Cut! Print that.

At this point, I am pretty sure that I am not dreaming, that I am not going to suddenly wake up, realize that I am actually on-set and two hours behind schedule.

I did it. I got through my shoot this weekend.

Okay, I will admit that I did a little bit more than merely get through the shoot. While my gut instinct was that it was going to go extremely well, I did not want to go into it with any degree of false confidence. And the fact is that, even though I knew what I was doing, I know that you are only right until someone starts saying that you’re wrong and you have to prove yourself.

That didn’t happen.

Everything went extremely well.

People are making comments on Facebook:

“David showed such a calm focus despite the organized chaos around him.”

“....how relaxed you were, David!”

“Great experience working on your set, David. Thank you.”

and from my DP:

“I completely admired your poise and calm from beginning to end. In the pressure cooker environment of a film set, emotions can run high and quickly escalate, but your example truly helped to keep things on an even keel and flowing smoothly. I definitely hope to work together again soon!”

I had to remind everyone that I was only able to do what I did because all of them are so, so good at what they do.

I first worked on a “real” set about 25 years ago and, in my early 20’s, I worked on quite a few sets. I can remember looking at the directors on those shoots and thinking to myself, “I could do that.” I looked around at the crew over this past weekend and wondered how many of them were looking at me and thinking “I could do that.” The fact is, many of them probably can do it. I hope they get to do it. I wanted to do it for so long and now, having done it for the first time at this level, I feel good.

I want to do it again and again...

Action!

This weekend, I am going to be on-set, behind the camera for the first time in who-knows-how-long. Actually, in many ways it will be for the first time ever. Sure, of course, I have been making movies since I was nine but something about this shoot feels totally new.

On the films I made as a kid, it was always me and a friend or two running around, acting, shooting and directing -- if you can call it that -- with the used Super 8 camera that I bought for ten dollars. As an older person, in my 20’s, 30’s and 40’s on The True Meaning of Cool (1995), Jumpcuts: An Art Film (1996) and Love,Park (2010), it was much the same thing -- me running the show, calling the shots, working the camera, writing, producing and editing --- sometimes roping friends in to shoot with me or getting a better editor to do a final cut. In 2007, I was brought in to direct a short film at the last minute after the original director had to be removed from the project. I had no say in the script or the cast but I hastily hired my own skeleton crew -- a DP,  an editor and a sound guy -- and we banged it out.

Pre-production on the sitcom pilot that I am directing has been going on for over a month, we’ve had  casting calls, rehearsals and meetings with the camera, prop, make-up and wardrobe departments. To be honest, I sometimes lose track of how many producers I am working with and how many assistant directors or camera people there are. When the full crew assembled last week, I didn’t know who half of them were. The point is not that I am clueless. The point is that this shoot is bigger than anything I have ever done before and I am loving it.

There are few, if any nerves, just anxious anticipation. The script is good. As a writer, I can be pretty cranky and picky about scripts written by other people but that is not the case here. Sure, I have tweaked the script, changed a line here and there, cut a chunk out of a scene and so on but the core of the project is solid.

As for directing, it’s been said that the key to good directing is good casting. I have been blessed with a wonderful cast, the vast bulk of whom are camera ready. Okay, I will give myself some credit for analyzing the script and knowing in my guts that someone was right or wrong for a particular part when I cast them but my line producer gets a lot of credit for seeing eye-to-eye with me and backing me up on my choices.

Of course, directing is not just casting the right actors, it is conducting them like an orchestra, coaxing them to deliver the lines as I feel they should sound. Actors can be fragile, feisty, sure of themselves or totally lost so I have to make my cast feel good about what they are doing. There is a degree of cheerleading and ego-massaging taking place on and off the set and I love that part of the job as well.  Of course, the job is not just dealing with people, it is dealing with machines, too. I have to make sure that the cameras ---- all four or five of them on this shoot --- are getting what I want them to get. 

The bottom-line is that, no, technically, this is not the first time that I have done this kind of thing. It is the first time that I have done it at this level.  For the first time in my my life I really feel like I am doing what the thing that I have always wanted to do, that I feel that I am meant to be doing and I happen to think that I am doing it really well and, what do you know, it feels good.

