I always wanted to be an actor.

When I heard that we would be making films, my first instinct was to be the main star. Maybe it's the gay in me.

Mariam and I are the only two constant characters in our film. We are lifelong friends who decide to come together as the world is ending to spend a few tranquil moments together before it all comes crashing in on us. Nice, huh? A lot of the lines we had in the film are very dramatic and took a few takes for us to get right. Acting is way more difficult that I thought.

How does anyone decide who is the “best” at acting? We give shiny golden statuettes to those we deem the best, but what does it mean? I think it means who is the most believable. I know that towards the 80’s and 90’s there was a push away from the “larger than life” acting from movies like Sunset Boulevard. The push was towards a more realistic form of acting that made the audience think they were watching real life. I think an actor should do whatever the director wants. After all, they are the ones who were hired, right? I completely understand an artist’s room for interpretation and adjustment, but it should be at the director’s discretion. If they want improvisation and a certain feel to a performance, then they should tell their actor to go for it. In regards to our film we sort of let the actors decide how we wanted to portray the characters. This was mainly because we were slightly insecure in front of the camera and wanted to be sure and make our performances as real as possible.

We mostly stuck to our script when we were filming, but Mariam and I threw in some improvisations. It made it feel much more natural. We both responded well to what each other would actually say instead of what the script told us to say. It’s difficult to play off another actor though. I was never quite sure what she was thinking, even though we discussed before each shot what would go on. When the camera is rolling it suddenly changes everything. It’s funny how much power that little piece of technology has over our minds.

I’m nervous about watching myself on screen in front of other people. I think most new actors probably are. It’s an insecurity that probably won’t ever really go away.

eXpErImEnTaL.

When we first found out that our genre was experimental, we were all a little skeptical. This was mainly because we had no clue what an experimental film actually was. But experimental is just that: an experiment. It challenges what the audience perceives a film to be. We're doing our best to challenge our audience while still keeping the film entertaining! I think it's working…

A film about the end of the world isn't exactly original these days, so we decided to take a slightly different approach. Similar to the movie "Signs," we tried to focus on main characters that were completely uninvolved in the chaos taking place. In films such as "Independence Day," the audience is given multiple viewpoints that show us exactly what is going on. In our film we show several viewpoints, but only from average people who are either panicked, oddly calm, or about to die. It's freakier that way, I think!

We agreed that odd camera angles would be a good way to be experimental, but how do we go about that? Matt basically just tried out several different positions when we were filming a scene. Often times he was lying on the ground or slanted completely sideways to try and create an interesting effect. One scene has Matt running behind some people to simulate what it would be like to be the person in the back of the group. Another shot shows people running out of a door frantically, but only from their knees to the floor. My favorite shot in the film is the very last one, but I don't want to spoil the ending just yet! Hopefully these shots will come off as interesting, and not just lame attempts to be different.

That leads me to my next point. One of my concerns about our film is that there is so much pressure on our film to be odd or different that we seem almost indifferent about our mistakes. I have found that all of us shrug off little issues like messing up a line or not getting an adequate shot with, "Oh it's okay. It's supposed to be experimental." But I still want it to be a legitimately well made film. I'm not really worried though. Our group will definitely pull together and polish any mistakes that we may have made.

I Love My Team.

I would first like to say that Mariam Kahn, Jo Beth Sence, and Matt Miller are awesome. We are group 5 for Donna and Erik's film project; we have been given the genre of "experimental" to work with, and we have come up with some really unique ideas. All four of us bring forth different skills that make us valuable assets to what has been my favorite team I have worked with in Honors so far.

Mariam is the director, and she does just that. She organizes, plans, and enforces what we are going to do in her own calm, welcoming way. She is the one who makes the phone calls, mass texts, and schedules for when we are going to film. She has been responsible for keeping an up-to-date screenplay so that we know where our film stands. She also doubles as one of the main stars of our film. Basically I'm really proud of the work she has done, and I think that she should step up and be a leader more often in any group she is involved with in the future.

