audio montage. The result is a new visual choreography that rapidly builds to a state of sensory overload, emphasizing how viewers develop a resistance to graphic sex and brutality, both in the movies and in the news media in general. 

See more on Marco Brambilla’s website or on the Christopher Grimes Gallery website.

Quick RT - A Simple Rotten Tomatoes Interface

Screenshot of Quick RT

QuickRT is a simple webservice I created using the Rotten Tomatoes API last year. It’s a quick way to look up the Rotten Tomatoes score for any film, and to get an overview of how current releases are scoring. I love Rotten Tomatoes, but their website makes it unnecessarily complex to look up just Rotten Tomato score information for individual films.

Originally I made QuickRT for myself, but I suspect it’s pretty useful for any film fan.

John Holdun helped out with the design, and I think between the two of us we spent less than a day putting it together. Small projects like this can be a fun palate cleanser, and I hope to do more in 2012.

a note from Ti West on piracy

Every time you purchase something you are making a statement. You are creating physical evidence that something has value. If something has a high value, then it becomes in high demand. So if you make a concerted effort to support lesser-known, interesting and esoteric things (Art?) then you are helping make those lesser-known things more popular. I’m sure we can all agree that there are incredible movies made every year that never get the attention they deserve - That’s not the movies’ fault. That is our collective fault for not being proactive enough to GO OUT OF OUR WAY to support them.

Filmmaker Ti West has written a heartfelt letter to the Internet, requesting that you do not pirate his new film THE INNKEEPERS. I hope letters like this become a more common occurrence. People should know that pirating independent films has a huge negative impact on people they want to support, and on the future of films that they might want to see.

Most independent distributors I know already think it’s pointless to release interesting independent films for young people. They think young people will only show up for blockbusters, and will pirate anything else. And this attitude is getting worse, because the evidence supports it. The audience for interesting youthful independent films is the same audience that heavily pirates online. Distributors and film financiers want to make films for a viable market, and you’re not a market if you don’t pay for content. Your taste literally stops mattering, and the content will be determined by people who still pay for content.

Do you want to live in a world where RESERVOIR DOGS or PULP FICTION wouldn’t be able to get made, because the distributors all assume its audience would just pirate it? Because that’s where we’re headed right now.

I’ve heard all the counterarguments, but in the end they’re just rationalizations. It comes down to this: people pirate because they want to watch whatever movie they want whenever they want for whatever price they want to pay. As a consumer, I understand that. Why wouldn’t you want that? That’s not something that the traditional distribution system gives them, but it is something that piracy offers them. I’m sure people would also love to have Apple give them a free iPhone every year, but Apple isn’t going to do that. Apple charges money because they are a business with a huge staff and expenses that go into actually designing, making, and distribution the iPhone. But you can’t torrent an iPhone, so people buy into Apple’s system.

Piracy can offer you a better short-term deal than the traditional distribution system because piracy doesn’t actually have to make movies, but in the long-term you are destroying the ability for interesting new films to be made.

Yes, there are a lot of annoying limitations on how films are released in the traditional distribution system. The films are released in different territories at different times and they are released on different media at different times. It’s confusing and it’s frustrating. But the whole purpose for this system is to try to recoup the cost of making movies, and hopefully even make a profit.

The types of films that can make money are the types of films that keep getting made. That is the simple math of the film industry. When someone loves a film they didn’t pay for, that’s a vote that doesn’t get counted. When someone hates a film they did pay for, that’s a vote for more movies like that. So if you pay to see TRANSFORMERS 3 in theaters and pirate THE INNKEEPERS, it’s a vote that you want more films like TRANSFORMERS 3 and don’t want films like THE INNKEEPERS.

I don’t point this out to bash TRANSFORMERS 3, but I know a lot of people who hated the film and saw it in the theater. I know some of these people also pirated smaller films that they liked. To the filmmaking and distribution system it doesn’t matter what you like, it matters what you pay for.

