On a macro level, I think there are two ways to exist in this world as a filmmaker and film producer. Either you make as many movies as possible, and attempt to create a large library of “content” that has value mostly because of its size. If you have a sizable library, you have value to a lot of the new distribution systems just for that quantity. And if you're making enough of these films, you can start negotiating directly with the growing number of platforms around the world for full library distribution deals. You basically create value by being part of the noise that makes up the bed of mass content availability.

This is not the path for me. I've never been able to think in quantity terms. It's hard to produce mass amounts of quantity while still caring about the individual pieces of art that make up that library. I just can't do it.

So the second path is to focus on individual films. Artisanal filmmaking. But how do you make individual films stand out against the numbing noise of infinite content? How do you get someone to pull your book off the shelf in a library the size of the world?

For the record, I have almost no demonstrable success at figuring out the answer to this question. But it's the question that haunts every decision I make as a producer, and here's my current thinking on the topic.

I think the first approach to successful artisanal filmmaking is to make a movie that people think will deliver the same pleasure they got from something else that they love. This is where sequels and prequels and reboots and remakes and adaptations and franchises live. It's Bohemian Rhapsody. It's The Fate of the Furious. It's The Lego Movie. It's all the Star Wars and all the Avengers and all the Bonds. It's a direct attempt to stand out in the marketplace by latching onto something the audience already cares about.

But there are also indirect ways to fulfill this approach. You can promise the same pleasure of a prior entertainment experience through artist affiliation. It's Jordan Peele's new movie. It's a new Denzel Washington movie. It's “from the producer of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.” It's “from the writer of TRAINING DAY.”

And then there are the trickier indirect ways to make audiences think they're returning to the same well. This is where we get into what I call echo movies. Taken is a movie with dozens of echoes. Similar feeling movies that ride in the wake of Taken's success. In the 90s, there was a booming industry of Quentin Tarantino echo movies. People see them because they hope the echo of a movie will bring them the same joy as the original. This is a dangerous place to be. Some echo movies can be a big success, but some of the biggest disasters of recent years are echo movies that either misjudged the appeal of the original or misjudged the continued appeal of this type of echo. At some point you start dealing with echoes of echoes of echoes and people can tell there's no there there. You get RIPD, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Cowboys and Aliens.

The key to success in this world seems to be knowing when audiences want more of the same, and then aggressively marketing your film to that audience. Spending a ton of money to remind people they like things like this, and here's the new thing like this. The risk of this approach is that you get the echo wrong and you're just spending tens of millions of dollars to remind people that no actually they don't want to see more of this. They've seen enough of it. Because that's how this works. People get sick of the echoes of echoes of echoes. They've had enough of Saw-likes and Taken-ishes. They want something new.

That's the other approach. Making something new. It's a much harder path to hew, but I think you can also stand out in the sea of noise by being unique. Being so different from everything else, that you force people to acknowledge and discuss you. Giving people joy in a way they haven't experienced it before. This is Boyhood and Birdman. This is Searching and Moonlight. This is Inception and Arrival. These are the movies that other people will echo. These are the splash in the pond, and every other movie is just a ripple. This is where I want to live.

The risk here is that maybe people don't give a shit that you made something unique.

I haven't quite figured that part out yet.

#Film #Filmmaking

As a young teen, I found out that there was a “Highlander” TV show, and I became obsessed with it. That was my Highlander experience. Duncan MacLeod was my Highlander, and Adrian Paul was a movie-star to me.

I am Duncan MacLeod, born four hundred years ago in the Highlands of Scotland. I am Immortal and I am not alone. For centuries we have waited for the time of the Gathering, when the stroke of a sword and the fall of a head will release the power of the Quickening. In the end, there can be only one.

Yup, that's my Highlander.

Years later, I was finally allowed to watch R-rated movies and I bought a bunch of DVDs to catch up on what I had missed as a kid. One of those discs was the Highlander movie. I started working my way through the pile of discs, falling in love with films like Terminator, Total Recall, and Robocop. I finally got to Highlander, but when I opened the case the disc was cracked in half down the middle. Shit. I went on with my life, and the rest of the pile of DVDs.

After college, I moved to Los Angeles to go to a graduate film program. I bought more stacks of DVDs, trying to catch up on my film education. And there it was in the bargain pile, Highlander on DVD. Of course I bought it.

A few days later, I was ready to watch Highlander. I open the case, and this disc is also cracked in half down the middle! Now I don't know if there was some screw up at the DVD factory when it came to make the Highlander discs, but I have another theory. Duncan MacLeod won't let me watch another incarnation of Highlander.

A couple years ago, still a virgin to all things Highlander movie, I was on a long-haul flight from Los Angeles to Dubai on an Emirates flight. The kind of flight where you have time to watch a lot of movies, and the type of plane that has a huge selection. They have Highlander. Finally!

