Problematic, Triggering Tribes and Spin

Controversy doesn’t interest me much more than a blizzard unless I have to wade through it on the way to something I care about, be it movies or living life without a target on my back.

I thought about leaving this post for a different blog, maybe a dormant one, so it won’t contaminate the constructive spirit of this one.  But I’m here and I have the time and something to at least attempt to say.  Words can fall short of communicating the nuances of parallel concerns on a debate, so any time I weigh in on someone else’s thread I feel like it is less about pooling our perspectives in a search for truth and constructive solutions and more about someone extracting verbal DNA to reconstruct in their mind the whole person with whom they interact.

Even people I respect (otherwise they wouldn’t have been in my FB feel in the first place) will say, “Watch out for these phrases” as indicators of somebody’s political leanings and worthiness of deletion. Some are looking for the wolf in sheep’s clothing among their circle.  I have never worn sheep’s clothing.  I am not what you would call a whiteknight, nor an SJW (social justice warrior) as these terms are understood in web discourse. I may love many of the same things you do (Star Wars, and much of cinema in general) and hate the same politicians (Trump and his confederates, Doug Ford and his) but I will have feet of clay trying to – as they say – unpack the divides.

Within the same few days, there were two apparent controversies that split people.  I eventually saw the Gillette commercial ostensibly about toxic masculinity. Had I seen it without hearing that it was sparking a hubbub, I would not have thought anything about it considering that most advertising today has an element of virtue signalling. Having followed some of the discussion, be it from Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro or more moderate voices, there seems to be a concern about using propaganda to soften men in general and steer them toward being more feminine, and the content about ridiculing “freaks” appears to be the driving force conceived and fueled by the “pink mafia” trying to reverse-bully men who feel okay with “punching down” jokes at their expense.  That seems to be the fuel of the blowback from some men.  I don’t know where I land on the matter.  I don’t feel any of the fashionable outrage for jokes about even the most sensitive subjects.  I am only annoyed by walking on eggshells.  There have been actual PSA’s not selling any product that have had the guys at the barbecue who shame a friend who boasts non-consensual conquest of a woman or some sort of domestic abuse.

The second apparent controversy is mostly artificially bolstered by Forbes magazine’s Scott Mendelson and The Hollywood Reporter’s Kyle Kizu who are upset with the fantastic and delightful news that the 2020 Ghostbusters 3 movie directed by Jason Reitman will ignore the presumptuous 2016 re-set by Paul Feig and instead it will be in-continuity with the Nineteen Eighties iteration Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters II (1989).  This choice by Reitman and ultimately Sony is a welcome corrective measure.  This is a subject upon which I have no problem offering an opinion.  Around 1999, there had been talk of Harold Ramis taking over as director of a new Ghostbusters movie, since Ramis had new heat as a director following Analyze This.  But Sony didn’t believe enough in it.  That would have been ten years after Ghostbusters II.  So ten more years were wasted by corporate dithering and lack of belief in that property.  Until 2009, Sony/Columbia had no enthusiasm about a third Ghostbusters.  They expected the back end for the main legacy cast to be too high so they thought the brand was dead.  But the video game of 2009 which involved voices and animation of the original cast sold very well and signaled to Sony that yes, duh, there was still potential interest in the brand.  The video game scenario was set only two years after Ghostbusters II.  Dan Aykroyd was most vocal about a planned third movie checking in on the original characters decades later in modern day.  Even the biggest hold-out Bill Murray in October of 2010 appeared in full Ghostbusters uniform at the Scream awards to support his appearance in Zombieland the previous year, which itself had him playing make-believe Ghostbusters with the younger cast of that film in a cameo.

Sigourney Weaver had spoken with optimism that a script in development would bring the team back together.  There was an appetite being stoked among fans for the return of Venkman and his iteration of Ghostbusters.  February 24, 2014, Harold Ramis died after months of illness.  As a co-writer and one of the core 4 Ghostbusters, his loss was enough for Ivan Reitman at the funeral to lose interest in directing the third movie.  Some of the fanbase felt you can’t get the whole band back together so maybe it was too late.  Bill Murray had been blamed for his reluctance to even read proposed script drafts during the vital four years while Sony had renewed its faith in the brand and Ramis was still alive.  This may be invalidated by Murray’s early references to the IP in Zombieland and at the awards show just as Sony’s interest had returned.  The jabs at Bill Murray are the only element I would dispute of the RedLetterMedia video Mr. Plinkett’s Ghostbusters 2016 Review, which otherwise is a vital and useful assessment of that misguided and wrongheaded remake. Feig was the flavor of the month after a few profitable moderate budget movies, and so he inherited the director’s chair and created an overly improv-laden, clueless, and self-congratulatory mess.  More proton pack blasts and cartwheels do not this kind of movie better, nor does coming up with new tech that can shred ghosts or “kill” them in a movie where they should be busted but where there is not even a containment facility until the end and the only trapped ghost is freed due to silly goading.  If you are only concerned about the excitement of seeing women as “scientists” or in “parapsychology” look back to 1982’s Poltergeist.  Beatrice Straight as Dr. Lesh is believable and also funny. (She won an Oscar for five minutes on screeen in Network (1976).) In the 2015 remake of Poltergeist, Jane Adams played an equivalent character called Dr. Brooke Powell – a year before Paul Feig would pat himself on the back for introducing the idea of female scientists in movies.  I mean, if you are willing to go further into make a full time job of it you can start with Kate Reid as Dr. Ruth Leavitt in The Andromeda Strain (1971) just for starters.  The point is that there are far better movies with far more engaging examples of women as scientists. Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler in a little movie called Jurassic Park, anyone? I’ll just leave this here:

The announcement that Ghostbusters 3 would ignore FeigBusters was a breath of fresh air to fans like myself.  And I’ll date myself.  I was 16 years old in 1984 when the classic Ghostbusters was released, and the year was so full of good movies that it wasn’t at the top of my list. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom came out that year.  Romancing the Stone was fun.  Beverly Hills Cop may have been the top earner at the box office. In 1989, Ghostbusters II would have to compete against Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, as well as Batman and Back to the Future II. That year I was well into adulthood and less easily absorbed by movies, but as the decades passed the Eighties pop upon second look.  Maybe it wasn’t just my age, because directing seems less delegated and more amusing in much of the Eighties films. There was also an element of mischief that is lacking in the less human approach of today.  But the idea of the director of Juno doing a Ghostbusters 3 is very reassuring.  Somebody with vision who can also present quirky characters.