Make your voice count by watching films in the system. That might mean seeing films in the theater, or if you want to save money, it might mean watching them on Netflix or TV. These things all “count” and have a direct impact on what films are made in the future. Vote with your money, or your taste will be ignored.

I had the pleasure of watching TO BE OR NOT TO BE at Edgar Wright’s recent film series at the New Beverly. This film was a revelation for me. It’s the first Ernst Lubitsch film I’ve ever seen, and I was blown away by his nimble ability with tone and pace. It’s a delight to discover how well “the Lubitsch touch” works decades after his films were made. Part of the joy of the experience was being able to watch a timeless comedy with a real audience. If you live near a revival theater like the New Beverly Cinema, I highly recommend that you take advantage of their offerings. Yes, we live in an age where it’s possible to see almost any classic film in the comfort of our own homes, but it’s a pale shadow of the experience of watching a great film on a big screen with an appreciative audience. I say this from experience. When you make a film, you have a unique opportunity. You get to watch the same film hundreds of times in a variety of settings including huge theaters, office screening rooms, living rooms, edit suites, sound mixing stages, and yes, even on mobile devices. You get to see the film by yourself, with a small group, with a full theater, and if you’re lucky, in a crowd of thousands. And from all these experiences, I’ve learned one thing: Every single film I’ve made plays significantly better with a large audience. I assume the same is true of almost every film ever made. This is especially true of visceral reaction genres such as comedy, horror, and action. When we watch a film with an audience we react to a film taking into account the emotional response of the people around us. This is why a laugh-track on television “works.” We are built to share emotional experience, and we consciously and unconsciously react to the emotions of people around us. Funny moments play funnier because we can share them. Sad moments player sadder because we can share them. Scary moments are scarier because our fears build on those of the audience around us. Now I understand the attraction of watching films at home, and in all honesty I watch more films on DVD or Bluray than I do in theaters. But whenever I discover a great film at home for the first time, my first thought is that I wish I had seen it with an audience. The greatest emotional experience of home-watching still falls short of a shared laugh in a dark theater full of strangers. So now I’m going to be on a hunt to watch more Lubitsch classics, and Edgar’s wonderful series has me excited to fill my own film viewing gaps. I just regret I’ll have to watch them at home, and not with the contagious enthusiasm of an appreciative audience. High-res

I had the pleasure of watching TO BE OR NOT TO BE at Edgar Wright’s recent film series at the New Beverly.

This film was a revelation for me. It’s the first Ernst Lubitsch film I’ve ever seen, and I was blown away by his nimble ability with tone and pace. It’s a delight to discover how well “the Lubitsch touch” works decades after his films were made.

Part of the joy of the experience was being able to watch a timeless comedy with a real audience. If you live near a revival theater like the New Beverly Cinema, I highly recommend that you take advantage of their offerings. Yes, we live in an age where it’s possible to see almost any classic film in the comfort of our own homes, but it’s a pale shadow of the experience of watching a great film on a big screen with an appreciative audience.

I say this from experience. When you make a film, you have a unique opportunity. You get to watch the same film hundreds of times in a variety of settings including huge theaters, office screening rooms, living rooms, edit suites, sound mixing stages, and yes, even on mobile devices. You get to see the film by yourself, with a small group, with a full theater, and if you’re lucky, in a crowd of thousands. And from all these experiences, I’ve learned one thing:

Every single film I’ve made plays significantly better with a large audience.

I assume the same is true of almost every film ever made. This is especially true of visceral reaction genres such as comedy, horror, and action.

When we watch a film with an audience we react to a film taking into account the emotional response of the people around us. This is why a laugh-track on television “works.” We are built to share emotional experience, and we consciously and unconsciously react to the emotions of people around us. Funny moments play funnier because we can share them. Sad moments player sadder because we can share them. Scary moments are scarier because our fears build on those of the audience around us.

Now I understand the attraction of watching films at home, and in all honesty I watch more films on DVD or Bluray than I do in theaters. But whenever I discover a great film at home for the first time, my first thought is that I wish I had seen it with an audience. The greatest emotional experience of home-watching still falls short of a shared laugh in a dark theater full of strangers.

