The FilmNerds Blog

It hit me the other day, after watching the decade-late quasi-sequel to The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, that we’re 10 years removed from 1999, the year the future of movies arrived. The Matrix, Being John Malkovich, Blair Witch, a Star Wars for a new generation…. all these movie events pointed towards a change in the industry, a breakthrough. As the independent American cinema finally got a foothold in the mainstream, it was supposed to change the way movies were made. Even then, indie sensation Steven Soderburgh was readying his one-two populist/geopolitical Oscar punch, Erin Brockovich and Traffic. We were supposed to get a decade full of mainstream film, told through the lens of post-modern deconstructionist filmmakers, with the technology of the future.

But did the future ever actually happen?

It kind of feels like the machine gobbled up the rage, doesn’t it? I suppose artistic revolutions usually tend to yield a lot less interesting and cohesive work than the boring standards of discipline and consistency, but really, what came out of the indie pillaging of Hollywood? The information age trend of viral marketing, popularized by Blair Witch, sure came in handy, but what about the stories themselves? They got bigger and bigger, that’s for sure. It feels like the independent spirit has just been relegated to a market niche at this point. Throw enough dysfunction and awkward framing together, and you’ve got the modern American indie.

I suppose there’s an inherent flaw in looking at content, though. Maybe storytelling in the cinematic medium peaked by the 80’s? Even if that’s true, I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with it… arguably, the novel form peaked with Moby Dick, and we still get great novels. I think what’s important to most revolutionaries is less the what, and more the how. That’s where the indie spirit resides, anyway: thriftiness. It’s the part of the 90’s indie movement that the machine has failed to consume.

A special case is this year’s District 9. When Peter Jackson’s pet producing project Halo fell through, he promised the refugee director of that project, Neil Blomkamp, $30 million to make whatever he wanted. So, utilizing the (relatively) inexpensive RED camera system, and the backing of the (2nd) hottest director on the planet, Blomkamp made an extremely profitable summer blockbuster. Say what you will about the WHAT of District 9, an okay sci-fi action movie, but what’s important to me is the HOW.

The question is, why didn’t this happen sooner, and will it happen again? Low cost digital cinema has been available for at least 5 years. The star system has been declared dead for as long. Yet, bloated productions have only accrued more and more overhead, necessitating safer decision-making, and increased branding. Does a Spider-Man movie need to cost $300 million? Maybe… Let’s go with a more down to earth example? Does a sequel to the $50 million* Raiders of the Lost Ark need to cost $150 million? What about a sequel to Die Hard? $110 million? Really? $230 million for Quantum of Solace? No aliens, no supernatural elements… and it costs more than two Lord of the Rings movies?

One is reminded of Tugg Speedman, in Tropic Thunder: Looking up after performing an emotional scene (armless), to see a director huddled over him, with about 500 crew members watching. Film production, like regular life, necessitates moderation and a proper handling of waste and over-expenditure. If not, fear of failure becomes a crippling motivation, no?

So what do you all think? Should we be optimistic that, instead of running for foreign money and sacrificing autonomy, Hollywood executives will sacrifice luxury, and shoot digital, write economically, and second-guess in pre-production rather than post? I think we can be more hopeful now, since we have a smash hit “real” movie (not a one-camera mockumentary) made with fiscal responsibility. It would seem that there, the independent artists can teach us all a lesson: Do what you can, with what you have, to create good work… rather than what you must, with what you lack, to impress the establishment. Will this next decade see the fruition of that idea? Will this recent  “recession” play a part?