It is a shame that a guy like Kevin Smith defends hard reboots like FeigBusters by saying, “The original isn’t going away.  It’s on DVD.  You can watch it any time.” Well, the same can be said about FeigBusters now.  You can watch the 2016 movie as many times as you like.  It hasn’t gone away.  But the truth is that the “fans” or FeigBusters are not so much supporting a movie but a movement and their only interest is taking imaginary ground in a make-believe war with The Man, specifically a character I did not hear about until 2016.  The DNC deflected Bernie Sanders supporters by calling them – among other vile things – BernieBros who must only be objecting to Hillary Clinton’s gender and couldn’t possibly be inspired by Bernie’s history and clarity on principles.  Sony marketers and trolls came up with the term GhostBros for anyone who rejects FeigBusters, because after all it must be an objection to “funny women.”  Even though many of us loved the same year’s release Bad Moms which was genuinely funny but didn’t appeal to SJW movie critics – it made about five times its production budget and spawned a profitable sequel. It wasn’t bloated by the expectation that all fans want is a logo, a familiar song, and a light-show. Paul Feig had said, “We made a list of things to keep, the car, the logo and the song — we didn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Therein lies the problem with Feig: He doesn’t know what is the baby and what is the bathwater. Feig and cast members Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones characterized the detractors of their film as “mother’s basement-dwelling man babies with neck beards and fedoras,”  not to mention the equivalent manufactured stigma that associates rejection of a mediocre movie with right wing or sexist sensibility.  Reprehensible tactics. This began somewhat with the well-documented case of Sony’s marketers or whoever curated the comments under the first trailer culling the posts that had reasonable and articulate responses and leaving only the most childish and racist or sexist posts to create the jumping off point of their narrative: if you don’t like FeigBusters, this is what is inside your soul.

I would stop short of saying that the same principle is at work with fallout from the Gillette public image upgrade.  Looking outside of my bubble or where my Venn diagram for movie discussion overlaps those on a Facebook page I check, there are indeed guys claiming to boycott Gillette or giving the link to order a batch of re-fill blades for the Vector 3 from China so it won’t financially profit the US end of it.  There are some who see it as the currency of being male, the benefit of the doubt coming through the door, to be devalued.  I would argue that having a President like Donald J. Trump has drawn a huge spotlight on the truth of the old boys’ club of Cryptkeepers who need to be disbanded and in some cases jailed. Among those with whom you can be candid, there will be rolling of eyes when something insane happens – like when you realize that indeed Matt Damon was removed from Ocean’s Eight because when asked about the PoundMeToo movement he said what everybody else was saying privately, that there must be a distinction between the gravity of sin in rape versus the slapping of someone’s behind.  Careers were taking hits that perhaps did not deserve that.  But it is like the history of revolution – it happens not in countries where there is a firm totalitarian system but in places where progress has begun and people are hungry for more. Hashtags that easily spread a message on twitter have helped radicalize people in a general sense at the expense of specifics.

Ocean’s Eight was in continuity with the George Clooney trilogy, so I was in full support of it until they cut Damon. Then I wanted for DVD.  In 2016, I refused invitations to see the supposedly re-titled Ghostbusters Answer the Call in cinemas but I did stream it illegally from a bootleg. Months later, I borrowed a DVD from the Toronto Public Library to listen to the commentary. That’s the one where Paul Feig can’t remember the title The Wizard of Oz and referred to it as, “some Disney movie.” I gave it a chance, but gave it no money.  On the other hand, it has taken a lot of my time and attention as all of these circular and imaginary tribe-driven arguments have played out.  I buy razors that are on sale, usually the cheapest. Gillette could put their money where their mouth is and charge the same for a lady shaver as they do for a men’s razor.  The co-writer of Ghostbusters 3 has on his imdb page the 2015 remake of Poltergeist, which is the only wrinkle. As with Ghostbusters, I prefer the “original” or at least the one that was well directed. But I know I’ll see it ASAP in the cinemas and happily fork over the admission.




Working with Murphy: Volunteering A

There are many reasons to volunteer on someone’s production or project.  Sometimes you seem to have a free weekend and you feel isolated and want to keep active and help someone out, especially if you are usually out of touch.  But volunteering can backfire.

1999 I suffered a spinal fluid pressure incident that damaged an optic nerve and created a blurry spot in the center of my vision for more than a month.  My first concern was, “Gee, I hope my vision is healed by the time Episode 1 is released.”  That shows how naive I was.  Meanwhile, some friends from college got a Calling Card grant from the Ontario Media Development Corporation to make their short film.  I was pleased to be asked to comment on certain scenes during pre-production by the director. Then I was asked to participate in the shoot, arbitrarily as continuity, but as, “an ally on the set.” That phrase I learned later was from a book being passed around: Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. I said I could help on the Monday of the shoot week but the Tuesday I was helping someone move and then I could resume on Wednesday and the rest of the week.  I was clear about this.

Filmmakers maybe don’t hear that kind of thing, so it has limited much of my volunteering in the years that followed.  They figure everything else is unimportant next to filming.  I felt I should not leave this prior commitment in a lurch and I felt that I had given full disclosure about it to my filmmaking friend.  He mentioned the Tuesday on set and I maintained my plan and repeated it.  Much of the first day shoot went well.  I did have to run to the porta-potty because of the water pills I was on due to my condition and having had two spinal taps I had been weakened somewhat but was recovering. I was still contributing and I recall that when the props guy showed up with an unsatisfactory example of groceries I suggested using the craft services table materials to help bulk up the bag which had to seem like a horn of plenty. At one point the A.D. took me aside to ask me to convey an idea she had for shooting and I tried to reassure her that the director was approachable and she could ask. I don’t think she did.  When a community photo was being taken of the crew and people at the location, I volunteered my own Polaroid instamatic. As I started giving instructions about how to frame to compensate for the lens, she just handed it back to me and I took the shot. In the car ride back to town she remarked, “People who aren’t enthusiastic shouldn’t be making movies.” Or words to that affect.  In hindsight she may have meant me, which is far from being appropriate.  If anything, I was a little sunstroke despite the director giving me his baseball cap at one point. I was not prepared to do math at the end of the day, and the A.D. advised me that calculating the amount of film shot was my duty. I was certainly under the belief that I had drawn a sketch on each continuity page and that each shot was accounted for.  Even though asserting myself to get the camera info between shots from the assistant camera guy was more of a chore than in film school.

