The trailer for Danny Boyle‘s latest film 127 hours was released today by Fox Searchlight.  It is said to be a very tense return to the big screen as the film features over an hour without dialogue…

My initial reaction.  Uh huh.  And?

It raises an interesting point that is bizarrely missed by most of us.  Films are movies… ‘moving pictures’ (I think we have moved on a bit from describing them as ‘talkies’).  The pleasure of watching a film and indeed the dramtic story is found in the images themselves.

Robert McKee in Story puts it very bluntly… he advises the screenwriter to ask “How could I write this in a purely visual way and not have to resort to a single line of dialogue?”

We are too used to films spoon feeding us exposition and dragging out the pace of the film.  We are very literate in the language and grammar of cinema and in life experience itself.  We find it insulting when three different characters at different points in the film tell us what is happening and why it is important.  We reap a great deal of information from the images we see and only need clarification or deeper insight.

Expository dialogue should be used as ammunition by characters at a point when the audience is bursting to find out.  The principal form of cinema is action whether an explosion, a kiss, a turn of a card or a closing of a door.  Leave the dialogue for theatre.

So why does it happen?

In my opinion a few reasons exist 1) Lazy writers 2) Insecure producers 3) Poetic writers.

1) Rather than struggle to find a way to convey the story visually writers have the characters explain to each other what is going on (despite the fact that both characters should know).

2) Producers get concerned that the audience won’t get ‘it’ and require ‘it’ to be repeated in a variety of different ways at a variety of different times,  just to be sure.

3) Poetic writers are horrified at the thought that all their writing won’t ‘appear’ on screen.  It will be visualised by the director who will get the credit.  So they focus their love of language in poetic dialogue that they think will make it to the screen. (TANGENT: I’m not sure how Quentin Tarantino manages to do it but he is the exception that proves the rule, although I do feel he slipped up in Kill Bill Vol 2 as it is mostly talk rather than action)

Alfred Hitchcock once said that “Once the screenplay is finished and the dialogue added, then we can begin”

I say…

(silence)

Just my tuppence worth

I have the new iPhone. I love the new iPhone. I like to consider myself a filmmaker, or a fledgling one at least. So the arrival of this app to accompany the iPhone’s dazzling new HD video camera made me a bit weak at the knees.

The main purpose of this app seems to be to create a video postcard for you to send to a friend/relative, not to edit any sort of narrative video. With options to choose a theme, including; Modern, Bright, Travel, Playful and News, each theme includes a matching set of titles, transitions and its own soundtrack. There is barely any room for tinkering with these set themes, pretty much destroying any glimmer of creativity for the end-user. The actual ability to ‘cut’ footage is a fairly simple touch and drag technique that compliments the phones multi-touch technology, but this can become quite fiddly. The best feature comes in the shape of the export feature where you have the choice of Medium, Large or HD video sizes, and from there one can go on to upload to Facebook or YouTube or just simply email the video to a friend.

Although never blown away by the features of the full iMovie in OSX, I can appreciate its use in the right hands, hands ranging from beginners to parents wanting to chop together ‘home movies’ of their offspring taking their first steps.

So I can only assume that Apple are trying to cater for the same users, not those of us wanting a Final Cut Pro Studio in the palm of our hands. Which is fair enough. I just wont get my hopes up next time.

“Only you can prevent remakes, by not going to see them” – That’s the key to remakes, if you’ve seen the original, chances are if you liked it you’ll want to see the new one. That’s what studios are (literally) banking on.

Total Recall, one of favourite films of all time is up for a remake by director Len Wiseman. I really can’t see any reason to remake Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 masterpiece (yes masterpiece), it’s as entertaining to watch now as it was when I was too young to watch it. Verhoeven’s trademark high body count and Arnie’s action hero attitude were a perfect combination for Ronald Shusett‘s screenplay. The realisation of life on future dystopian earth and the colony of mars was wonderfully realised visually, with truly great visual effects and production design. It had a absolutely awesome cast with Arnie in one of his more interesting and certainly more fleshed out roles. As well as Michael Ironside, Ronny Cox and Sharon Stone – all in their prime.

So with so much going for it and it still being a great film to watch, why remake it? The only thing dated about it are some of the prosthetic effects, but even those add to its charm if nothing else.

The simple answer I think is that it’s a sure bet. Why bother taking a risk making a new sci-fi action film based on an unknown author’s work when you can just recycle what has already been a hit once. Wiseman has stated that he’s going to produce a “contemporized adaptation of the 1990 film”. So its definitely going to be a remake of the film rather than a different take on Phillip K. Dick’s original novel ‘We Can Remember It For You Wholesale”. Now this to me sounds a bi lazy and to be honest there are novels out there screaming to be made into films. The last film that Wiseman was behind the camera for was 2007′s Live Free or Die Hard – another film that while fun, its hard to see the point of, just another Die Hard that was not as good at the first 3.