Jo Beth is the sound editor technically, but really she's the mom of the group. She is the one who makes sure that everyone is where they need to be on set. She will stand out of the shot and make sure there are no interruptions from outsiders while we're trying to film. Jo Beth will often encourage us by giving helpful tips about how we should read a line or how we should be acting in general. She is very open to new ideas and brings forth a lot of her own.

Matt is the definition of what a camera man should be, in my humble opinion. He is a boy, and therefore he likes toys. The camera is one huge toy that he loves to play with and learn about. He is constantly searching for new angles from which to shoot or new ways we can tell our audience our story. He takes direction very well, and he also will just try new things without even telling us… and we end up loving them!

I am the editor, and I have such exciting things plan for the film. I already have the entire film strung out in my head, complete with music. I really hope that Donna, Erik, and the rest of our class appreciate the work we have put into our experimental film. Next week should be exciting!

Adaptation.

When I looked on the syllabus and saw that we would be watching a film called "Adaptation," I immediately remember glimpses of its cover in Movie Gallery: a broken pot with a flower spilling out of it, and maybe there was a face on the pot? Creeeeepy. Well, it turned out to be my favorite film we have watched all semester. First of all, it has an all-star cast. Nicholas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Tilda Swinton.. just to name a few. Cooper actually won his first Oscar for this performance, and deservingly so. The film is about a Hollywood screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman (Cage) who is struggling to match the success of "Being John Malkovich," which had written a few years before. Kaufman is a self-loathing man who is balding slowly but surely. He also believes he is fat, but really he's about average. It's from the loathing.

Arguably the most intriguing character in the film Is John Laroche (Cooper), an odd, tooth-less man who hunts down rare flowers (particularly the Ghost Orchid) for illicit drug use in the swamps of Florida. Susan Orlean (Streep) is a successful writer for the New Yorker pursues Laroche about his escapades to aide in the book she is writing about flowers. They become great friends and eventually estranged lovers. The plot eventually digresses into a cheap Hollywood style ending complete with gory deaths and car chase scenes to symbolize how writers are forced to "sell-out" their intriguing endings to their screenplays for entertainment purposes.

I think my favorite part about this film was Kaufman's obsession with Orlean's novel, "The Orchid Thief." The book sounds very intriguing; I'd love to read it someday. Kaufman cannot grasp why Hollywood would not accept a film accept a film strictly about the beauty of flowers. He is told by a professional screenwriter than it could possibly be done, but an ending would have to captivate the audience. I wonder why audiences cannot settle for an ending that doesn't necessarily resolve in a way we are told it should. A movie about flowers that simply ends doesn't seem feasible to most people. However at the end of the movie (after all of the trite scenes of gore and violence) there is a shot of a flower over a span of a few days. It's like he got what he wanted after all. Great ending and a great movie that I highly recommend to anyone.

Scandals and Screenplays

Last week we watched a film called "The Player." It was made in 1992, which gave it that great 90's vibe. The hair was huge. The dresses and suits were boxy and tacky. The cars looked like they would fall apart at any time. Ahh, memories of my childhood. However something I don't often see is a movie about the movies from the 90's. Things have changed quite a bit since Singin' in the Rain and Sunset Boulevard. The chances of "making it" in show business are becoming slimmer and slimmer, and "The Player" is a great perspective on just how cut-throat the business can be.

Tim Robbins is the lead. He portrays Griffen Mill, a studio executive in charge of screening scripts that come through from hopeful young screen writers. It's a tough job, because of the thousands of scripts that come through a year, only a select few will actually be chosen to be made into a film. Those that are actually chosen will eventually be chopped up and dumbed down for audiences to enjoy! Ahhh, the humanity. Where has authenticity and creativity gone? But then again, the purpose of films is generally to entertain us. The purpose of a documentary is to educate, so do we really want to see harsh reality at the theater? Honestly I have to be in the mood for it. Usually I just want to munch on my popcorn, laugh at the jokes, cry when the dog dies, and leave the theater with a good feeling because of a happy ending. Does that make me a sell out?