Ultimately, I got a call from the director that night with an anxious tone asking if I was going to cancel the prior commitment and just work on the film Tuesday. I reminded him that all along I had told him that one day was the only one I couldn’t be available.  I felt emotionally torn by it all the same, but held my ground.  The next day I went to help out the other friend who was moving.  At the end of the day I was advised by my director friend that I would not be needed for the rest of the week because they would keep the person who replaced me as continuity.  I let them hang onto my Polaroid camera, so the last person to use it would have been that replacement. Years later I would loan it out again and that camera didn’t function.  I also became aware of the fact that the A.D. had badmouthed me and encouraged my replacement.  Also, the Tuesday shoot day went as follows. The crew rode in the hold of a truck to a location the producer had secured and the director looked it over and found it unsuitable so they returned to town and called to book another location for the following day.  Nothing was shot and there had been no need for continuity.  Months later, I was still in the loop enough to be asked by the director to join him on an audio recording trip and also to be present for some pick-up shooting and to comment on the edit.  I was invited to the final screening and I did get a thanks credit but there was a lot of turbulence and Roshomon alternate views of the story.  It is for the best that I don’t remember the last name of that A.D..

I had heard that she recruited a number of people from that crew for a film to be shot in my home town with a noted actor.  It is interesting how easily people can be dangerous to your reputation or how your best intentions can turn against you.  I’m not sure what the take-away is here.  But it caused me to volunteer less for others and work on my own projects over the next few years.

Writers’ Groups and Community

Between 1998 and 2006, I joined and left or got dis-invited from five writer’s groups. This is not counting participation and reviewing scripts on and  Typically these groups are started by people who want feedback for their own output and in some cases there is a bit of a control issue.  The last group I was involved in during those years had evolved through LIFT the Liaison of Independent Filmmakers of Toronto.  Here is a group that rents equipment and facilities to non-commercial, personal films. But the screenwriting circle was run by a guy who wanted only writers trying to write for sale to the industry.  This meant a lot of reiteration of the Robert McKee and Syd Field kind of plot paradigm and nothing from the inside out or with insight into the writers.  There is the tired old chestnut distinguishing between a rule and a principle.  Today, there is increased talk about how the classic commercial paradigm is too confining.  I once used the word “dogmatic” and he asked me to define it.  I did, but couldn’t get over the air that he believed he was setting me up for embarrassment in case I failed to define it.

I happened to leave that group after my father passed away, when I wasn’t focusing on writing and had some personal issues to work through.  I had no real deadline and I wanted to make sure I wasn’t writing for the sake of writing.  I was then told it was supposed to be my turn to submit, so I did send the current draft of a feature script without combing through it for a final proof read.  This became an issue.  Again, this might have been another set up, this time seeing if I was truly leaving the group over grief.  Suffice to say, the tone of a meeting was set by this insufferable jackass. I had a run of dialogue between deliberately named characters Mack and Beth, and one might reasonably assume people would understand this is not an oversight, but the quality of laughter when it was brought up suggested the handiwork of the moderator.  His friend and second-in-charge of the group has gone on to make a handful of features.  But the head moderator of the group seems to have gone on to post some seemingly fake credits on imdb.  Ultimately, after each meeting the group would go for a beer nearby and I attended a couple of times but I had a night shift to attend in those days and so I couldn’t fully make the commitment to join and socialize, so that made me a bit of the odd man out and opened the possibility of letting my image be created for me.  I do remember a short being presented for discussion and I praised it for being satirical.  The woman who had written it flatly told me, “I didn’t intend it as hilarious”  so a few years later when she won the Toronto Urban Film Festival with it pretty much as written and Atom Egoyan was quoted as calling it great satire I was happy without being able to say I told you so.

Many of these little groups – some of which involved cold live readings, but mostly discussion of drafts or sections of drafts – seemed ineffective.  If I am given half an hour of a feature (25-30 pages) for comment I am unable to thoughtfully factor in the context. If we are asking each other to read a full draft, and the discussion is less about the specific dialogue and more about the broad strokes, then it may be more practical to show each other four page outlines that clearly show how the real estate of story and plot are to be spent over the first act, the two halves of the second act, and then the third act, what the turning points are and how key problems are solved.  The trouble is that most studios or filmmakers would love to get their hands on a true story outline that solves the broad strokes, just so they can have someone expand on it and steamroll the original writer into oblivion.  Most movies are professionally produced and often directed with style and the screenplay or plot is the weakest link.  The full drafts often submitted for the group to read and give notes on (including many of my own) are typically not ready to be seen by anyone.  They are too frequently knocked off because there is a sudden opening in the queue and something is due.

I also found that it is best to invite specific writers you respect if you build a group. Especially now, there is more division over how to approach humor and sensitive subject matter that it can detract from getting a useful tracking of how people follow a script and where interest levels peak or drop and what is muddled.  One group I had been invited to because I had filmed at one of the members’ houses and I had sat in during a reading and apparently my acting was well received.  This lasted until I had submitted something and a couple of members were concerned that I had not taken the same screenwriting course they had – one that apparently cautioned writers to banish anything “problematic” from a story or description, or anything that was not flaming progressive.  The friend who had brought me in was delicate when telling me this. Sometimes this kind of turn of events doesn’t come with a satisfying explanation.  I had to connect my own dots.  I looked back at my last draft where I was describing – for example – a cleaning lady who hated dirt.  I had drawn blank on the word “pristine” so I wrote in a place-holder “perfectly white” referring to her hands, but forgetting to put an asterisk on either side of the place-holder for later editing. Even something like that could have someone to get the wrong idea.

My take on writers in general is that many are gold rush seekers, and some just want to have the identity of writer, but most of us are interested in ourselves and the bubble around us.  They say you know someone by the company he or she keeps.  I was in that last screenwriting group for three years, and I am somewhat on speaking terms with one of the members but couldn’t confidently say many of the names even if I remember drafts of their scripts I’ve read.  I’m not even sure I like many of the writers I know.  I am certain that taking random opinions to heart has caused me to waste time exploring drafts of my work that were dead ends.  Meanwhile there are times I have written coverage on someone’s script and they appreciate that it is getting into how the themes are used and what personal issues the writer brought into it.  A story or script might be a message or clue from the unconscious, just as the initial spark of an idea and its euphoria is the tip of that iceberg hinting that the rest might be stored in the writer’s mind and that he or she is the person to develop it.