Maybe so. Then again, I hear a new Spider-Man is on the horizon. And boy, those giant Transformers movies keep making money… and you know how people still love playing Battleship…

(*Budget adjusted for inflation)

• The Nocturnal Third Production Journal

Ah, editing. The world is at my fingertips, and the world is cutting rather nicely. All that sweat, stress, and concentration already feels like a distant memory. Every shot’s got a little story that runs through my head when I rediscover it. No real news here, other than that I’m about halfway done with the first very rough cut. The story seems to clip along pretty nicely, and all our intentions seem to showing up well. I had an early scare, when I looked at everything laid out before me, without a solid place to start. I was afraid that the whole thing wasn’t going to work, or that it was all a collection of bad decisions made in a stupor, but after a chat with Lee (who could relate) and laying out a game plan, everything started to come together. Just think, only another few shoot days, some sound editing, scoring, animation, more editing, and about a year, and we’ll have another film under our belt!

Dang, there’s that feeling again.

• This Week’s Hypothetical Speculation

So I think I’ve found out what kind of movie-watcher I am. I know, I know- I’m 26, I’m a filmmaker, I’m a Film Nerd, I should know this by now. I’ve always known about these distinctions in storytelling, but it’s never occurred to me that I had a preference.

To start, let’s assume that there are 3 different types of cinematic stories:

1. Plot-Based. Good examples would be Jaws, No Country for Old Men, or Die Hard. The important thing here is “what happens next”, a logical progression of events, usually with a physical or external impact.

2. Character-Based. Examples might include Raging Bull, The 400 Blows, or There Will Be Blood. Here, the stakes, rather than “what happens next”, ask “how will they react”. A character study explores the behavior of an individual or group of individuals, with most of the major events happening internally (with definite external consequences – we’re still watching movies here).

3. Mood or Environment-Based. My examples would be Mulholland Drive, Edward Scissorhands, or Nosferatu der Vampyr. Here, much of the film’s tension lies entirely in atmosphere and environment, often invading plot and character.

You could also argue that a fourth type of cinematic story has evolved, based in Emotion. Without showing my hand too much, this could be a film that seeks to do not much more than engage an emotion, whether it be horror (Hostel), adrenal glee (300, Transformers) or just plain weepiness (pick the generalized Lifetime movie).

Now, certainly there will be crossover. Every great movie will have a forward-moving plot with strong characters, consistent and defined mood, and emotional involvement. One of the reasons Citizen Kane is so great is because it makes a character study into a plot-driven mystery story.

Maybe this discussion should be limited to screenplays, because I am presuming here that crafts such as performance, cinematography, editing, music, and design are all being performed competently. Regardless, it seems that these three or four categorizations are what I most often react to when I realize a movie is or is not working for me. So, my revelation.

I’ve discovered myself to be a plot junkie. If a movie pushes from A to B to C effectively, I tend to overlook a lack of characterization or environment or even emotion. This explains why The Departed is my favorite Scorsese movie, or why The Life Aquatic is my favorite Wes Anderson movie, and why I naturally gravitate towards science fiction or thriller or comedy films rather than dramas or horror movies, or even documentaries, which are almost by necessity character studies. I just have a hard time watching behavior without somewhat immediate consequences.

In my defense, I’m also of the mind that cinema is tailor-made for plot. Novels, in which you can explore every fiber of a character’s consciousness in minute detail, are perfect for character studies. They also allow a reader to follow a character through vast expanses of time, something that film stories always struggle with. Music or painting or comics are an excellent form of exploring mood, not just because of the lack of budgetary restraint, but because their abstract nature allows the audience to fill in gaps with their own imagination, to ride the wave of mood to whatever their own personal emotional destination. Speaking of emotion, I’ve said before that I think music is the most inherently emotional art form, without the boundaries set by accompanied images.

In addition, as film is a visual art, it’s imperative that we’re shown behavior and reaction, and in those things, lies character. If a plot is working, chances are, characterization has been effectively established, as has a believable environment. You know a character well if you’ve seen them behave. We’re getting into very subjective waters now, but I’m also convinced that it takes more skill as a writer or director to convey subtle character information into heavy plot. It feels, to me, like a bit of a cheat to allow oneself, as a storyteller, large margins of time for character to develop. Without action, reaction, behavior, character is nothing.

So what do you think? Am I wrong? Am I stating the obvious? Or, am I just defending a life spent being indoctrinated by American studio filmmaking?