I think my favorite part about this movie was the perspective. As a viewer I felt (especially in the long opening shot) that I was simply a distant viewer who was fortunate enough to see what goes on backstage at a Hollywood studio rather than someone who has been thoughtfully involved in the development of the characters. They're doing their thing and we're just watching... and it's entertaining as hell. We are able to hear multiple conversations at once. It might seem confusing and difficult to understand at first, but it's more realistic.

Probably the most surprising part of the movie, oddly enough, was Whoopi Goldberg's character. It's interesting that the director, Robert Altman, uses dozens of real celebries in the film portraying themselves, but Whoopi Goldberg is your run-of-the-mill police detective. No glitz. No glamour. Just a sharp edge crude mouth. I liked it.

Productions and Prizes

The time is coming! Our film is in the works. Last class we spent a majority of the time planning specific aspects of our film, from camera angles to plot twists. I think we have a lot of surprising details in store. I’m not going to reveal too many of them to you, but maybe I’ll hint more and more each week!

Erik began telling us production details, and honestly it was a lot more complicated than I expected. His example was that if we were filming a shot on a public sidewalk with the Wendy’s logo in the background, then it would probably be fine. But if we were just one foot into Wendy’s property with their logo then we could be in major legal trouble. Erik recommended that we get permits and location agreements from certain businesses so that we don’t have any sort of issue. One of the locations we are considering filming is the summit of Pinnacle Mountain. I did some “investigative reporting” this past weekend and climbed the mountain with Destiny, and first of all I would like to say that it nearly killed me (ha-ha). I think I’m going to contact the Pinnacle park rangers and work out some sort of agreement if we decide to film there.

Our group has determined that our two main characters in our film will be Mariam and I. I’m pretty excited since I’ve always wanted to be an actor. I never had time in high school for drama and there just haven’t been any opportunities so far in college for me to really explore the world of acting. On a side note, I watched the Academy Awards the other night and I am now dying to watch The Hurt Locker! I think the fact that Kathryn Bigelow won Best Director is revolutionary in the film industry. So many young film makers, especially women, will have the courage to make films they would only dare to make before. I also feel that Sandra Bullock’s win was well deserved. Her performance was one of the most confident and genuine I have seen from an actress in a long time.

Honestly the thought of making a film is overwhelming at this point. I like our ideas so far and I feel confident with the team members who I’m working with, but it is all still so “up in the air” — another Academy Awards reference. George Clooney is a fox.

BLOW out.

Last week in class we watched a movie I had never heard of before called “Blow Out.” John Travolta was the main star, and because it was made in the early 1980’s he was still in his prime days of cool. Travolta is a soundman for cheap horror movies who records unintentionally records the sound of car crash late one night while gathering sounds by a pond. Inside the car was a gubernatorial candidate and a prostitute with whom he was set up with for scandalous purposes. Travolta is able to save the girl’s life when the car crashes into the pond, and soon discovers that he has just meddled in a series of complicated affairs. He is badgered by the police (which confuses the audience since he seems to be a hero). Several more confusing events continue to unfold from this point.

It’s interesting that we watched this movie because I think it goes along with the theme of my group’s film project—experimental. “Blow Out” was an unconventional film that challenged us to think from several perspectives. The film unfolds piece by piece as we discover underlying motivations and emotions that drive the characters to do what they have done. I think in our film we will use similar techniques, and maybe even leave our audience hanging with the pieces to put together for themselves. ”Blow Out” featured many interesting camera techniques that gave it a different feel from most other films. My favorite was a panoramic shot that continually spun around a room. It kind of made me dizzy, but not in a bad way. It makes the audience really pay attention and anticipate what could happen next.