So now I’m going to be on a hunt to watch more Lubitsch classics, and Edgar’s wonderful series has me excited to fill my own film viewing gaps. I just regret I’ll have to watch them at home, and not with the contagious enthusiasm of an appreciative audience.

Louis CK: Live at the Beacon Theater

I’m sure you’ve seen this already, but for the people who haven’t, here is my sales pitch for Mr. Louis CK.

Louis CK is selling a standup special “Live at the Beacon Theater” for $5 via his own personal website storefront. He paid for the recording of the special, and is paying for the distribution and the marketing of the special. For its first wave of distribution, he is eschewing every traditional distribution method (including the new distribution models of iTunes and NetFlix) in order to reach his fanbase directly.

He’s also providing the special with no DRM (Digital Rights Management) technology. This essentially means that he is letting people download the special, and watch it wherever they want whenever they want for as long as they want. He isn’t creating artificial digital rules on how the content can be viewed. This is exciting, and shows that Louis is trusting his audience to be good people.

The result of this trust is that Louis has grossed over $500,000 in sales in just four days. He’s well into profit on the venture, and I suspect is going to have a model that he can use for the rest of his career as a comedian.

As an independent filmmaker, this is something I want to support. Louis made an independent film (albeit a comedy concert film) and is self-releasing it online. This is a model that I hope can be successful for a wide variety of filmmakers, and allows them to grow a direct relationship with their fans.

So I suggest buying Louis CK’s new stand up special for two reasons:

  1. Support a fan-friendly and positive model for artists to generate revenue.
  2. Louis CK is hilarious, and the stand-up special will make you laugh.

The Arc of Awesome

[This post originated on a message board I participate on, and I thought it was worth sharing. I made some minor edits before republishing here. The question was regarding character arcs in a film or screenplay, and whether they were necessary. Here is my reply, which goes somewhat against the traditional studio development opinion.]

There exists a different kind of arc in a film. It’s related to a character arc, except the character doesn’t change. It’s the Arc of Awesome.

The Arc of Awesome occurs when the main character is so awesome that his awesomeness causes the entire world of the movie to arc. He can’t arc because he started the movie amazingly awesome, so obviously there’s nowhere for him to go other than to continue being awesome. The best you’ll get in an Arc of Awesome is that you’ll keep peeling back layers of awesomeness to see even more awesomeness underneath.

This extends beyond action films like 300. You can see it in a movie like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. That’s a movie with an Arc of Awesome. Ferris is so awesome that he helps everyone else arc as characters. But how can Ferris arc? He’s awesome at the beginning and he’s awesome at the end.

I think the traditional James Bond film is another version of this.

I think the reason why studios love making “origin” superhero movies is that it’s a way to insert a normal character arc onto a character that really should just have an Arc of Awesome. Batman doesn’t need an arc, he’s too awesome. He makes Gotham arc. He makes the villains arc. The only real arc you can find for Batman is the arc that starts with him as rich boring Bruce Wayne and ends with him as rich awesome Batman. Maybe you can give him a subtle re-evaluation on the ethics of crime-fighting or some slight adjustment of his position on women, but really these are just ways to point out that he’s awesome.

For example, Bourne Identity is a movie about unpeeling the layers of awesome. We get to discover an awesome character as he discovers himself. Bourne’s “arc” (which isn’t really an arc) is that of self-discovery. He literally finds out over the course of the movie that he is insanely awesome. It’s a brilliant way to approach an Origin of Awesomeness story line without having to deal with that pesky “he’s not awesome yet” part of the story.

In general, you have three options when you make a movie with an awesome main character.

  1. Your arc is the path of them going from not-awesome to awesome (see origin story). 
  2. Your arc is some tiny thing, like James Bond learning how to use chopsticks, that really has no impact on the awesomeness of the character. 
  3. Your character doesn’t arc, he just continues to be awesome and your movie is a showcase for his awesomitude.