Jim Jarmush has said he will write a first draft in longhand and hand this to a typist and shoot that.  Woody Allen claims to use an old typewriter, then maybe circles a few things on it with pen for corrections and lets someone else retype it.  Meanwhile some of us are puttering away at multiple drafts instead of getting on with it.  One script I had been paid for each time I did a rewrite (for which I’m grateful) had been set aside by the producer and needed my encouragement.  It had table readings and yet no urgency of production until world events made the core premise dated.     I think initially a previous writer would not provide an electronic version because he wanted control.  So I retyped that draft and made some adjustments along the way and gave both a pdf and editable office document to the producer.  I had recommended printing it out and writing in concerns or edit notes onto that so that I could see the changes at a glance and go through it in the file to apply changes without unnecessary time-consuming re-reading.  But a poor typist was brought in to use different software and generate a new draft I had trouble wading through and could not embrace as a potential director.  I really needed to be able to track at a glance what had been dropped or changed and I was angry with the unseen typist who had made so many mistakes that this draft could not be presented to anyone.  To this day, I offer ideas on fixes but I know if I do it there is a psychological commitment. Not having the last word is one thing, and wanting to make a different movie is another. Even though I certainly want to see my friend have something to show for all the time and money that has already gone into generating the material.

During all that same time, over ten years, my clown epic had been refined to a point where I was livid when I discovered some key people wanted to do improvisation instead of the dialogue I had crafted.  That would have been too unwieldy and rob me of true closure that vindicated my writing.  But other filmmakers have their premise and draw in their collaborators and jump into pre-production without a finished script and have a leap of faith about improvisation.  I know myself enough to know that would not be my cup of tea. I like to have a common point of reference, a final script. I wonder if skipping those screenwriting support circles might have allowed me to just blunder ahead with whatever crazy drafts I had and make features fifteen years earlier.  I do know that if you are in a group just because you answered an open call or you belong to a co-up that entitles you to participate it won’t be as useful as notes from someone whose work you respect and who cares enough about the craft to ask what you mean if something is unclear and who may even care if you exist.  If you love the craft of screenwriting and some of its architectural demands then it won’t be so personal that it is uncomfortable – it is just about how information is set up and how prepared the reader/audience will be for what happens next.

In your twenties and thirties, a screenwriting group might be a way to network. It might also be a way to push people away with failing to be progressive enough or passionate enough with political opinions.  It is a double-edged sword.  Identity politics can wear you out.  And if you have notes on a script and by the time a circle comes around to you others have already said what you had prepared it will seem like a waste of time.  The funny thing is that a playwright I respect had once stated in a blog that, “You should not respond to feedback on a script right away.  Just take the notes and think on them and decide what is useful and what is not.” Something like that.  And yet how many times after a table read or screenwriting discussion do we expect writers to answer questions or justify something in the script? Maybe at the outset, the writer should ask what kind of feedback is helpful (tracking one’s interest in the scenes, characters, content) and that you have no intention of asking questions, only noting them to look over later.

Sometimes doing several stabs at a outline is more useful than any feedback.  Really kicking the tires of the story without generating a huge word count and getting lost in the weeds.  I encourage people to write but the concept of peers and peer review isn’t something to take as having blanket value.  Some say even random feedback is akin to what you get from the general audience anyway, but there is a skill to reading and evaluating just as there is a talent and craft needed for the writing itself.  Some people are armchair studio executives and others will putter with writing, off and on, like playing the lottery.

For years I could spend time reading scripts and noting my observations and generating substantial reviews on-line and in return getting reviews for my own scripts that were minimum word count b.s. proof that the person just skimmed the script. I know if I have spent a couple of hours reading a script or anything else (especially with an open word file for my notes and first impressions as I go) I will have something to say.  Making room for a lot of writers in a group to present their work for feedback requires commitment.  I might prefer to e-mail my notes if I can’t attend a meeting and be denied the e-mail address of the writer of the month because the moderator wants all discussion verbal and oral face to face.  (Really to make sure his/her role and authority as moderator is not rendered irrelevant.)  Even though that is not practical. Ultimately, some people might feel they need a sense of community and people to have a beer with or vent with but in practical terms a screenwriter circle is not practical.  Maybe one great script with a circle of producers and financers would be ideal.



Though I had a short partially funded by Bravo!Fact in 2001 and a longer one under the Emerging Artists grant of the Ontario Arts Council, I haven’t applied for much but screenplay contests since.  If I cultivated more of a head for business, I might have a more legitimate foothold.  Here is a good article with contacts for funding in Canada, posted by the National Film Board.



Writing for Free

While in college, I contacted a filmmaker from my hometown and showed him some writing samples for the hell of it.  I had only met him as an extra on a feature he did, and that scene didn’t make the final cut.  I had written a couple of Star Trek: The Next Generation spec episodes because that show accepted submissions from fans, and I had written an original feature called Crotch, about a pornographer who has to retire as a condition of his pending marriage. They were, for good or ill, writing samples.  He invited me over to see an idea he might want me to work on.  When I got there and he pointed to the title and couple of paragraphs, I had a sinking feeling and had to say no because it seemed too exploitative.  I didn’t like the title and the two paragraphs seemed to represent two different stories.

A short time later, he called saying that he had to show an investor a four page outline and could I help by knocking one off in the next couple of days.  Back then I had a naive can-do attitude and felt I should try to meet the challenge, even while I was a full time student.  I went to the school’s Mac lab and knocked off four pages from handwritten notes I had made in my travels.  I sent this off, either as an e-mail or maybe he picked it up where I was living in second year. He made his deadline and next began to write a partial draft which was mostly a first act and a few other scenes.  He wanted to know if in a couple of weeks I could build that into a full draft.  I actually recognized at least one line from my Crotch script.  But I again took the challenge to name that tune in a short space of time.  He was acting in one of my short films, so at a rehearsal I handed him a 123 page draft. I could get into detail with character names and which elements I introduced, but I don’t want to open old wounds by naming the project.  One of the paradoxes of movie-making is that you may have a bad experience with people you otherwise like.

He showed the long draft to various unnamed people and then gave me their notes, a few of which were contradictory and many of which were against the use of overt “jokes.”  Ultimately, the next few drafts were about 100 pages.

Then between semesters he had me bus down to Toronto for a couple of weeks to stay with him and his family in a guest room and generate a final draft.  He presented me with something to sign and which he also signed a copy of, with his wife as witness that stated story by him and screenplay by himself and me as an agreement that this was how the credit would read.  At that point in the process, I had already contributed enough to justify this. There was a table reading, and then several days of pulling the script apart and putting the pages on a wall of the office and scrutinizing the flow of it.  Another writer strolled in one day to look at what we had done and he ostensibly had been hired to do a “step outline” which seemed like a step backward.  It turned out that what he had brought was a sample of his own start on an actual draft.  His approach for the opening had an entirely different gimmick. I don’t believe any of his work ended up in the draft but it gave me a strong gut sense of how when someone is being paid for work their output is given more consideration than the grind of ideas that come from the underpaid or free writer.