If a studio wants a sci-fi action film with a solid story and some excellent concepts, then anything by British author Alastair Reynolds would be amazing to see on the big screen, epic galaxy sized stories like the ‘Inhibitor’ series in ‘Revelation Space’ and ‘Redemption Ark’ or his best work ‘Chasm City’ would be a breath of fresh air in the cinema. The fans of Iain M. Banks have been calling out for a featured based on the stunning world of his meta-civilization, the Culture. The closest that we’ve come to seeing has been the frankly brilliant short fan made film Something Real (full film below):

Its such a shame that studios, with the financial clout to realise the scale of some of the concepts in the most popular modern science fiction are content to stick with established classic stories and continually re-make them.

Its not all bad news, the classic 1974 novel, The Forever War by American author Joe Haldeman is finally making its way to the big screen after the film rights to the book were picked up my Ridley Scott a couple of years back. For those not in the know, Forever War is a stunner of a book, which deals with the effects that fighting an interstellar war across 1000s of light years has on peoples lives. The film is being written by the Blade Runner writer David Peoples and Scott has said that he has been influenced by James Cameron’s Avatar, and has decided to shoot it in 3D. Not a good first step for a story that is often cited as serious representation of warfare and its effects, Haldeman having fought in and heavily influenced by the Vietnam War. The argument for and against the use of 3D continues, but that’s a different rant altogether. Whatever the format The Forever War is a great story with some great concepts that will be hard to make into a bad film. It’s about time some interesting new sci-fi ideas hit the screen.

But at least one Paul Verhoeven film is safe for now, the RoboCop remake has been dead for sometime but remember – Only You Can Prevent Remakes, Don’t Go To See Them!

Earlier this week I wrote about the closure of the UK Film Council and why it was a terrible move. However rather than be a merchant in doom and gloom like most, here I am going to bring a few positives to the fore out of this closure.

Before I start, it is worth me saying that I still strongly protest to the UK Film Council’s closure and those who wish to petition can do so at: http://www.savethefilmcouncil.co.uk/

Anyway, on the brighter side…

• Those who argued that it was a good idea to close the UKFC because it had more hits than misses have made a fundamental error. Look at the film industry as a whole and it would be fair to say that there are more terrible, bad, and just plain average films then there are good to outstanding pieces. Not every project can be a winner. Everyone hits a few bum notes and makes mistakes, so as an argument for this closure this just angers me.

(Hang on, I’m still complaining. Dammit. OK, brighter things from now…)

• I touched upon this point in [Part 1]. Now we don’t have a major funding and distribution body we have to adapt. There are too many budding film-makers in this country for us to just roll over and let our industry go to dust. I hate to use this phrase but “we didn’t win two wars by rolling over when things got tough.” Again, my apologies, but there is relevance in it. Who knows? This might just be the moment where we start fighting for our own industry rather than using it as a stepping stone across the Atlantic. One and insignificant. Many means something.
• FilmFour, Working Title, Pinewood Studios. We still have big hitters working and funding in this country. It’s not like we have been left with nothing. Now could be a chance for one of these, or even a smaller company, to step up to the plate and deliver.
• Hollywood talent is enjoying coming over here. The most recent example (albeit for TV) is Paul McGuigan (director of Lucky Number Slevin and Push) coming back to direct two of the three ‘Sherlock’ features for the BBC. Chris Nolan shot a lot of his Batman films in the UK. Bond (albeit on hold due to MGM’s financial struggle) has constantly shot at Pinewood Studios. All of this suggests we won’t get left behind.
• The fact that there is less money and distribution routes means that filmmakers will have to do more with less, and this usually brings out the best of people’s talents. Duncan Jones’ Moon. Robert Rodriguez’s El Mariachi. No matter where you are in the world, film-makers have proven they can be at their most talented when working on a budget. In terms of ingenuity in distribution, the best example that springs to mind is when British director Matthew Vaughn went outside the studio system to make Kick Ass, then still push and get a major release.

So it’s not all doom and gloom. The shutting of the UKFC is still a mistake and an annoying one at that, however this maybe the spark that lights a real fire under Britain’s budding film-makers. About time too.

It’s certainly been a long time coming but details have emerged this past week that YouTube will be upping the 10 minute video time limit to 15 minutes.

This is obviously very good news for the vast majority of filmmakers and general contributors to YouTube who can’t afford or don’t have the resources to arrange a partnership with YouTube allowing for extended length films to be featured (usually a share split on advertising revenue). YouTube has long featured this extended length content and now ‘normal folk’ will be getting a look in. 15 minutes obviously wont allow you to upload your latest feature length piece, unlike ‘Home’ which premiered exclusively on YouTube, but it will give filmmakers from all over much more flexibility in what content they are able to upload without having to produce the stripped down ‘YouTube’ edit. 15 minutes will better suit the short film format that has prospered from exposure on YouTube and other video sharing / community sites.

In comparison Vimeo, which is specifically tailored for the online creative community rather than the skateboarding accident / humorous fury animal crowd already offers a more more flexible approach to video uploads. The standard Vimeo membership allows you to upload up to 500mb of video of any length every week. More than enough to handle longer video projects when using a suitable file / compression format. Vimeo also offers the ‘Plus’ membership for $59 a year, allowing uploads of up to 5GB per week, a direct commercial approach that YouTube has yet to offer. While not as widespread as YouTube, Vimeo is well used in creative circles.