Seminarian

Last night, a friend sent me a link to a screenwriting seminar/networking event and asked for my opinion on it, and if I thought it was totally BS. I formed my opinion before even clicking on the link.

I am cranky, cynical and skeptical about all of these screenwriting seminars and networking events. Yes, they often have some decent speakers with solid credits who offer some useful information. But most attendees will not be networking with these people; they will be attending their lectures. The vast bulk of the meet and greet will be done amid desperate, aspiring screenwriters. I know that I am being negative here on one level but I have to think that I am being realistic. Yes, Oscar-winning screenwriter and director Paul Haggis got his first writing job by connecting with a classmate in an L.A. screenwriting class but that story is by far the exception rather than the rule.

I am reminded of the scene in Adaptation where Donald asks Charlie for money to go to a Robert McKee screenwriting seminar:
                    KAUFMAN
              (muffled by pillow)
          Screenwriting seminars are bullshit.

Kaufman pulls a copy of Variety, open to a photo of Margaret,
from under his pillow. He gets lost in the picture.

                    DONALD (O.S.)
          In theory I agree with you. But this one
          is highly regarded within the industry.

                    KAUFMAN
          Donald, don't say "industry."

Donald, now in the sweater, appears on all fours in the
doorway. Kaufman puts the paper back under his pillow.

                    DONALD
          I'm sorry, I forgot. Charles, this guy
          knows screenwriting. People from all
          over come to study his method. I'll pay
          you back, man. As soon as I sell --

                    KAUFMAN
          Let me explain something to you.

                    DONALD
          Yeah, okay.

                    KAUFMAN
          Anybody who says he's got "the answer" is
          going to attract desperate people. Be it
          in the world of religion --

                    DONALD
              (indicating his back)
          I just need to lie down while you explain
          this to me. Sorry. I apologize.
              (lies down, stares at ceiling)
          Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Okay. Go.

                    KAUFMAN
          There are no rules to follow, Donald, and
          anybody who says there are, is just --


                    DONALD
          Not rules, principles. McKee writes:
          "A rule says, you must do it this way.   A
          principle says, this works... and has
          through all remembered time."

                    KAUFMAN
          The script I'm starting, it's about
          flowers. No one's ever done a movie
          about flowers before. So, there are no
          guidelines, and that's good because --

                    DONALD
          What about Flowers for Algernon?

                    KAUFMAN
          That's not about flowers. And it's not a
          movie.

                    DONALD
          Oh, okay, I never saw it. Go ahead.

                    KAUFMAN
          My point is, those teachers are dangerous
          if your goal is to do something new. And
          a writer should always have that goal.
          Writing is a journey into the unknown.
          It's not building a model airplane.


There is plenty of information to be had there but, for the most part, I don't hear about anyone making it in the film business as a result of going to a seminar. Most people make it by:

1)doing really well in film school + hustling really hard to get a foothold in the business
2)already having connections who are working in film
3)making an eye-catching low-budget indie film

The guy who directed the upcoming remake of the Evil Dead is from Uruguay. He got hired to direct this Hollywood feature film based on the strength of his five minute short that became a viral sensation after he posted it online.

Many big directors got their start on tiny, tiny films with budgets in the low-mid 6 figures  --- Bryan Singer, who does the X-Men movies, first made a splash with The Usual Suspects but before that film, he had a Sundance hit with Public Access which was probably made for $50K. James Mangold, who directed Walk The Line, Girl, Interrupted" and 3:10 To Yuma started out with a little indie called Heavy.

There are lots of paths that people take. Right or wrong (but backed up by years of research and tons of anecdotal evidence), I have always seen #3 as my path but there are even more options out there. I love to sit around and write screenplays but I also recognize that plenty of people (Francis Ford Coppola, Oliver Stone, Woody Allen, David Koepp) have parlayed their success as writers into opportunities to direct films. I also put myself out there as a screenwriter. At this point, in my market, people know me via word of mouth/self-promotion. People often sometimes ask me to write for them and I do, hoping that they can put their film together, get it out there, be successful and find some recognition. So, screenwriting seminars and networking events? For now, no thanks, the next screenwriting seminar I go to will be the one where I am being paid to have people listen to me.  