When I returned home, after a week or so he also visited our mutual home town and presented me with the latest draft.  It threw me because it had material from the earliest version and it seemed like a huge regression. I likely said some things in anger.  Then he said that our work on his home computer had gotten deleted and apparently even the floppy back-up we had used over those two weeks had a problem and he had to revert back to the older incomplete version.  It seemed implausible and I was depressed about it.  I mean how could both the computer and the back up floppy have been corrupted?

Today I might e-mail a back-up, which has its own drawbacks.  You might have a collaborator or friend with a huge archive of drafts you don’t want anyone to see.

Then two big movies came out with a similar premise or setting to the one we had been writing.  This director/producer decided to shelve his project and focus on something else.  None of his investors were interested now.

Eighteen years later, give or take, I happen to be chatting with this person while I am working at a security guard post and he mentions that he has only a few more days left shooting this film and names the title.  And this is the first I have heard that he got someone to finance the movie all those years later.  I might have wanted to set foot in the home of the protagonists and meet them.  But then the question might come up about why I might be so interested. When there was a screening, I was invited. I brought a friend who had been familiar with the background and recognized my sense of humor that had survived in certain scenes. I left a comment alluding to my only credit being in the special thanks list and wondering what the answer would be if someone asked what I was thanked for.  Shortly after that screening there were things going on in his personal life that made it impossible to broach the subject.  I also had an aneurysm by then.  But another screening eventually happened and this time three people asked about the writing in the Q & A and each time there was a version of the story that did not mention my involvement.  I was tempted to stand up and field those questions.

Eventually, I sent him a Facebook message with my concerns and reminding him of some contributions right down to spelling the word Valentine backward to create a character name which he then shortened a bit.  He agreed to meet, gave me a copy of the movie and a very small check for $200 which was what had been due for the two weeks I had written at his place nearly two decades before. I agreed to a small credit on imdb which I won’t disclose here but it was not co-writer which was indeed the truth.

My only conclusion from this is that it is generally unwise to start with someone else’s idea, which causes you as writer to have to get “right” the vision the person claims to have.  Your own unconscious will be working on that person’s story for months or years and it can take a toll. If you are getting paid up front and going through an agent so these agreements can’t be swept under the carpet, great.  There may have been positive aspects to this kind of collaboration, because someone else cares about it being done.  But it should be done with eyes open and also not over the internet.  I remember also jumping at the chance to write some radio dramas for someone only to discover it was a project that fell apart and the call had gone out to many writers anyway so it was all the more speculative.  Better to put your passion into something you control, and then direct it yourself.  If that is an option.

Working with Murphy 5: Ten Years in Clown Town

I made a short for Daryl Gold’s hard Liquor and Porn Comedy Film Festival.  I won’t leave a link to it because to be honest this is one that – even though it played well and kicked off a character Jay Ould played in several shorts and monologue videos – didn’t project a production value that ages very well.  For the most part I’m referring to framing and the fact that it was done with a 3 chip camera we borrowed but had it been done two years later it would have been HD.  I had been wanting to make something about sexual repression and had made several attempts at screenplays that I have submitted to contests over the years in those iterations but now that Porno the Clown was established as a character I thought of building it around him.

Producer 1 was a neighbor of Jay who was working with him on an unrelated film.  My first draft of a Porno the Clown feature was a clunky hodgepodge where I wove my old material in with the new character and tried to make him fit into an old premise and serve as a mentor.  Producer 1 didn’t think it was the right “format” meaning three act and simple Syd Field, which I thought I had been adhering to.  He suggested the three of us, myself, actor Jay and he fill out paperwork for a corporation that would then make the movie.  When I showed up to sign the documents, Producer 1 was not listed and he said he had decided he doesn’t have to be part of the corporation.  I absolutely should have firmly put on the breaks then. There was for a few years a corporation Jay and I had signed on to that was ostensibly to make the movie but I don’t really know why it was necessary.  As far as I am concerned, we let it elapse. As the sole writer, I was the only person that really had to be tied to the project.  I had been led to believe that since Producer 1 was from America it might help guard a Telefilm tax credit from the current scar by the Harper government that if a movie’s content did not meet a “community standard” that was family friendly it could be denied its tax credit after the fact.  That spooked a lot of home grown producers.  Having this person tied to production was wise, I thought, and even necessary.  But I was wrong.  I’d like to think it was not just a ruse to get my actor tied to the project in case it blew up and I was tempted to get Danny DeVito to star instead.

There were several months in which I would write a four page outline and then sit with jay and producer 1 to read at the kitchen table and discuss, and sometimes more than one prospective outline.  There was a variation Producer 1 suggested which did not resonate for me and which did not originate with me so it would have been toiling in someone else’s factory and trying to get his “vision” right.  Another iteration I came up with was too scandalous, and so there was a stalemate for a while.  Then we met at Hooters for a beer (only time I had been in there but it seemed apt) and I had an approach that seemed to be accepted.  It still felt organic to what had come before.  Meanwhile Jay said he had met a financier who might fund or buy a series of Porno the Clown shorts.  I still had the energy and can-do attitude that I outlined and drafted about ten shorts, give or take.  Eventually a few would be shot but the deal never materialized. The producer moved and eventually disengaged likely in part because as time went on he had hypothesized about how the project could grow as celebrity cameos were brought in (something Jay wanted and I did not, since it was a distraction and my first feature) and that as the budget might get to a certain size investors might insist on someone else directing.  That, I had to say, would defeat the purpose of the whole exercise. Whether or not I am the most experienced director and whether or not I am part of the Director’s Guild of Canada (I am sadly not), I still have to jump the hurdle of first feature.  I also will have had the whole thing storyboarded, which is the outward measure of direction as an art form.  I don’t factor in how a given director behaves on set, or his/her influence over a script.  How the director directs the audience, positioning them shot for shot or displacing them cut for cut, is how I evaluate a director’s work.  If I learn later that it was all delegated to the cinematographer or the editor, then I am less impressed.  I know the process I need to go through to feel good about my directing credit.

Time passed.  Porno the Clown Goes to Town was submitted to the Canadian Film Center Feature Film project a couple of times and finally to CineCoup as The Adventures of Porno the Clown.  In hindsight, the premise was already an uphill battle.  So if anyone said they got it and they were in and wanted to be involved I would just be relieved.