It's about 40 minutes in. I'm really into the movie. It has swords and immortal heroes and epic parking garage fights and Sean Connery. I could see this replacing the TV show as the canonical Highlander for me. And then it happens. The movie file seems to be corrupt, and it just won't play any further without horrible stuttering and audio dropouts. Shit. Duncan MacLeod's blade comes crashing down once again on the neck of the Highlander movie.

But no worries, I have another long leg of travel coming up from Dubai to Johannesburg. I'll just pick up where I left off.

Seatbelt fastened. Plane in the air. Time to browse the movie list. OK, good, here's Highlander. Let's get it going. Fast forward to where I left off. Play. Shit. The same corrupt movie file! Somehow Duncan MacLeod has destroyed every digital copy of the Highlander movie traveling around world on Emirates airplanes.

So now I've given up. There can only be one, and his name is Duncan not Connor.

#Film #Highlander #ThereCanOnlyBeOne

[This post was originally published on February 21, 2012 on my old blog at keithcalder.com.]

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.

#Film #Filmmaking #Screenwriting #Directing #AlexanderMackendrick #SweetSmellOfSuccess #TheLadykillers

Because it's really fucking good.

[This post was originally published on February 15, 2012 on my old blog at keithcalder.com.]

For Valentine's Day 2012, 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.

#Film #Filmmaking #DirtyDancing

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 update this list if I find a book of exceptional value.

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

On Film-Making by Alexander Mackendrick This is my favorite book about the overall craft of writing and directing film. Here is my longer article about On Film-Making.

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.

#Film #Reading #FilmBooks #Filmmaking #Screenwriting #Directing #Cinematography

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.

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 (1984) designed by Witold Dybowski

Back to the Future (1986) designed by Mieczyslaw Wasilewski

Danton (1993) by designed by Wieslaw Walkuski

Jaws (1977) designed by Andrzej Dudzinski

Jaws 2 (1980) designed by Edward Lutczyn

Rocky (1978) designed by Edward Lutczyn

Rosemary's Baby (1984) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski

Storming Monday (1988) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski

The Graduate (1973) designed by Maciej Zbikowski

The Omen (1977) designed by Andrzej Klimowski

Un Chien Andalou (1996) designed by Wieslaw Walkuski

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

• The Polish Film Poster Database
• 50 Incredible Film Posters From Poland at Well Medicated
• Modern Polish Film Posters by Polish design firm Homework
• The Polish Poster Gallery
• My favorite Polish poster artist, Wieslaw Walkuski, has an official website with a gallery featuring some of Walkuski's incredible poster work.
• You can also buy Polish posters from polishposter.com (I have no information on how reliable this company is, so please let me know if you have had experience with them.)

#Film #MoviePosters #Art #Poland #Alien #Airplane #BackToTheFuture #Danton #Jaws #Jaws2 #Rocky #RosemarysBaby #StormingMonday #TheGraduate #TheOmen #UnChienAndalou

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.

[A version of this post was originally published on January 15, 2012 on my old blog at keithcalder.com.]

#Film #Filmmaking #Ethics #KillerElite

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.

[This post was originally published on December 17, 2011 on my old blog at keithcalder.com.]

#Film #ErnstLubitsch #ToBeOrNotToBe #FilmReview

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 her awesomeness causes the entire world of the movie to arc. She can't arc because she started the movie amazingly awesome, so obviously there's nowhere for her 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.

#Film #ScreenWriting #FilmTheory #CharacterArcs #300 #BourneIdentity #FerrisBuellersDayOff

My friend Cole Abaius from Film School Rejects asked me to participate in an experiment to make an alternative to the canonical Sight & Sound Greatest Films list. The request was simple: to provide my “Top Ten Movies Of All Time, ranked.” He then compiled all the entries into this master list.

At first I thought this would be a fun diversion, but it turned out to be incredibly stressful. Who am I to not include a single Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa film on my Top 10 list? Have I betrayed my beloved Face/Off by not including it? Am I really so anglo-centric that I can't find room for foreign language masterpieces? At the end of the day, I'm upset at myself for not finding a way to put at least 100 movies on my top 10 list. The entire idea of a top 10 list is a bit wonky to me, as I believe it's impossible to rank and organize the impact and quality of different works of art, but I think a finished list can still provide a helpful guide to other film explorers and it can be an interesting insight into the mind of the list-maker. So here we go…

THE RULES I am using a few simple self-imposed rules to narrow down the playing field:

• Only one film per director.
• Only films I have seen (obviously).
• Only films I love personally.
• Only films that I consider to be of exceptionally high quality.
• Only films that I think have had an impact on the overall path of filmmaking.

THE LIST

1) THE GRADUATE (1967) This is personally my favorite film of all time, and I also consider it to be one of the finest achievements in the craft of filmmaking across almost all departments. So you shouldn't be surprised to find it at the top of my list. I could spend my entire life studying The Graduate, and I still would still be awestruck by its excellence. It was a big wake-up call to the American film industry, both creatively and commercially. The Graduate sets the stage for the 1970s in its visual style, editing, casting, and through the use of non-diegetic popular music. I honestly think if this movie were released today, it would set off a creative revolution all over again. The film still plays fresh and inventive, even though it has been copied so many times over the years. It's also easy to forget how commercially successful this film was. What was essentially a low-budget independent film grossed over $100m in 1967, which would be over $650m in 2012 dollars.

