HopkinsCinemAddicts

Steps 1&2: Idea and Pre-production

Film production can keep you up at nights.  (On my last shoot much more literally, as we spent the entire night before doing prep work since most of my crew came from out of town for the weekend shoot.  Suffice it to say, I didn't sleep and the rest of the crew took short naps wherever they found space on the floor of my apartment)

There is so much to worry about.  Pre-production is the key to success.  

I'm currently in a class with both MICA and Hopkins students called Narrative Productions.  The class is split up into 4 groups of 5.  Each group works on a specific project, and each person in the group holds a specific role (or roles).  I took the class for two reasons: 1) To collaborate with different people and specifically MICA students, and 2) To be put in a position where I wouldn't have to write and produce my own project for once.  The first goal was met easily.  The second didn't pan out so well.  My script was one of the 4 chosen by the class instantaneously making me the writer/producer.

The project is currently titled "The Ride Home" - although it's just a working title right now.  It's the story of two vagrant musicians on the road.  By examining their daily interactions with each other, their relationship is revealed as one of tedium and constriction but also comfort and mutual affection.  

Writing the story came from several images I had wanted to use in a film for a while now - a bohemian man in a cowboy hat, a pickup truck, a gas station.  It wasn't much of a plot, but that's how I work.  Most of my films are comprised of moments that, when strung together, provide a muddied depiction of characters as they really are.  I also wrote the story with the notion that I'd be making it, so I knew it had to be simple and all elements needed to be within reach.  Few characters, few locations, few props.  That's fine with me, seeing as I'm a minimalist.  

Casting was a little challenging for this film, as we had to find either musicians who could act or actors who could play music.  Luckily, we got a great group of people to play all 4 roles.  Our leads, Kristin and Buttercup really embody the characters by the way they carry themselves.  Ian, who plays a friend of the lead male, and Fred, who plays a gas station attendant, are two men who have stepped into roles that they can play to perfection, as well.  

As a producer, you have a litany of things to look at in preproduction - especially with the team being so small.

You must take into account:

Budget

Schedule

Locations

Props

Actors

Crew

Equipment

Transportation

Food

Cover yourself legally (with any release forms, fees, rights, contracts with actors/crew)

Plan for every logistical nightmare

And each one of these categories has some other subset of related issues.

So as you can see there is a lot to do, and producing a film in a semester (from development to completion) is no small task.  Needless to say, my phone anxiety has kicked into high gear, and I've had to make a whole bunch of calls to secure locations and organize some of the other details.

Luckily things are starting to come together and shooting starts in just one week now.  More updates from the field next time.

 

 

A Night with Charles Burnett

For the longest time, I had been unaware of a great filmmaker.  As a child, I had unwittingly seen, and enjoyed, one of his early Disney collaborations: a TV-movies entitled Selma, Lord, Selma.  Then, about a year ago, I was re-introduced to Charles Burnett through his seminal feature film Killer of Sheep.  The film is one that can be considered a truly American Independent film.  Burnett's work has always evoked connections to the Italian neorealists for his open portrayal of characters and documentary-like approach to filmmaking.  His use of natural light, naturalistic (many times improvised) dialogue, and location shooting added to this "independent" style of cinema.  

In Killer of Sheep, his use of sound is incredible.  The music choices, which caused many problems upon the release of the film as the producers could not secure the rights to many of the songs, give life and set mood in a piece that has no real specific narrative direction.  The use of diegetic sound also enhances the state of wandering in and out of people's lives.  

                         (Image Courtesy of Creative Commons)

I was excited to receive the news that Charles Burnett would be speaking on the Hopkins campus en route to his speaking engagement at the National Gallery in Washington, D.C.  Instead of showing Killer of Sheep (which was shown at the National Gallery along with When It Rains, a short film that Burnett mentioned was one of his favorite works he's done), he screened Nightjohn, another Disney-commissioned made-for-TV movie.  

Here is  Burnett introducing his film:

Although the film can be very Disney-esque, there are moments of brilliance that allow Burnett's style to shine through.  One of these moments comes early on in the film when Sarny's mother is sold.  The young Sarny stands motionless as the wagon toting her mother pulls away.  The camera is mounted on the
 wagon and rattles along, giving a perfect point of view shot.  While much of the film follows a sleek, Hollywood style, this raw aesthetic sneaks its way into the film and harkens back to Burnett's earlier work.  Burnett also respects the locations in which the characters live.  This is another tell-tale of his creative sensibilities. 