Another reason this film was of particular interest to me is its political subtexts. The death of the governor can be compared to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Both were conspiracy theories, and I would even go as far as to compare Kennedy’s alleged affairs with Marilyn Monroe to the prostitute in the car with the politician. Travolta spends a majority of the movie putting the pieces together of what happened the night of the car crash—was it really a tire blow out, or perhaps a murder? He gathers evidence from the tabloids (a series of photographs) that when put with the sound he recorded shows that a gun caused the tire to blow out. It’s really ingenious.

Experimental? Bring it on.

Six groups. Six themes. One goal: to make a movie. Each person in our class was separated into one of the six groups and assigned a theme (horror, action, comedy, romance, experimental, and drama). My group was assigned experimental… when I first heard this I was confused… I had no clue what that meant. Basically I think it is anything outside of the box that challenges the viewer’s perception of what a movie “should be.” Each person in the groups is assigned a specific job—director, editor, camera operator, and sound editor. I’m the editor, which I’m pretty excited about. I feel that I can manipulate the footage we capture to make a very compelling film. Mariam is the director, so I’ll be working closely with her. Matt is the cameraman and Jo Beth is the sound editor. We all seem to be clicking very well since our first meeting during the last class, and I’m excited about the ideas we have come up with already.

Before we knew that our genre was experimental we brainstormed several unique ideas for our short film. Our first intent was to keep our story light, meaning that we did not want anything too complicated or draining. Also the film is only nine minutes long so we wanted to leave the audience with a positive impression, and that would be difficult to do with a serious subject with the allotted amount of time. I think a general consensus was that we wanted to focus our film from the perspective of a main character, probably a girl, who was having a unique day. We aren’t sure if the world will be ending or if she’ll be going on an intriguing date, but we want the audience to see life from her eyes. The audience will be welcomed into all of her actions and possibly even her thoughts. This could be slightly disturbing, because no one really knows what is going on inside another person’s head—that’s the “experimental” aspect of it. I think these ambitions will take a serious amount of planning and strategy as to how we want to portray her point of view. One thought we had was to make the camera be in front of the character, so that we never actually see her… we just see what she sees. It may even be unsteady at times. I’m really excited to make this movie! Next step, plan plan plan.

Siiinnngggiinnn' in the Raaaiiiinnnnn!

Another movie week, another Hollywood masterpiece! Singin’ in the Rain was released in 1952 and is described by its tagline as a “Singin’ Swingin’ Glorious Feelin’ Technicolor Musical”… and they weren’t kidding. For such an upbeat and cheery musical, there are a lot of serious issues and manipulation in the plot of this movie—from the transition of silent to talking motion pictures to the cut-throat politics of movie production.

The revealing of the first “talkie” motion picture was interesting. When it was first introduced to the various movie stars and other high society film makers they all blew it off as a hoax. I know that innovation is often ignored or simply cast aside as a waste of time and energy, but I don’t understand how they didn’t see the appeal! I know it’s because silent films were all they had known, but it was probably their own fears of the future and having to adjust to this new revolution—people don’t like change! (Especially when the past has made you rich and famous)

When I hear the phrase “they don’t make ‘em like they used to,” I generally roll my eyes. But in the case of Singin’ in the Rain it is entirely true. What I loved so much about it was its musical interludes and upbeat tone even through adversity. This movie had a truly magical feel about it. What impressed me most was the amazing talent of the actors. They all possessed what is known as the “triple threat” in the entertainment business, or the ability to sing, dance, and act. Gene Kelley was badass. Not only was he ridiculously attractive, he could tap dance, sing and act brilliantly, and he was the co-director! I think that when the main star of a movie is also the director he is able to convey his vision much more effectively; however, I think sometimes it would be difficult to step back and observe flaws that could be seen from different perspectives.