2) CASABLANCA (1942) This movie could be number one if it were in color. Just kidding. It would also have to star Dustin Hoffman.

3) LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962) LOA isn't just an epic film; it is the epic film. The scope of this production is jaw-dropping, and it has to be seen projected in 70mm at a good theater to truly appreciate the achievement. And when you pick your jaw up off the floor, remember the most incredible thing: Lawrence of Arabia is an independent film.

4) RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981) Just thinking about this movie makes me want to watch it right now.

5) STAR WARS (1977) It's hard for me to figure out how to approach Star Wars. I grew up watching it on a crappy VHS on a crappy television, and yet it exists in my mind's eye not as a noisy tiny image, and not as a beautifully projected film. It exists as a memory as real as anything else from my life. I feel like I've been there, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, and George Lucas's film just reminded me of those days. Everything post-1977 aside, Star Wars used the creative technology of film to build a powerful global shared myth. It managed to combine a global distribution system with a singular piece of narrative art to do something almost overnight that historically had taken generations. Our Greek gods, our Knights of the Round Table, our fairy tales are Star Wars and the Marvel and DC heroes. Star Wars shook the world, and I think people dismiss its huge power too easily when they use the critical tools you would apply to fiction with more traditional goals.

6) CHINATOWN (1974) You can bring back the critical tools you apply to fiction with more traditional goals. Onions watch Chinatown to learn how to have layers.

7) THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965) I love musicals, and The Sound of Music is my favorite film musical of all time. On top of that, I think the film is incredibly well made even beyond just the music. Some obvious standout aspects being Ernest Lehman's screenplay adaptation and Ted McCord's remarkable cinematography. Plus it makes me smile and want to be a better person.

8) OLDBOY (2003) Of all the films on my list, I suspect this is the one I have ranked too low. Oldboy is a dirty miracle. It lies waiting in the dark crevices and alleys of my mind. The parts of my mind that make me uncomfortable standing on a tall building not because I'm afraid I might fall but because I'm afraid I might push the person standing next to me. Of course, the good parts of my mind are filled with The Sound of Music so I just end up singing instead.

9) THE FLY (1986) That's right. I think that a remake is one of the ten best films of all time. For me, The Fly is the ultimate horror film. It does what only true horror can do, and makes you realize there truly are fates worse than death. And it does it through the framework of a heartbreakingly real tragic love story.

10) TOY STORY (1995) This is the movie that set the bar for feature-length CG-animation, and it's the film that launched Pixar. Those two things alone warrant giving the film major consideration just for historical impact, but beyond that Toy Story is a damn good movie. A filmmaking friend of mine says that the best movies are ones where it feels like the medium of film was invented just to make this movie. Well in the case of Toy Story it's actually true.

So that's my list. At least, that's my list today. I'm sure if you asked me tomorrow most of the films would be different. And I'm sure if you asked me the next day, they'd change all over again. But for now here's a snapshot of what I consider to be celluloid greatness. If you disagree, and I'm sure you do, feel free to create your own list or drop me a line on Twitter @keithcalder.

For the curious, here is my list of honorable mentions in alphabetical order…

• About A Boy
• Aliens
• All That Jazz
• Amadeus
• Annie Hall
• Back To The Future
• The Battle Of Algiers
• A Better Tomorrow
• Bottle Rocket
• A Clockwork Orange
• The Conformist
• The Conversation
• Cool Hand Luke
• Die Hard
• Dirty Dancing
• The Empire Strikes Back
• Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
• Face/off
• The Godfather Part 2
• Groundhog Day
• A Hard Day’s Night
• Hero
• Hoop Dreams
• Inception
• Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom
• Infernal Affairs
• Inglourious Basterds
• It Happened One Night
• Jerry Maguire
• Jurassic Park
• Kill Bill: Volume 1
• The Killer
• Manhattan
• Mary Poppins
• The Matrix
• Monty Python And The Holy Grail
• My Neighbor Totoro
• Network
• Oliver!
• Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
• Pulp Fiction
• Ran
• Ratatouille
• Ringu
• The Road Warrior
• Robocop
• Romancing The Stone
• Rushmore
• Scream
• Se7en
• Silence Of The Lambs
• The Sixth Sense
• Strangers On A Train
• Straw Dogs
• Strictly Ballroom
• Sullivan’s Travels
• Sunset Blvd.
• There Will Be Blood
• The Thing
• To Be Or Not To Be
• To Kill A Mockingbird
• To Live
• Unforgiven
• When Harry Met Sally

#Film #MovieLists #SightAndSound #TheGraduate #Casablanca #LawrenceOfArabia #RaidersOfTheLostArk #StarWars #Chinatown #TheSoundOfMusic #Oldboy #TheFly #ToyStory