Remember this bright idea?
It would force me to make 4 short films in 2008. The first was a man vs. man documentary.
Okay, cue the chorus from “Loser” by Beck.
I offer no apologies and I make no excuses. Let us simply look ahead to short film #2.
According to the April 2nd weather report in the LA Times, I owe you an animated film about man vs. society. It’s due to be uploaded on July 1st.
Time to kick some ass!
If you read the weather forecast in the January 2nd edition of the LA Times you know they’re calling for a short documentary about man vs. man due April 1. Have no idea what I’m talking about? Then you didn’t read this earlier post.
Time to get cracking.
In an attempt to boost my creative output, I’m putting up a short film challenge to myself. The rules are simple. I have to make four short films in 2008. The films should be under 5 minutes in length. I have 90 days from “determining the variables” to delivering the film online.
What are these variables, you ask?
The First Variable – Conflict
Each film will employ one of the following types of conflict:
For those of you that have studied storytelling, you’re wondering what happened to “Man vs. God” and “Man vs. Machine.” I’ll say that “God” could either be nature or society and “Machine” is often tied to the technological advancements of society. Moving on.
The Second Variable – Form
Each film will be one of the following types:
How will I determine each of the variables? By checking the “5-Day Forecasts” from the Los Angeles Times weather section (the print edition, not the online one). I’ll be using a simple number key.
Conflict:
Form:
The “high” will determine the form, the “low” will determine the type of conflict and we’ll be using the numbers from the “Metropolitan LA” forecast. For example, looking at the weather for December 28, the forecasted high/low was 58/45. That would have meant an animated film about man vs. nature. Get it?
Should the “Metropolitan LA” forecast yield a previously covered form and/or conflict, we’ll jump down to the “Valley” forecast for the undetermined variable. If that doesn’t settle things then we’ll go with “Beaches,” then “Mountains,” then “Deserts.”
That’s it. January 2 I get my first assignment. BTW, I’m doing this for myself but if anyone else wants to join in, drop me and line and I’ll start us a YouTube channel.
Game on!
…or my iStopMotion review.
…or my flimsy excuse for making something.
…or for the benefit of those that missed my 4th Annual Post Turkey Day Leftover Exchange & Chug-A-Thon.
If you’ve read my previous posts, you’ll know I’m a closet animator (and a lover of animation babes – is it true that Jenna Fischer was an animator? If so, be still my beating heart).
As I can’t draw, stop-motion animation (which is essentially live action filmmaking one frame at a time) is the only way I can legitimately label myself an “animator.” My first piece involved some randy shoes that needed to come to life but I was on a tight deadline (I think I had 15 days from concept to delivery). I didn’t have time to master a new program and make this film. After some digging around, my former boss turned me on to iStopMotion.
That program was perfect for me. It has a friendly interface with logical controls that house some pretty robust features. The resulting piece (shot over one day with a DVX100; I also used Final Cut Pro) is a favorite of mine. Have you checked out CONVERSING yet?
Recently, iStopMotion upgraded to version 2. I just downloaded it and I wanted to take it for a quick and easy test run. The result is this time lapse from my after-Thanksgiving day party.
I haven’t dug into all the new features yet (such as rotoscoping) but I’m sure I will dream up new adventures to take advantage of these tools. IMHO, if you’re a filmmaker that wants to create the next MORAL OREL I suggest you check out this program.
The narrative short form is not only a dying art, it is an elusive one as well. One primary reason – structure. Short films are not mini features. You cannot apply the same blue print to a 3-minute short as you would to a 2-hour film. On top of that, I think there are huge differences between the types of stories that can be told in 30 seconds versus 30 minutes. Just think of commercials versus television… but that is a whole other topic. Right now I want to examine some of the 5-7 minute segments from PARIS JE T’AIME and explain why few worked while others failed.
Spoiler Alert: I’m about to reveal story points from PARIS JE T’AIME; reader be warned!
Our test subjects: the shorts by Gus Van Sant, Alexander Payne, Olivier Assayas and Walter Salles.
Gus Van Sant’s film concerns a handsome French boy working as an English translator for an artist. After visiting a studio where his boss commissions some print work, this handsome French boy is left alone with the printmaker’s laconic assistant. The French boy pours his heart out and, eventually, gives the taciturn assistant his number. When it’s just the printmaker and his assistant, he asks, “What were you two talking about?” The assistant answers, in English, “I don’t know. I don’t speak French.” Cue the Elvis song and the slow motion running… and we’re out.