On April Fools day of 2014, there was a table reading of the draft at Jay’s place. Others might have been still en route and trying to find the place so Jay still had his cell phone on and might have gotten into texting during the read and missing a few cues.   The rhythm of the piece is almost as important as the dialogue.  The story itself is just a container for the stuff I really care about – specific lines and specific shots.  That contravenes what most people say about screenwriting, but I don’t care.  The skeleton just holds people together; it is the flesh and something ethereal that you actually like about them.   There was useful discussion afterward.  My friend Morgonn was reading and very helpful, though I’m not sure she would especially like the movie.  Two major local clown actors, Dave and Adam, participated.  Dave brought beer.    Adam took over much of the reading because I had not brought my glasses and he had the most energy. He gave the most dramaturgical input, suggesting that I place the backstory into the story proper and delay the introduction of the character Porno the Clown.  That was applied in the next draft.  Unfortunately a storyboard illustrator I had paid to re-draw my thumbnail storyboards had only done the beginning of the movie and most of that work was now unusable because I had changed the beginning and truncated other things to accommodate the change.  But the script had been improved in any case and I was still able to solve those problems myself.  What is noteworthy for the future is that there was not one peep of protest of concern about a character called Homo the Clown or jokes at his expense.  He was conceived as a self-styled snob who makes fun of the clothes or weight of others and kind of deserves a couple of zingers.  In the original short there was a character called Lesbo the Clown who was popular with the audience and ended up humiliating Porno the Clown so it was reasonable that yet another stereotype be represented as a clown persona.  There were any number of things that a given cast member or crew member might if they had their druthers pluck like a quill from a porcupine if I placated them enough to allow it.  Then I would end up with a sickly looking porcupine.  Better to say here is the script and use that as a litmus test for whether actors are appropriate for it, rather than amend the script to appease the politics and sensitivities of each person involved.

By October of 2016, there was a trend of scary clown videos distracting from the US election-driven discourse.  I suggested to Dave making a PSA about clowns not being so scary.  We ended up shooting it by the skin of our teeth as simple as it was.  We were doing it guerrilla style in the building of a local clown friend of Dave. We did get busted for shooting in one particular room I spotted, and then moved on with footage intact. I had the wrong data card for my camera, and thought it was just the battery.  But photographer Paul was there and let me use his camera.  At one point Dave referred to me as “the videographer” and I stifled the impulse to let out an Elephant Man declarative statement like, “I am not a videographer, I am a director!”

Before that short, we had a meeting.  One of the people with Dave and I was Tony who had been sent drafts of the script for some time since he was to play the Police Officer. But that idea was nixed.  I decided to press for an answer as to what he thought of the script for the Porno the Clown feature.  He said, “I did start reading a draft but I ran into a couple of jokes I considered punching down so I stopped reading.” I summoned the most polite reply I could think of, “Well, you have to follow your own gut.  No hard feelings if you don’t want to be in that one.”  With that he walked off and it wasn’t mentioned during the PSA shoot.     I thought now I have to put a police uniform onto someone else.  Maybe four months later in early 2017 I had a meeting at Jay’s and I know everyone of the small group (me and four people) had a copy of the latest draft of the script but I was doubtful it had been read.  Dave brought up having heard from someone unnamed that there is a scene where Homo the Clown is “beaten up on.”  We wasted some time with my interpretation that it meant physical assault.  Which did not occur in the script and would be out of place.  Also discussed in dribbles and drabs was the topic of improvisation.  I had attended many improv shows run by Dave and though I have most of the Christopher Guest movies and hear the commentaries I have never wanted to do an improvised feature, let alone trade out my hard-written and ten-years fine-tuned screenplay for random shtick and paraphrasing just so people don’t have to learn lines and rehearse.   For me, this live action cartoon is a chance to express very specific stylistic elements. I would be robbing myself of that follow-through if I didn’t give my writing a chance to be vindicated by following the script and give my direction a chance to be vindicated by following my storyboards.  I did not want to ride the horse in the direction it wanted to go, especially because what was the horse?

Producer 2 had been a guy who had told Jay he would like to produce the movie, and that was all I knew. imdb showed him as art department. I was to add him on facebook and then arrange to meet, which took a while.  When we met for coffee he showed up with a friend.  That didn’t help focus the meeting.  He then said that he also wanted to be production designer or art department, and that was where his head was at.  I mentioned that I already had spoken to a guy for art department. But he said both could work on it. He also admitted he hadn’t read the script because he is, “visual.” I regret that I didn’t do a full vetting and press for what aspects of producing he felt confident in because with this sort of small movie the producer doesn’t have a production manager and line producer and locations manager to delegate to.  Such a producer has to be all- purpose.  And with limited resources it may not be so stellar to point to the finished product and say, “I produced that.”  This is also the person I would have to rely on for the business end of things and to even ensure that the movie is listed on imdb. I remember talking schedule and targeting May and working around my niece’s wedding.  But I also feel that short meeting was not exploited enough by me and I have a habit of putting off difficult conversations. I have to change that in the future.

The police officer was no longer cast.  That meant about three roles had been cast, Porno the Clown was Jay, Dave was to play this written version of his persona Sketchy (which he had remarked in the past I had gotten right), and Amy who I had seen in a couple of plays was going to play Reverend Beth.  There was a mostly unspoken idea that we would reach out to some members of the local clown community, including a couple of women who had appeared in the short films for the sake of continuity.  But at the same time, ten years can change people.  Even three years might make a difference. Tony may have been the person who expressed concern about Homo the Clown, and he was not to be in the movie after backing out, and yet he was close to Dave.  Others in that circle could be influenced but there was no way the script would be influenced.  If that character or other non-PC elements were a deal breaker, the deal must be considered broken.  Dave had also been dating someone who had some sharp views in arguments on Facebook, strong enough that I expect she would be unlikely to like the movie I intended to make.  I would be naive to think that might not be a factor.  At the end of out meeting Producer 2 said that he could give us a few days for free but there would have to be some sort of payment and Dave then talked about some leads he might have on people within his circle who might have money to invest.  I was reticent about letting someone else pitch the movie to people, especially since the tone of the meeting seemed to indicate we might not want to make the same movie.

Here is a video recording I made from the Comedy bar when Jay and Dave took a skit and monologue I had written called Orgy Etiquette and adapted it into a two-hander for a live audience.  It is fun, but also not the process that I would want to follow for the feature.  It did however convince me to make Dave’s clown persona the side-kick or associate of Porno the Clown in the feature.