                                (Image Courtesy of Creative Commons)

For a film that is pretty predictable – save for its brutal portrayal of slave life in the South - with its
 sweetness, moments of horror, and little bits of humor, it is engaging enough to sit through for its 92 minute runtime. 

The lengthy Q&A came to a close with Burnett trying to encourage the filmmakers in the audience to go out there and make films – this after an extensive discussion of how independent cinema is in decline and money is scarce.  But Burnett’s encouragement comes not from his words, but from his works, leaving a legacy of inspiring films for young filmmakers. 

 

Taboos: Religion in Film

One of the biggest taboos in modern society is religion.  Along with politics, it’s one of those things you are advised to shy away from in conversation.  However, films have shown things that are both awe inspiring and controversial.  Films like the Bible Epics of Cecil B. DeMille including The Ten Commandments (1923, 1956) fit into the former category.  But since my theme is Taboos, I’ll be focusing on films that fit into the latter one. 

The Monty Python’s classic The Life of Brian (1979) is a lighthearted parody of the classic Bible story.  For those who aren’t familiar with the film, a Jewish man named Brian is mistaken for Jesus and antics ensue.  The Pythons make a mockery of organized religion that brought about many protests at the time of its release.  The dialogue shows that the idea of the film is to question religion and its practices.   For example, early on in the film the Three Wise Men mistakenly arrive at Brian’s manger.  They declare, “We were led by a star!”  To which Brian’s mother replies, “Led by a bottle, more like.”  One of the best lines of the film occurs in a sequence when Brian is being harassed by followers who believe him to be the Messiah.  He yells at them saying, “Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!”  The Crowd replies in unison, “Yes!  We’re all individuals!”  Most of the controversy surrounding the film stemmed from their portrayal of Brian on the cross.  The crucifixion is seen as a mildly uncomfortable form of punishment rather than the torturous mode of capital punishment that it really is.  Although they make light of the situation, it stresses the fact that crucifixion is not merely a Christian symbol, but a widespread system of capital punishment used by Romans.  Python’s controversial film struck a chord with many.  It was named as The Guardian’s “Greatest Comedy of All-Time”, BFI’s 28th Best British film of all time, and it has a 98% approval rating on the website Rotten Tomatoes showing that sometimes taboos can be hilarious.

The highly controversial 2004 Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ is one that would definitely be listed as taboo.  Entertainment Weekly named it #1 on its list of most controversial movies of all time, and it has garnered significant attention for its depiction of Jews.  Religion is always a touchy subject, but Mel Gibson brought it to the forefront with this film.  Many people criticized the film as anti-Semitic in its approach to the scriptures.  It emphasizes a corrupt group of Jewish officials who were blackmailed by Pontius Pilate to put Jesus to death.  This version of the story has been rejected by the Catholic Church at Vatican II and by most Protestant churches.  The Anti-Defamation League declared that the film is not overwhelmingly anti-Semitic but “For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism.”  Basically, it emphasizes stereotypes of Jews and sparks anti-Jewish sentiments.  It polarizes “good Jews” and “bad Jews” by their appearances (models – like Monica Belluci who plays Mary Magdalene – vs. big noses, greasy, yellow toothed Jewish priests).  This is similar type of controversy that arose in regards to race with D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.  The cherry on the top of this argument for its anti-Semitic views is a line Gibson has said he debated including.  Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest, states, “His blood [is] on us and on our children!”  The line was omitted from the text of the subtitles, but was included in the Aramaic dialogue.  No matter what your religious views may be, as always with a film like this, it must be seen through a critical eye.  And as usual, criticism brings controversy.

One of the most controversial religious films of all-time is Jean-Luc Godard’s Hail Mary (1985).  It’s a modern retelling of the birth of Jesus Christ to Mary, a young basketball player and student, and Joseph, her boyfriend.  The angel Gabriel is portrayed as a taxi driver who comes to reveal Mary’s pregnancy and help Joseph accept the fact that his girlfriend, who doesn’t allow him to kiss her, became pregnant.  She visits her doctor who examines her hymen because of his disbelief in the virgin pregnancy.  She wears all white and experiences pain, ripping at her sheets.  There are also many scenes that contain full frontal nudity of Myriem Roussel who plays Mary.  There are others, such as a close up of her fingers brushing her pubic hair, to the point where the nudity seems excessive.  Godard philosophizes as always, this time he posits some religious questions about Christianity furthering the controversy.  Mary states, “God is a vampire who suffered me in Him because I suffered and He didn’t and He profited from my pain.”  Pope John Paul II had some harsh words for the film (or at least as harsh as a Pope can get).  Protesters showed up in droves on opening night to stop people from seeing the film.  And although it got mostly mixed reviews across the board for its portrayal of the story, it still remains a compelling example of filmmaking. 