As usual, I’m a little behind on picking up the latest movie news. I read earlier this week about two very strange upcoming projects. The writing team of Bill Collage and Adam Cooper (New York Minute, Accepted) have been hired by 20th Century Fox to write a retelling of the story of Moses, on the heels of their finishing a popular script for a re-imagining of Moby Dick. From the first article: “‘Moby Dick’ was pitched as a “300″-like reimagining of the Melville story as a visually stunning action piece, and the story of Moses is conceived similarly.”

This reminds me an awful lot of the apparently Snyderized version of Sherlock Holmes that will hit theaters this winter.

This is all conjecture, but it seems like the latest branding trend has finally come to the point of studios pursuing classical “properties” to sell to familiarity-hunting audiences. Now- I, for one, like branding. It can produce some great, epic continuities (Harry Potter, Star Wars), shoehorn interesting discussion into mass appeal storytelling (Nolan’s Batman, the Jason Bourne films), and it can force new and interesting brainstorming into still-profitable veterans (Star Trek, Casino Royale). Brand recognition is our bizarre, corporate-oriented version of nostalgia and comfort. It sounds cold and alien to accept it this way, but hey, I’m an optimist.

What’s not so sunny, however, is the fear that new interpretations of established classic stories will taint the legacy of said classics. Does a generation really need to see Sherlock Holmes as a Jack Sparrow-esque party animal? Does Ahab need to be redefined as “a charismatic leader”? Isn’t this just taking established icons of literature and – at the risk of sounding reductive – making them stupid? Does everything need to happen in slow motion or with visual garnish to be worth paying attention to? At this rate, how will the legacy of these characters continue? If more people watch Timur Bekmambetov’s AvD than read “Moby Dick”, will the story survive? Will our grandchildren laugh at the crazy, free-wheeling Sherlock Holmes of their culture?

Again, it looks like the discussion is veering towards the inevitable counter-argument: through providence or the strength of the human intellect, great stories survive. Really, what’s the difference between the Snyderization of bible stories and, let’s say, the Muppetization of Dickens? What about “Classics Illustrated”, or other demographic-targeted “reimaginings”? I suppose a bigger audience will see these mega-high-budget reinterpretations (in fact, they HAVE to for the studios’ high stakes gambles to pay off), so that would be one argument… Never before have the powers of classic-twisting been so motivated or powerful. But again, it seems like no one remembers King Kong ‘76. No one cares about Crystal Skull a year after it was released. We still all sit there and ogle Empire Strikes Back when it comes on TV. But these aren’t tried and true literary icons, either… What do we accept as Dracula, the character in Bram Stoker’s novel, or Bela Lugosi? Who do you see when you read “Frankenstein”?

What are your thoughts on these Classics Snyderized? Is it as harmless as a Mickey’s Christmas Carol or is it a corporate conspiracy to make us all dumber? Are you anticipating these movies?

Like Shredder in a trash heap, Film Nerds grasps to the heavens with a spiked hand, and with it drags out of the ash…

When YouTube hit the mainstream in 2005, the big question was, “When will YouTube be a legitimate threat to DVD or theatrical film distribution?” I found the definitive answer this week: Never! Late, I know.

A few days ago, I received a message from YouTube that a dorky video I created in college with primitive After Effects skills has gotten over 500,000 views. Apparently, that makes my account eligible for “partner” status, and available for ad revenue profit sharing. I talked to a good friend that happens to be very e-commerce savvy, and he told me that if I can generate content that will attract YouTube viewership, I could make decent amounts of money. I wondered if posting trailers or other Wonder Mill Films content would be a good way for our films to get YouTube exposure, and he answered that it would really have to cater to YouTube audience demands… that is to say, “No.”