Who The Frack Do You Think You Are?

Tackle a big, topical, contemporary issue in a film and you’ll find that making a statement can sometimes come at the expense of telling a good story. There should never be a fine line between a movie and public service announcement. They are two distinct forms and we should know which is which. Thankfully Promised Land director Gus Van Sant and stars/co-writers Matt Damon and John Krasinski keep things balanced for the most part.

Based on a story by Dave Eggers, Damon plays Steve Butler, an affable, confident representative of a natural gas company.  He arrives in a small Pennsylvania town and, after a stop at the local general store to pick up a regular guy wardrobe, he sets out to dazzle the cash-strapped residents with big money to let his company drill on their land. The problem is that, in case we don’t know by now, we surely learn from this movie that drilling for natural gas involves a controversial processing called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it is commonly known.  While everyone in town needs the money, there are a significant number of residents, led by a wily high school science teacher played by Hal Holbrook, who are against the prospect of creating a devastating environmental disaster.

Butler is a pro through and through and ready to pull out all the stops. It has been said that politics really just boils down to a couple of people talking in a room and talking to people is what Steve does best. He seems up to any challenge but when Dustin Noble (Krasinski), a scruffy grassroots environmental activist who is twice as charming and affable as Steve arrives in town to organize the fight against the gas company, he finds himself on shaky ground for the first time in his career.

Yes, Promised Land threatens to get more than a little preachy now and then. Damon, Krasinski, Holbrook and Frances McDormand as Steve’s colleague Sue all get showy moments and monologues as the film examines the topic. Even though it threatens to go over the top, the film never gets heavy-handed.

One of the big challenges of this film involves asking the audience to get behind and root for the guy we all know is the enemy. It is a little hard to not recall Bill Forsyth’s wonderful, magical Local Hero, which involves a representative of a Texas oil giant trying to buy out the residents of coastal Scottish town and ending up charmed by them. Thanks to a nifty narrative curveball, we wind up seeing Steve Butler in a new light. Overall, Promised Land  is a solid, understated film but, for all of its indie credibility and earthy-crunchy politics, the biggest surprise is its unfortunate Hollywood ending.

This review originally appeared on cinedelphia.com:
http://cinedelphia.com/promised-land-review

Fading Away

Years ago, a radio consultant did a demographic study and determined that people, especially men, always tend to go back to the music they listened to between the ages of sixteen and twenty. It makes some sense. At that age, we are no longer kids; we have most of the autonomy and few of the responsibilities of adults. We might be running around with our friends and experiencing first love with a pulsating, raucous soundtrack. Who wouldn’t be nostalgic for that music?

In the 70s George Lucas took us on a vivid, enthralling trip back to his 1962 -- the guys, the girls, the cars, the wall-to-wall music -- in American Graffiti. In the 90s Tom Hanks made his debut as a writer-director with That Thing You Do!, the relentlessly likable tale of a fledgling Erie, PA rock band. Now, in 2012, we have acclaimed veteran TV producer David Chase taking us back on a clearly autobiographical trip to the late 60‘s in Not Fade Away.

Chase, a seven-time Emmy award winner, is best known for creating the iconic, ground-breaking HBO series The Sopranos, but before deciding on film school, he played drums in a number of New Jersey bands in the 60s. Not Fade Away, about a drummer (John Magaro) in a struggling New Jersey band, is his feature writing-directing debut and it feels like something that’s been boiling inside of him for years, bursting to get out. Like many things that boil too long and finally burst or explode all over the place -- a volcano, for example -- the results are a mess.

Not Fade Away is all over the place, a hodgepodge of meandering sub-plots about not especially compelling or even sympathetic characters.  With painstaking attention to period details and a pricey classic rock soundtrack, Chase seems not only preoccupied with recreating and reliving the precious 60s but more interested in revisiting, maybe even reinventing, his own past and less concerned with compelling, coherent storytelling. Every guy has the girl from their youth that they still can’t forget. I wonder how long the 60-something Chase spent looking for a 20-something actress to play the girl he never forgot.