Religion is at its core something personal.  Film takes that and brings it out into the public eye.  It’s a topic that will always draw controversy due to its highly private nature, but maybe putting the beliefs out in the open, with this and other taboos, will make people more aware of the views of those around them.  And film is the perfect medium to express these taboos.

See also: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988), Dogma (1999), Religulous (2008)

Taboos: Drug Addiction

There is a culture surrounding illicit drugs seen by most through the world of the motion picture.  Not many people encounter recreational drug use in their everyday lives (or most who do at least won’t admit to it).  I’ve identified 3 common subgenres of the drug movie: the drug lord movie (like Blow (2001) or Scarface (1983)), the drug adventure flick (something like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) or Harold and Kumar (2004) even), and finally the addiction stories, the last of which I will be examining here. 

Addiction stories usually chronicle the rise and fall of the addiction process from the initial positive associations that go along with the early usage to the dramatic crash either physically, emotionally, or socially due to addiction and/or withdrawal.  Three films stand out in my mind as perfect examples.

The first of which is Requiem for a Dream based on the book by Hubert Selby, Jr.  Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 followup to his cult hit Pi (1998), went in depth into the culture of addiction.  Ellen Burstyn plays an aging woman, Sara, addicted to amphetamines. Jared Leto plays a young man, Harry, addicted to heroin and dealing drugs to earn money to move up in society and start a business with his girlfriend, Marion portrayed by Jennifer Connelly.  She is also hooked and is forced to whore herself for money.  His friend, Tyrone, played by Marlon Waynes (and surprisingly well at that), wants to use the money as a way out of Brooklyn.  All of them run into significant problems along the way and are displayed in great detail from arrests to psychotic breakdowns to physical illnesses.  Each character is incredibly deep and well acted (especially considering many of the actors in the film are not usually praised for their dramatic talents – most notably Marlon Waynes) I don’t want to give anything away, but the last half of the film is not for the faint of heart.  Each of the characters denies the severity of their situation until things get out of hand.  (**Spoiler Alert**: Leto's character injects heroin into an infected open wound at his inner elbow which continues to become more grotesque looking.  He must then get his arm amputated, all of which is shown.  Also, Burstyn's character is given intense electroshock therapy.)  Aronofsky enters into the realm of all types of addictions from prescription drugs to illicit drugs to mundane things like sex and television.  Requiem uses special techniques to enhance the experience and allow the viewer to “feel the effects” of the drugs.  A SnorriCam (a camera mount similar to a SteadyCam that keeps the actor stationary on screen while having the background move) is used during many drug trip sequences.  Sights and sounds are, many times, hightened.  Aaronofsky will also show graphic depictions of needles piercing the skin and pupils dilating.  During most of the drug taking scenes, he creates a montage of images related to that mode of intoxication which is then followed by a short trip.  It is a daring film that tries to depict the realities of addiction.

Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996) is a Scottish “pitch black comedy” (Time Out London) film based on the novel by Irvine Welsh depicting Mark Renton, played by Ewan McGregor, among others, as an addict in modern day Scotland.   The opening monologue (which had to be redubbed for the American version to make it more comprehensible due to McGregor’s strong accent) tells the audience that instead of choosing the traditional life, he and his friends have chosen a “less ambitious path”.  They live mundane lives and use heroin on a regular basis.  Renton vows to quit heroin and take a better path in life, but faces temptation around every corner.  He eventually falls back into his old habits, but the group begins to learn the harsh realities of their lifestyle.  2 of the characters have a child together, but it is neglected and dies.  The dead corpse of the child is shown in their run down apartment.  They aren’t completely changed by the experience revealing the power of addiction.  Renton is sent to a drug rehab center after being caught by police for stealing.  After he is released, he returns to his old ways and ODs.  Renton is forced to go cold turkey and a very strange series of images appear as the audience is forced to tap into the psychological disarray of Renton (one of the images is the dead baby crawling on the ceiling of Renton’s bedroom).  His friend Tommy gets AIDS which proves to be the last straw for Renton.  He moves to London to start anew.  His former life follows him and trouble ensues until Renton finally frees himself from his drug ties and vows to lead a traditional life.  The film shows the struggles and triumphs of an addict both on and off drugs.  Along with the dead child, there are explicit images including those of heroin injection (done on a prosthetic arm made up to have track marks and all).  Renton also takes opium suppositories.  Shortly after doing so and leaving his apartment, he says, “Heroin makes you constipated.  The heroin from my last hit is fading away and the suppositories have yet to melt.”  He rushes to a public bathroom where after defecating in a disgusting public toilet, he reaches in and sifts through the fecal matter to find the excreted suppositories.  If that is not a taboo thing to show, then I don’t know what is.  The film is praised for its bravado in taking on such subject matter and was actually listed at #10 on the British Film Institute’s all time best British films.

Half Nelson (2006) is a film directed by Ryan Fleck about an inner city junior high teacher and basketball coach, Dan Dunne (Ryan Gosling).  Dunne is an inspiring teacher in the classroom, but outside he is addicted to crack.  One of his students discovers him in the bathroom getting high leading to a string of events that create an in depth character study of an unlikely victim of addiction.  This “realistic” portrayal has been widely praised and won numerous awards including the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance (2 years after the Ryan Fleck short on which it is based won there).  Gosling was also nominated for an Oscar for his performance.  This film, unlike the others is less graphic in its depictions of drug use.  It focuses more on the character of Dan Dunne and how the drug use affects his relationships with those around him.  One of the most interesting filmic elements of Half Nelson is its use of a handheld camera.  Except for one scene, the entire film is shot in handheld.  This gives the audience a more personal point of view and allows them to be more involved in the characters’ lives.

Drug films take an interesting look at something that many “upstanding citizens” try to avoid.   Filmmakers who take on such subjects by promoting the happiness the drugs lend while showing the terrible destruction they bring on get a lot of criticism, both positive and negative because of both its bold approach and stigma in society.  The more “realistic” the portrayal, the more controversy it generates.  And like I’ve said before, film takes on these subjects head on.

Some similar films: Candy (2006), The Basketball Diaries (1995),  A Scanner Darkly (2006), Spun (2002), and for an older example see The Man with the Golden Arm (1955)

Taboo: Sex & Violence

Sex and violence are two things that have come to pervade our society, especially through film.

During the Pre-Hays Code (a code regulating "decency" in film) and Studio Eras of Hollywood, directors were dissuaded from using sexual or violent images and themes.  However, as time wore on, people grew more open and restless.  Writers started pushing the limits with dialogue including things like the famous double entendres of Mae West (Mae West Quotes) and emerging gore and violence of B movies.

After the mid-50s, a “moral decline” ensued around the globe.  The Code faded away.  Overseas, filmmaking started to pick up.  Auteurs of the French New Wave began using nudity, violence, and sexuality, among other things, as elements in their films.  A film like Alain Resnais’ Hiroshima, Mon Amour (1959) was controversial at the time for its intimate love scene.  Jean-Luc Godard is famous for gratuitous sex and violence.  In Pierrot le fou (1965) he uses nudity in the opening scene for no significant reason to the plot.  One of his most famous films, Weekend (1967), features a scene in which the leading lady talks about a very strange ménage a trois in great detail, a camp of cannibals, and an off screen killing complete with, literally, buckets of fake blood splashing into frame.

The 60s “free love” generation would, of course, bring about much more sex in films.  Those like Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow Up (1966) feature beautiful women parading around on screen and a sex scene with multiple partners.  A Swedish film, I Am Curious (Yellow), was banned in the US upon its release in 1967 for its depiction of full frontal nudity of both sexes and scenes of simulated intercourse.  Americans must have been privately coming to terms with the taboo of sex by this time because it soon became the highest grossing foreign film for decades.  American filmmakers began to get more adventurous.  An early film that tested the waters (and was later remade in 1997) was Stanley Kubrick’s version of the Vladimir Nabokov tale Lolita (1962).  The film gained a great deal of negative press for the way it portrayed the relationship between a young girl and an older man.  Kubrick was actually forced to re-edit the film a number of times to prevent it from receiving an X-rating.  Midnight Cowboy (1969) was a film that garnered controversy as well for its representation of male prostitution, sex, and homosexuality, but it was the first X-rated film (later downgraded to R) to be voted Best Picture.