I loved the fact that the movie was in Technicolor. Everything was so vivid and dreamlike. The entire movie felt like a fantasy. Even in a downpour of rain the audience is taken on a fanciful journey of song and dance! One of my favorite memories as a kid was going to MGM Studios in Walt Disney World and standing underneath an umbrella that was attached to a light pole with gallons of water pouring over the top—my mom still has the picture. I’m very glad we watched this movie.

Light—God’s Eldest Daughter

I’m not exactly sure which direction our film will take in the coming weeks, but it’s safe to say we have some great ideas and examples. I think perhaps the most interesting technique we learned about last week was the use of lighting in film. I had a very limited knowledge of just how much lighting affects the story; the obvious examples of darkness and lighting shining up in horror movies was about as broad of a scope as I had. It’s interesting that lighting does not merely have aesthetic purposes, but it can in fact convey many emotions. It can turn regular scenery into multilayered characters with feeling and purpose. A tree is just a tree until the light hits it in the perfect way. It can transform into a frightening image from our childhood nightmares, or instead pleasantly welcome us to climb its crooked branches.

The pure aesthetics of lighting in films is not something to be overlooked. When looking at a scene in a movie the audience does not merely see a picture of what normal life would look like. They are instead seeing a multi-dimensional painted canvas beyond what real life can provide. While making our film I will do my best to ensure that we incorporate all forms of lighting, from main light, to the fill light, and finally the background light. I imagine we’ll have to get rather “ghetto” and use flashlights, but that’s okay. We will most likely have to plan out what we intend to highlight in particular shots beforehand, that way we don’t get an ineffective and unbalanced distribution of light.

I think something as simple as light can be taken for granted. It’s interesting that we have been around and dealt with light our entire lives, but we often don’t take the time to appreciate its dimensions and benefits. In a thunderstorm light is usually one of the first things to go… and people don’t know what to do with themselves. Use inappropriate lighting in a movie and see how the audience reacts. I guarantee they won’t be happy. I hate to write about American Beauty again, but it’s a wonderful example of the effectiveness of lighting. The brilliant cinematographer, Conrad Hall, used lighting carefully and generously throughout the movie to emphasize the most beautiful and symbolic things our eyes might not have seen otherwise. That’s genius. I’ll do my best to emulate Hall’s techniques and make Donna proud!

Day Three: Drama!

I’m relatively ashamed to admit that I had never seen Sunset Boulevard before class last week. It’s one of Hollywood’s greatest treasures. It racked up numerous Academy Awards (even though it was in competition with one of my favorites, All About Eve) and proved to be telling of what life in the film-making business was like “back in the day.”
Gloria Swanson is fierce. Just plain fierce. She stars as an aging silent film actress in the early 1950’s who can’t seem to come to terms with reality. Her character seems completely over-the-top and outrageous, but she fits an eerie archetype that makes her relatable to a particular audience one might not immediately think of — the gay community. Gloria’s character, Norma Desmond, can be described with two seemingly contradictory terms synonymous with the gay community: glamorous and tragic. All of life is a stage everywhere Norma goes, and she demands the attention of any room she enters. The sad truth is that she is living a life formulated by her own absurd fantasies. Her glamour suggests that she is a big deal, and in all fairness… she was. Her internal struggles occasionally get the better of her, such as when she slits her wrists. Her most obvious gay qualities are her mannerisms. She tilts her head upwards almost all of the time, partly to hide her wrinkles and also to seem “above” everyone else. Her extravagance nearly qualifies her to drag queen status!
I think the reason that gays gravitate toward characters like Norma Desmond is because they are relatable, not necessarily in a realistic sense (obviously not everyone is an ex-film star). It is in the nature of a majority of gay men to be flamboyant and fabulous, just like Norma. It’s funny. The entire movie I could hear my fellow classmates muttering under their breaths that Norma was crazy and even disturbing, but all the while I idolized her. Unfortunately many lives of people in the gay community are cursed with tragedy, usually involving rejection from friends, family, and society which can lead to anger, isolation, and in the worst cases suicide.
Sunset Boulevard left me with chills. It leaves the audience with a tremendous insight into Hollywood’s bizarre design and operation. Most interestingly though… it left me wanting more. Maybe that’s the magic of Hollywood.