Dave said on Facebook twice in the same message that he was having second thoughts about being involved in the movie.  So I took away some pressure (or that was my intent) and said I guess in the book version of the script I could change the name of Sketchy to Sloshy.  In hindsight, he might have seen that as me not caring about his involvement, which is not the case.  He had been in a previous film of mine years before, Big Babies, and was an excellent presence.  But the years building his base in improv and clown may have also made him someone that might overshadow the movie and it might have been a popularity contest that I would absolutely lose.  Mutiny would not be good for a movie in mid-production.  There is the saying that a battle is won or lost before anyone arrives at the battlefield. And besides being a movie where I have to protect it from censors on the extreme right who may not like Reverend Beth and those on the extreme left who may not like jokes at the expense of Homo the Clown I also have to be on guard against the movie turning from the carefully storyboarded live action cartoon that is fun to direct into banal coverage (recording) of improvisation and then “finding” the movie in the edit when for years I knew exactly where the movie was.  No matter who you want to work with, it should be dictated by the material and the vision.  Also, none of us were getting any younger and the clown community was predominantly people pushing fifty or sixty trying to feel youthful dressing as naughty clowns.  The median age of the movie had to change if the factor of Dave was no longer part of it.  Sentimentally, I would always prefer to bring back actors I have worked with for continuity in life.  But we have to want to make the same movie. We did meet for lunch when I needed to get back my DVD of the It mini-series from him, which I thought I had written off when he lost interest in the project.  I’ve kept cordial enough over it, even though one particular clown has given me the stink eye when I showed up for a pirate ship improv show as one of two people in the audience.

Discussing my back-up plan of just making it a novel, I was told by Dave that all my characters sound the same.  This I find untrue.  In a movie or play, each actor will have his or her own vocal characteristics to distinguish them and on the page I have simply kept most lines short for the sake of the rhythm of certain runs of dialogue where lines play off of each other in rapid succession.  It is not practical to say that a comment one character needs a few words to make another needs half a page of rambling to get across. In improvisation or live theater, that kind of thing can be indulged and it may be true to real life, but in the verisimilitude of a live action cartoon, it is more stylized.  And that is indeed a leap of faith considering that so many comedy directors today get rid of anything heightened. There are grounded elements to the film and I don’t want it to be joke, joke, joke.  But as Dave observed about Pee Wee’s Holiday the support cast should not be trying to compete on the same energy level as the crazy lead. The same principle would apply to Porno the Clown.  Actors might rather be the “wavy line” element and have the text be bland, rather than have to ground the film with straight-line, stable performances and have what they say be the wavy line factor.  But it is a quirk of my own voice as a writer that I do like playing with words.

The fall of Harvey Weinstein and the resulting boost of the PoundMeToo movement also meant that if I did get Porno the Clown made as a feature the way I wanted and if there was a screening to promote and if I got into a festival and had to speak on a panel I would have additional factors to discuss which I would rather not.  Porno the Clown would still be about an older straight white guy lusting after mostly younger women. People get that for free on the news.  I had also seen Maren Ade’s film Toni Erdmann about a professional young woman who has to cope with having an embarrassing father from whom she is estranged.  That had been – and still is – a thematic thread of this movie, but some of the air was taken out of my enthusiasm when this one redeeming element has now been taken.  So I focused my energy on completing the novelization, which might be the only thing that sees the light of day at the time of this writing.  No doubt that I should have pushed and arranged more table readings in 2014 to maybe stir up more juice for the movie.  I have a tenancy to coast. I don’t know how much of the ten years was coasting.  A draft would be done, sent out for someone to read and comment on or a contest to reject it and then I would have another look.  Maybe I imagine I could have done more.  The work of writing and then sketching storyboards can be tedious but I can do it when I am punchy or obsessive and it is natural to me.  The rest is only worthwhile if it is in the service of that.  And yet there are people covering topical stories in the most pedestrian way and being praised for it, just jumping in there and making it less about authorship and more about just getting something done.  Good for them. I just have a different itch. So I don’t know of there is a lesson as to how to have avoided the breakdown of collaborations except to have been more careful about the the reason they are initiated.  They say success is to be like water willing to take the shape of any glass or container.  I don’t have that.  Once my idea becomes specific, a lot of agreement and even tedium is needed to bring that to life.



Working with Murphy 4: Digital and Collaboration Atrophy

Murphy’s Law comes into play even with the most idealistic intentions.

A friend of a friend initiated a collective that eventually was called Group Therapy, the stated objective being that each weekend we could all be working on a new short and keep up our crafts for the sake of keeping active and having something to show.  It was to be a democracy where anyone interested would submit short scripts that could reasonably be shot with limited locations over a weekend and these would be voted on so that we might have four to do over a cycle of a month.

A script I had written four years before in a batch of other scripts, Support Group, now had a dated resolution but it was one location and a lot of characters so I modified it a bit and at the last minute slapped on a new title page, “Stereotypes Anonymous.”  It was one of the four scripts that got enough votes to get the go-ahead.  Maybe because some of our group were actors and there were a number of roles.  Chris, another member of the team, was initially supposed to direct it.  I thought I would detach from it and see what someone else does.  The Chris got a paid opportunity that made a conflict so it fell to me. Once I had worked out a seating plan and storyboarded it, I was then more committed. I modified the script to allow a couple of gimmicks that were new, and ultimately the only things people liked about the finished movie.  We were the last project slated to be shot, with fewer resources. But a lot of people came through with combined connections.  Somebody got us a karate dojo to shoot in, which reads basically as a room.  Somebody got us a real handgun for a character to wear.  Even though I wanted a gold charm SHAPED like a gun.  Instead it was a black weapon against a black t-shirt.  Someone got a Samuri sword which also allowed us to have an amusing scene people did not know how to react to.  I won’t link to this video, because it didn’t really set the world on fire.  But I enjoyed most of the people working on it.

A 360 degree pan of the circle of participants did not have the impact intended in the storyboard.  Instead of literally being in the center and panning around it needed to have the impact of floating past people, wide angle, with the camera close to the actors and maybe on a jib arm of some sort.  The short has a number of image ideas that I may try again in another project.  There is one soft focus shot that bothers me.  The owner of the camera was shooting and I may have stopped pestering him to check the focus by zooming to sharpen before each shot.  By not risking offense, I ended up with a soft shot.