Peter Bogdanovich made waves with his The Last Picture Show (1971) that many considered obscene (a nude teen pool party among the reasons), although it was nominated for 8 Oscars (won 2).  And films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) and John Waters’ Pink Flamingos (1972) took fetishism, decency, and sexuality to a whole new frontier.

Violence came to the forefront as well during the 60s and 70s.  Bonnie and Clyde (1967) was controversial for its romanticism of violence and crime.  Kubrick again made a splash in 1971 with his famous A Clockwork Orange based on the Anthony Burgess novel.  It clearly portrayed a dystopia devoid of morals and openly displayed phallic images, nudity, extreme acts violence, and rape (famously performed while crooning “Singin’ in the Rain”).  The emergence of horror films, grindhouse flicks, and slasher movies started like 1974’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre glorified violence and presented an immense amount of gore.  Many other popular films of the time explored sexuality and violence, for example, Taxi Driver, Scarface, and Dirty Harry. 

The 80s brought on films like Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982), Risky Business (1983), and Fatal Attraction (1987).  Nudity became less taboo – and worked its way much more into the teen comedy, an emerging genre - and a film like sex, lies, and videotape (1989) (which contained no nudity) talked about sex explicitly. (Won the Palme d’Or at Cannes) 

David Lynch’s memorable Blue Velvet (1986) showed that times had changed by the late 80s.  The story starts with a severed ear.  From there it delves into heightened sexuality and extreme depictions of violence clashing against a “typical middle American town”.  Kyle McLachlan (now of Sex and the City fame) is forced to undress at knifepoint.  He is then instructed to hit Isabella Rossellini for sadomasochistic pleasure.  Dennis Hopper’s disturbing character (although many think he is just playing himself) physically and sexually abuses Rossellini, as well.  She shows up naked on his front lawn towards the end of the film covered in black and blues. 

Tarantino came on the scene in the early 90s with Reservoir Dogs (1992) which showed criminals at work.  One scene included the detaching of an ear (apparently a common theme during this period – see also The Big Lebowski) to the tune of Stealers Wheel’s hit “Stuck in the Middle With You”.   Tarantino also gave us Pulp Fiction (1994) with extreme violence, sex, and the rape of Ving Rhames.  The 1995 film Kids drew heat for showing simulated sex scenes between underage actors, but this new generation of filmmakers was determined to portray blossoming sexuality.  Boogie Nights (1997) touched on the porn industry of a few decades prior with simulated sex/masturbation scenes.  1998 brought the world Happiness, which was considered repulsive by critics for its depiction of perversion, pedophilia, and masturbation.  Kubrick’s last film (yes, he loves taboos), Eyes Wide Shut (1999) showed a group of masked elite who participate in many different sexual encounters with each other including orgys, various sexual positions, and an off screen gang rape.

The 2001 film L.I.E. (Paul Dano’s debut) touched on the topics of homosexuality and pedophilia.  That same year Alfonso Cuaron’s Y Tu Mama Tambien (2001) contained several sexual scenes, many explicit.  A threesome with 2 heterosexual males is presented delving into the realm of sexual identity.  The Brown Bunny (2003) has been one of the most controversial films regarding sex in recent years.  It tests the boundary between art film and pornography with its unsimulated sexual scenes.  Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005) looked at sexuality in teens and pre-teens.  2 boys (12 and 14) and 2 girls (mid-late teens) learn about the world of sex through different means.  It also explored love and sexuality in the internet age (for a different take on this - see also Hard Candy)

And (this film deserves a separate category) John Cameron Mitchell’s Shortbus (2006) covered just about every sexual topic you could think of in this film.  It tells the tale of emotionally-challenged post 9/11 New Yorkers looking for a connection.  The use of extended unsimulated sex scenes, among other elements, led to it being described as the “most explicit” film ever screened in the history of the Cannes film festival.

The taboos of the past century have been exploited and exhibited by film.  Many say this has desensitized our culture to them, but they educate (and sometimes over-educate) the world to things that are really out there.  Maybe not as extreme as presented in films, but it opens the public's eyes to the world around them.