Since Wonder Mill creates relatively mainstream narrative work, it wouldn’t fit into the YouTube menagerie of absurdist sketch comedy, celebrity gossip, shocking videos of humiliation and/or failure, or political rabbit trails. And so, like Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, I stare into the creeping abyss. Do I put my soul at hazard? Do I say, “Okay, I’ll be part of this world”? Or, like YouTube success story Andy Samberg, do I throw my keyboard to the GROUND and scream “I’M NOT A PART OF YOUR SYSTEM”?

I’m sure there’s some preaching to be done about the lost potential of YouTube, like the entire internet before it. The sermon would go, YouTube had the opportunity to become a unifying source for positivity in the world, but instead humanity has soiled it to become a spawning ground for new ways to hate, spy on, and ogle other people. I’m not going to preach that sermon, however, for fear I’ll discover some dark stuff I don’t really want to confront on a Wednesday.

I will say, though, that while I don’t think YouTube will ever become a legitimate home for real filmed storytelling, it has emerged as a solid alternate news source and educational tool. Where else would I find, for free, documentaries on transhumanism, or the terrors of the World Bank, outside of intra-library exchange? It could also be commended for opening the door for real internet-based film distribution, like Hulu or Netflix’s Instant Watch.

So, for now, I still need to make my decision. Sure, Wonder Mill will ultimately find a suitably visible internet home for its feature films. But what if my crummy college tornado video does generate market demand? Like I said, it’s got 500,000 views, 1,339 ratings (1.5 stars, baby!), and 840 terrifying, vitriolic comments (see the end of the entry for some of my favorites).

What if I’ve got a gold mine of a channel on my hands? Anyone want to get together to make an absurd skit about Kanye West, or badly imitate Lonely Island? Aw, forget it, I’ll just hire this guy.

• Disparate Movie Thoughts

-Since principal photography has wrapped, I’ve allowed myself to watch movies again. In addition to working my way through Justice League, I also recently watched the new Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. Check it out for big, crazy superhero fights, but for cohesive and well-paced storytelling, stick to the serialized DCAU. I should start Justice League Season 2 soon, in hopes that the second season gives Superman more to do. That’s barely a complaint, though, as the first season worked hard to set up the Green Lantern and J’onn J’onzz. Highlights include the introduction of Jack Kirby’s Demon, Gorilla Grodd, Mongul, and the Injustice League.

-I’m also doing the required Halloween viewing with my wife, having finished the original 1941 Wolf Man starring Lon Chaney. Good stuff. We started Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man last night, and I’m itching to get back to it after a great opening.

-I still haven’t been able to venture back to a movie theater since wrapping, and I think I might be saving the experience for The Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I anticipate more and more. Check out this awesome featurette for a glimpse at their in-field voice recording method.

• And now, the Dark Pit of Hopelessness brings you Wacky YouTube User Comments!

From osky5, translated via Yahoo Babelfish:
“so that your you are so *sshole and nonbeams a good work I am sees bie excrement… you are mamao. cabron sucks tiny beast *sshole son of puta… if you are going to remove to me from my time to see something that are good, pendejooo”

From pasm837:
“The Tornado is very realistic, the weird house spoilt it however. But I must say a lot of work went into making it, have you got any video’s of a sesible realistic Tornado”

From LajonSmit:
“r u an rtard?”

From billycorn54:
“Whoever made this is a f*ggot.”

From wxfreak101:
“I lost… 40 seconds of my life… I could have…texted someone… or something… ahhhh!!!”

From fatcar1:
“i thought the simplicity of it was quite funny. i wish that would hapen to the house this d*ck head i know lives in, his name is dayno. Pray that his house is destroyed in this manner.”

From MDHmodder:
“this is the worst video I have ever seen.”

From themangodess:
“God d*mnit you f*ggoty JewTube users stop using misleading titles or else you’re going to get hit by a bunch of complaints”

From thewhoissuperb24:
“Could the author of this video be any more retarded? If you wanna see a house get picked up by a tornado, then go into a town that has a tornado in it! Then watch a house go up.”

From scubasteve0225:
“i hope your daughter gets raped”

-

Have a great week!