Day Two: Walnuts and Skulls

It isn’t everyday that I associate walnuts and coconuts with human skulls. In class last week we explored the exciting and immensely creative world of effects in major motion pictures, such as The Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. For such amazing movies that seem so technologically advanced (which they are in their own respect), the techniques for creating the sound effects struck me as rather “ghetto.” But hey, whatever works! My favorite example of these techniques is from The Lord of the Rings when the crew had to simulate the sound of thousands of human skulls crashing down in a ferocious tidal wave. The crew literally poured walnuts and coconuts down a ramp and recorded the clanking sound they made to simulate the skulls. I think that would be a very fun job, but I probably wouldn’t be as creative.
It’s fascinating how dependent the different parts of a movie are on one another. The actors often get a majority of the credit simply because they’re center stage, but the director, producers, cinematographers, sound crew, and many others are all partially responsible for the movie magic. I think the team that gets the least amount of credit is the cinematographers. The beauty of a shot can be taken for granted sometimes. My favorite movie, American Beauty (which received the Academy Award for cinematography), was filmed with such beautiful simplicity that the movie is taken to an entirely different level. The brilliant cinematographer, the late Conrad Hall, showed the audience real life and beyond. The beauty of life (often found in the most menial things such as a plastic bag floating in the wind) is emphasized without the aid of dialogue or acting. Emphasis on color, lighting, and shape turned the film into a true work of art.
Beyond cinematography my personal favorite touch to any movie is the score. Music can convey emotions that words often cannot. Think of a horror movie set to the tune of Britney Spears. Suddenly it’s not so scary, but why? Our ears have been trained to think that diminished minor chords are terrifying and bright major chords are comforting. Thomas Newman is perhaps my favorite composer for motion pictures, and his work in American Beauty was nothing short of spectacular. The moments when there would be no movement on screen one can hear the echo of a distant marimba underneath the drone of strings. Suddenly we can feel what isn’t said or even seen. It’s haunting and I love it.

Day One: Getting Our Feet Wet

It’s difficult to imagine a world without motion pictures, or better yet a world without a window to other peoples’ lives. From early in my childhood I can remember watching movies with my parents and being absolutely enthralled with excitement—I was so lucky to be able to see things beyond my own backyard for a change. In our first lecture in Donna’s film class we learned about the beginnings of moving pictures and how they challenged the very concept of perception. From magicians using movies to trick their audiences to hum-drum shots of ordinary life, such as train pulling into its station, early film makers opened the eyes of the world to what people can create.

The intricacy of film making and cinematography interests me the most. Everything from camera positions, choreography, special effects, and timing must be carefully planned out in order to be successful. The most difficult part: it must be believable. There are several different kinds of perception film makers can use to portray a story to an audience. Similar to a novel, a director can use either first, second, or third person to tell his story. Third person omniscient was the earliest form, because it was simply an observation of peoples’ lives. The audience simply got a glimpse into a different reality. It wasn’t until directors began challenging themselves with different forms of perception that stories could truly be told. Donna showed us a clip of firemen extinguishing a fire that is one of the earliest examples of mixed perception and cross cutting. The director dared to show his audience not only what was happening with the firefighters, but also what was happening simultaneously with the helpless victim in the burning house.

Donna instructed us later on in the class to get in small groups and film images outside of the classroom. My team and I went to the library and ended up getting about five minutes of awkward film—we knew what would not be interesting to shoot, but I don’t think we were sure about what would be interesting. After several attempts to be funny and entertaining, we just starting going on a tour of the library. Come to find out it was completely empty, which made for an interesting twist to our original intentions, since the library is normally packed with students. I’m very curious to experience what else Donna will teach us about film making and the metaphors behind it.