There is bold content in “Stereotypes Anonymous” and I have to own the fact that it is very much my voice, dark and politically incorrect.  The intention was to cast people from the written categories and have them demonstrate the absurdity of their associated stereotypes.  The Asian girl wears a kimono and likes to take photos of the group and when outraged pulls a sword.  There is a gay man who likes to smoke and make snobbish remarks.  We shot it under the gun in one day, with actors needing to leave early.  Because I had storyboarded it we got away with moving from the few establishing shots to smaller groups within the circle. But the energy and sense of reaction or tension that might have existed earlier in the day of the shoot – which is hard to quantify – was lost. The upside was that when an actor had a rough time with his lines we could be patient and he didn’t have as many eyes on him.

Ultimately the editor of the group was busy with someone else’s project so I had to outsource and pay for that out of my own pocket. Had this project come together a year later, I would have had my own editing software.  Had it come together five years later, I would have also had a better camera than the one being used.  But it is the human resources that are the real value.  Which brings us to the next controversy.

After choosing the scripts we were going to produce that month, a fundraising event was organized.  I don’t know how much went into the pot but it would be a meaningless figure here.  Next came the ramp up for the following series of shorts.  One of the group founders decided that this time we would begin with fundraising and then choose the scripts.  Many had been read for the next session so we had an idea what might be the options but no voting had been done.  The plan was to canvas local businesses and ask them to buy an ad in the program for the screenings of the last batch of films at the National Film Board John Spotten theater.  A few of us questioned it without being especially articulate as to what might go wrong.  We could not anticipate what Murphy’s law had in store.  That is often the case.  The founder was one of the best canvassers and raised more than a  thousand dollars.  Then he thought why should he just put that into the pot for the group and subject his own script to a vote and possibly not have it chosen strictly on merit.  The movie he wanted to make was more arty and the narrative complicated and it also had many scenes and locations, so it was not following the perimeters of low budget and single location.  He convened meetings in which he advised those who could attend that he and the co-founder had decided the money raised (ostensibly for movies yet to be voted for, and by screening films everybody worked on) would be allocated first to his own film and after that any other films would be voted on. This caused me and others to protest and ultimately many of us left.  A bunch that stayed and continued with the founder called themselves Splinter Group and a couple of them may still have animosity to me or others for not playing along with the new paradigm.  Had we anticipated this and articulated the danger early on, I do not know if it would averted the problem but it would have posed the question:  Should money determine which movie gets produced?  Should fundraising determine which script is chosen?  In the end, all of the funds were used up on the art film and its director never screened it or uploaded.  I have never seen it.  He had a nice chat with me years later while I was working as a guard outside of a bank (exactly how you want to meet previous creative collaborators). He said people had copies of it but it didn’t turn out the way he wanted.

Here are some odds and ends from the next project under discussion:

The next year I set out to shoot a feature on Super 8 Film.  I spent about $600 on rolls of stock, thinking that the developing would just be a matter of dropping it at Shopper’s Drug Mart and that it was covered in the purchase price as it had been for decades (or at least since the days I was in film school).  But that policy ended.  I fit the main shoot into a week off from work.  I did shoot some of the with about 10 rolls of the stock and used a video camera to record sound and some of that came together in an edit but it just wasn’t as presentable as I had hoped.  An actor fell out at the last minute and I had to step into a role and had not memorized my own writing.  I also realized that I was excessively tired; later in the year I would be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.  I was not the only one feeling tired either.  At the outset I had asked each prospective actor if they actually have the time to do a film and that I didn’t want it interfering with their work or school.  Once filming was well under way, I discovered the actors – especially our lead – showing up dead tired.  They were both doing their night jobs and going to school and then showing up without sleep.  On a certain level it seemed to work in some footage because it was about mind-reading. But it is not something I would have I was asked well into the film by a friend of a friend who had volunteered to be “producer” whether I would then allow him to be credited as co-director so that he could have a feature credit on his directing CV.  I had to say no.  He claimed that the lead actress had told him if he is not allowed to co-direct she will leave the project.  I called her up and asked if this is what she said.  She said no.  The whole point was for me to break into a feature.  Some of my scheduling was reasonable but racing against the clock was not always working.  Because of the producer presenting his hidden agenda, I decided to contact everyone and cancel the rest of the film.  Once it had been stopped, I had more time to look over my script and storyboard sketches and reassess.  Off and on, the reassessment has taken 13 years and counting.  Different movies have come along with a similar emphasis, so I have taken the material I cared about and had to graft it onto a different paradigm each time.

The above describes the second time I tried to initiate that feature.  The first scene shot was with an actor I have since used for several other projects but who ghosted me after the first shoot.  I might still use the footage.  It was just an attack scene in a part of the old LIFT building that was then under renovation.

The third time I tried to shoot, the third time I had cast the lead, was with an actor I had met when I was asked last minute to act in someone’s short.  The actor across from me was talented and gave an emotional performance that likely was not well served by my own lack of learned lines, the filmmaker’s lack of costume for me as a priest, and the lack of a confessional book. . . frankly the overriding sense that these two young guys had a camera that had fallen off of a truck and it was just being held off the shoulder because they didn’t have a tripod and there were “no rules” about filmmaking.  None of that inspired confidence.  They took none of my advice and so there was way too much recorded of me flubbing lines and likely no way to cut around it.  In hindsight, I should have taken the director aside and given him an ultimatum.  Some actors will definitely cram for a shoot and meet that challenge.  I didn’t.  I thought I had, but my memory let me down.  Still, it could have worked with specific camera decisions. Would have been nice to have that young actor’s performance.  Maybe when it became clear that the scene would not cut and had to be scrapped, that guy abandoned my project.  I shot with this guy on the Toronto subway, in the elevator of the CN Tower, and at a workplace of mine when the building was empty.  We got some good shots in.  I SHOULD HAVE had some sort of meeting with at least my villain and a couple of other actors, so he would have a sense of the team and community making the film so it is not just me.  He went with his girlfriend on a holiday to Prague and a couple of other places, so I tweaked the script a bit for the remainder of the shoots but when he returned even though he agreed to meet to pick up a hard copy of the revised screenplay he never showed up.  And returned no voice-mails.  I have imagined either he thought the script was just too many mini-shoots or he might have been angry that my unprepared acting ruined the other guy’s movie.

I finished shooting some rolls of Super 8 film in my home town on holiday that year, just burning through it thinking it was wasted on images of my parents and other family members but years later that is the footage that had value, especially after my dad passed away.  I had a similar experience with rolls of 35mm still film in college.  I would think I’ll shoot out the roll on kids and family and then I’m thankful to have those images when the project itself was otherwise rote and meaningless.

Both of the projects mentioned in this entry of the blog are having elements combined for one of my next projects.  Even though I am writing this from the most gun shy phase of my life, knowing how so many things can collapse. And this is only some of it.