Everyone can name a favorite song that came out when they were young, maybe even more than one. It can be easy to forget that for every song we loved when we were between sixteen and twenty, there were dozens of tunes that sucked and have been rightfully forgotten. Sometimes it is better to not hold onto everything. Maybe some things are better off fading away.   

This review originally appeared on cinedelphia.com:
http://cinedelphia.com/not-fade-away-review

"The Guilt Trip" aka "Rogen. Streisand. Man. Woman."

How would you like to see Bar Mitzvah Boys, starring Ben Stiller, Seth Rogen, Jack Black and Adam Sandler? That’s the question I ask my Introduction to Screenwriting students to gauge their reaction -- how many groan, how many say they plan to see it, how many groan and plan to see it, and how many of them think it will be a hit. Most of them want to see it and even those who don’t want to see it think it will be a hit. Next, I tell them that there is no such movie; that I made it up. That’s how the film industry works. That’s show business. “Hey, let’s put A-list Star 1 in a movie with A-list Star 2 and see how many people go see it.”

I can’t tell you exactly what went down with the development of The Guilt Trip, but I suspect that, somewhere down the line, there was a conversation that went, “Rogen. Streisand. Man. Woman. Mother. Son. Old Jew. Young Jew. Sounds like a movie to me!” And I suspect that the process of writing the screenplay was not much more sophisticated.

I cannot deny The Guilt Trip its charms. It has moments. I chuckled but ultimately I felt, for lack of a better word, guilty for allowing myself to enjoy it to even a small degree. It felt like I was rewarding mediocrity; like they got one over on me a la “I’m Seth Rogen and this is Barbra Streisand. We are going to banter onscreen for 90 minutes and you are going to love us.” I got suckered in; I sat there and watched this film that represented a minimal expenditure of creative effort. The Guilt Trip could have been better but I get the sense that nobody even tried to take it to the next level.

The first red flag for me was Rogen playing a subdued scientist. That’s just not right. Both Rogen’s performance and his character are inconsistent and not fully formed. In the drama Take This Waltz, Rogen shows that he can tone it down and play it straight but here, in a comedy, he feels stifled, as if he is not always sure of what he’s supposed to be doing with his character.

Streisand is a Jewish mother. That’s her character and that’s what she plays. Sure, even though they give her some backstory, her Joyce is not a real, dimensional woman with a personality, feelings and opinions; she is schtick. Jewish mothers are all the same. They don’t have personalities. They are Jewish mothers and that is their personality.  That said, for all of her serious filmmaker moves in recent years, it is easy to forget that Streisand has genuine, comedic chops. Even though they were on display in the Focker movies, here she recalls her What’s Up, Doc and For Pete’s Sake era persona.

In the event that the onscreen pairing of Rogen and Streisand is not enough to send you racing to the nearest theater, there is a plot that involves, of all things, a man taking a cross-country trip with his mother. Rogen’s Andy is a sad-sack organic chemist who has invented an all natural organic cleaning product that is both safe to use and effective. His problem is that he is a terrible salesman and all of his pitches to major retailers fall flat. For some reason, he flies from his home in L.A. to his childhood home in New Jersey so that he can embark on a road trip to pitch the product. Believe me, I did see this movie but I swear I cannot remember or exactly figure out why he decides to invite his obnoxious, overbearing mother to join him. I write screenplays and teach screenwriting for a living and I am still trying to discern, understand and accept his motivation. That’s what I mean about taking this movie to the next level. I’m sure they could have come up with something better, couldn’t they?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love road trip movies but does anyone ever take to the highways with someone they actually get along with? Oh, that’s right, movies are about people taking journeys --- either literal, physical trips or spiritual, emotional voyages -- where they end up in a new place, as new or whole, better, people. So, guess what, Andy and Joyce clash, things come to a head, they apologize, see each other in a new light, bond and move on, happier. 

Guilt Trip 2: The Guiltier Trip,  anyone?

This review originally appeared at Cinedelphia.

Christmas In South Philly

Christmas In South Philly from David Greenberg on Vimeo.