Structurally, The Van Sant film is pretty solid and his new favorite tone (that measured, aloof longing exemplified by LAST DAYS) is in full effect. Up until that penultimate moment, the short reeks of indie/high art filmmaking and that works for Gus Van Sant. Then the film is completely cheapened by a twist so predictable you’re sure he won’t go there. But he does. He sells out his own film with a payoff that’s more apropos of a 1-2 minute joke film. Imagine being taken out to a nice dinner by Gus. The two of you discuss the state of art, life, the universe, and then he hands you a tiny gift-wrapped box. You open it and inside you find a whoopee cushion. What the f**k! And as for that last moment with the Elvis song and the slow motion running, I guess Gus Van Sant wanted to do something cinematic after having two boys sit and talk for 6.5 minutes.
Olivier Assayas fares better… sorta. His film concerns a French leather clad motorcycle man that arrives at a swank party full of Americans indulging their hedonism. He asks for one girl in particular; it’s Maggie Gyllenhaal and apparently she’s an American actress in a costume drama (is he taking a jab at Kristen Dunst and the film MARIE ANTOINETTE?). She leaves with him and the mystery is thick. Is he a date, a body guard, a potential stalker? Why are they attempting small talk when they both seem so uncomfortable? They’re attracted to each other but we get the sense that they shouldn’t get together. Still, he flirts and she flirts back, albeit reluctantly yet thrilled by some sense of danger.
Back to the plot. She says she has no cash so they have to hit a cash machine. As Maggie inserts her ATM, this French motorcycle man reaches out and almost touches her hair. He holds his hand far enough so he won’t accidentally brush up against her but close enough to feel the heat radiating from her. Maggie catches him doing this in a reflection off the ATM but she says and does nothing to stop him. Maggie then hands him a large bill and he declares he has no change. Therefore, they head into a bar and order two beers to make change. At the bar, they chat, flirt and he asks for Maggie’s number, so he can visit her on set. She writes it on the back of a napkin while grinning from ear to ear. They walk back to the party, she hands him a few smaller bills and he hands her a couple packets of heroin. She’s a junkie indulging in her American hedonism completely.
Had the film ended here, I would have been ecstatic. Unfortunately…
Maggie heads up to the party. She gets high and there’s a montage of her drinking, dancing and doing drugs. Cut to the next day. Maggie is on set and acting like a brat. She heads back to her trailer, picks up the phone and calls the French leather clad motorcycle man again. She wants more smack. That night, there’s a knock at the door. Maggie rushes to open it with great expectations only to have them dashed. It’s a different French leather clad motorcycle man, and a creepy one at that. He sells her the smack and, while her back is turned, he steals her watch. We end on Maggie’s sad, disappointed face.
Mr. Assayas was doing so well. He had mystery and chemistry on his side. He handed us our surprise and it was extremely satisfying. But then he just couldn’t shut up. He overstayed his welcome and his fine short story started morphing into a long rambling tale that lost its thrust, theme and power. Did you ever see that episode of SEINFELD where George learns about the properly timed exit? It’s the episode where George is always standing up and declaring “Thank you! Good night!” after he says that one funny, insightful thing he’s capable of saying in any given situation. Apparently Olivier never saw that episode.
Alexander Payne’s film is a short travelogue narrated (in a worse-than-high-school French voice over) by a frumpy Denver postal worker. She recounts her first visit to Paris and you can’t help but laugh at her. Then, just before the end, a miracle happens. She experiences of a moment of grace and beauty and you suddenly sympathize and, more importantly, empathize with her. The warm fuzzies rush through you until you break out in a smile and you are one with the frumpy postal worker.
In what could have been a rambling mess, Alexander Payne pulls the proper emotional turn at the perfect moment. If this were a gymnastics event, say what you will about the routine but Alexander sticks the landing and that’s often the difference between contending for the medal or going back home to work in the salt mines.
Lastly, there’s Walter Salles piece. It starts out with a young Latin woman (played by the lovely and talented Catalina Sandino Moreno, aka, the future Mrs. Tony Arias) and she rushes out the door with her infant. As she drops the child off at daycare, the baby bursts into tears. The young woman sings the baby a lullaby with all the warmth and love a mother can muster. Once quiet, the young woman jumps on a series of trains and subways until she ends up in the Beverly Hills of Paris. She enters through the servant entrance and a female voice from somewhere bellows (in French) “Tonight I’ll be home an hour or two late. That’s fine, right?” With heartache written across her face, the young servant girl answers “yes.” Then, this bodiless voice of privileged and wealth slams the door as she leaves which immediately gets a baby crying. The young servant girl approaches the crib and sings this baby the same lullaby she sang to her own child, only this time there is only heartache mixed with resentment and anger for all that keeps her so far from her baby.
I almost did the end zone dance after this perfect short film. The “reveal” is absolutely on-target and it’s made all the sweeter by replaying a motif in a completely differnt context that delivers the cinematic equivalent of a knock-out punch.
Lessons to take into the creation of short films: timing your surprise/reveal/punchline is crucial (this time, later seems to be better than earlier), don’t over stay your welcome, pull proper emotional turns (low to high, as Alexander Payne does when he goes from humor to grace, works well but high to low, as Gus Van Sant does when he goes from indie cool to cheap punchline, just feels hack) and be as cinematic as possible.
The UCLA Festival of Student Works kicks off today and word on the street says this year will be one of the strongest in recent memory. As I have only seen one film that’s playing this year, I can’t testify to that but I do know that the more you attended, the greater the range of works you’ll see. Everything will be on display, from undergraduate camera exercises to graduate thesis films shot in other countries. It’s a great opportunity to see the learning process in action, catch a few amazing short films and meet the Gore Verbinskis and Alexander Paynes of tomorrow. If you do plan on attending, you should RSVP at the website and remember to gush over a filmmaker at least once. 
Many posts ago, I told you about a film I acted in. This film had the possibility of airing on FOX. That didn’t happen. It looked like the world was spared my on-screen debut.
But not Los Angeles!
The short film has been selected to screen at the UCLA Directing Spotlight night this June at the DGA theater on Sunset Boulevard. For UCLA folks, this is a huge deal.
Guess I should get my headshots done… and does anyone know a good plastic surgeon.
The UCLA student film festival just had its judging weekend and, as always, the blockbuster short does well.
First, a disclaimer, an explanation and a rant.
One, I did not participate in the judging weekend so I cannot speak to the quality of the films personally. Many of these films were made by friends, colleagues and former students, so I’m anything but impartial. These are all student films but some are by first year undergraduates and some are by graduating MFA candidates that had former careers as cinematographers. Therefore, the quality can vary wildly.
Two, judging weekend involves 30-40 students volunteering their weekend to sit in a cramped room together to watch 12-20 hours of works. At the end of this marathon, these screeners fill out a score card that determines which 5 hours of material get sent to the blue-ribbon panel (a group of alumni and industry professionals that program our 2 hour “Spotlight” night at the DGA).
Three, I think this is a brutally unfair process. Think about it. You are stuck in a chair for two 6-10 hour days and, at the end of it, you’re supposed to pick the best films. Do you think you could remember what you saw during your fourth hour of the first day? Probably not. No, at the end of that process, I remember feeling like a zombie. I’d venture that most people can best remember the shiniest toys in the chest.
Hence, the success of the blockbuster short film. These are usually long short films (20-30 minutes) that have some bit of “flair” to them, be it shooting anamorphic (really wide widescreen), shooting in an exotic locale or using movie stars. These bits of bling help your film stick in the memory of the judging student body.
There’s nothing wrong with having some bling. Unfortunately, equally good small films tend to be quickly forgotten. Bleary-eyed and exhausted, are you more likely to remember that contemporary drama shot on DV with no-name actors or the 35mm WW2 film starring Joyce DeWitt that opens with the bombing of London?
Sigh.
(Complete disclosure: my thesis film will not have 1) exotic locations, 2) will not be shot 35mm anamorphic, and 3) will not star Joyce DeWitt, Suzanne Somers, Priscilla Barnes, Jenilee Harrison or the ghosts of John Ritter, Don Knotts or Norman Fell as Zeus.)
But all is not lost. I was happy to see that one tiny digital video shot in an apartment for about $20 bucks made it. This gives me a glimmer of hope. And, unfortunately, often, that’s the most you get in this industry if you aren’t a peddler of bling.
CONVERSING, my super short stop-motion animation, just got into the 3-Minute Film Festival. What? You’ve never heard of the prestigious, world renown 3-Minute Film Festival? It’s only the coolest film festival happening April 20-22 at The Screen @ The College of Santa Fe. You can always check out the festival’s MySpace page but trust me, you should book your flight to Santa Fe ASAP.
(Actually, you have to fly into Albuquerque and then drive the 50 miles to Santa Fe but who doesn’t love a road trip?)
Loading ...