There are plenty of other options out there for hosting your film content online but YouTube is still the second most used search engine in the world (after its big brother Google), putting it way ahead of other video hosting services in terms of content exposure. The extended time limit is only going to strengthen that position. But the big question is how long will it take before 15 minutes is too short as well?

Words can’t describe how angry I am right now. Here is the back-story for those not in the know:

The UK Film Council is to be axed as part of a cost-cutting drive by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), it has been announced.

The organisation, founded in 2000, had an annual budget of £15m to invest in British films and employed 75 people.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said he wanted to establish a “direct and less bureaucratic relationship with the British Film Institute”.

UK Film Council chairman Tim Bevan called it “a bad decision”.

He said the announcement was “imposed without any consultation or evaluation”.

“People will rightly look back on today’s announcement and say it was a big mistake, driven by short-term thinking and political expediency,” he said.

“British film, which is one of the UK’s more successful growth industries, deserves better.” Tim Bevan, UK Film Council chairman.”

Source: BBC News Website, Entertainment and Arts – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10761225

There are so many obvious holes and problems with what the government has done here it’s frustrating, so I will do my best to organise them in the easiest way possible so I’m not just ranting with the frequent obscenity thrown in.

• The UKFC was chaired by Tim Bevan, co-founder of the UK’s biggest producer of film Working Title, and his efforts to push not just his own work but the work of this country forward as a whole was not only admirable, but necessary. All of his good work has just been undermined and put to a halt.
• The last decade of UK films created with the help of the UKFC: The Last King of Scotland, This is England, Vera Drake, The Constant Gardener, In The Loop. Where are those films going to come from this decade?
• I have pushed always (on blogs and to anyone relevant who will listen) for talent to stay in this country and help bring our industry forward rather than be talent that keeps Hollywood as strong as it has ever been. Now this has been done, what impetus does any of our established or unknown film-makers have to stay when the government is so keen to cut the legs out from under us? Shut to cut costs? We will lose so much more than money.
• I’m not a politician or an accountant, but surely putting money into creating a sustainable Film Industry will bring in not just money, but jobs, tourism, and a greater cultural identity in the long run. This is a short-term knee-jerk reaction that has had no thoughts given to the long run. Film has always been an industry where you have to spend money to make it. No risk. No reward.
• On the other hand it maybe interesting to see how we adapt and recover. It might make us rally together and pull up our industry to a world-beating level. However may I refer to an early point. If the government are willing to undercut us and take out a key helper of our industry, why should anyone bother fighting to rebuild it if there is a chance that we might get cut down again?

UKFC. RIP.

P.S. I know I am one person, and a very insignificant person at that, but I still am apart of this industry. I still intend to fight for this country’s industry, regardless of what happens. Again, I am one and insignificant, but if there are others who would do the same, then we stop being insignificant…

This is not just a picture of Jason Bourne. It’s a very special picture of Jason Bourne. It’s special because you can see what Jason Bourne is doing with his life. Remember that…

No I haven’t flipped completely, but I do have a point. In 2002, Doug Liman’s The Bourne Identity helped modernise the action film. It showed audiences that they could have flaws, that they could bleed and the cars they drove could take a battering. It made our action heroes just a little more human. It prompted the revamp of the Bond series which brought about the superb Casino Royale. All-in-all, it was good for cinema. Apart from one tiny element.

In 2004 Paul Greengrass, a brilliant British director, was brought on-board to direct the sequel to Matt Damon’s action vehicle, The Bourne Supremacy. As a whole he did a very good job. The film was slicker, fast-paced but understandable, developed Bourne’s character well and had kick-ass action. All good so far.

Oh and remember that scene where scene where Bourne goes into that German guy’s house, cuffs him, then they fight, Bourne strangles him then blows up the house? Remember how all that occurred? Well I remember he used a magazine to batter him at one point but… No that’s all I’ve got. If only the camera STOPPED BLOODY MOVING.

Yes, the one pit-fall of the modern action flick is the director thinking it’s OK to take the camera off the tripod and zoom in so you can see Matt Damon’s nose hair because, hey that’s action right? Is it buggery. The amount of subsequent action films that use close up, shakily shot, fast cut sequences to cover an action set piece is too long to mention. To name a few; Quantum of Solace, Batman Begins, Transformers (hell, why did you zoom in anyway, it’s massive frigging robots!) and Taken. Sure it looks impressive and breathtaking for a second or two, but then you realise you don’t have a clue in Christ what’s going on!

Greengrass put it right when he directed The Bourne Ultimatum, and got the right level of stability, fast-cuts and shaky movement so it look gritty, real, and most importantly understandable to the human eye. But the damage has already been done, and action directors already use the device as a short-cut to having ‘awesome looking action sequences’ to cover the fact that the action is probably pretty naff. And even if it was good, who cares, they won’t let you see it.

As a mini rule for ANYONE, shooting hand-held doesn’t mean you can give the camera to a drunk monkey; then when the footage comes back so blurred it looks like someone has just been sick on the frame, and just say, ‘oh well, it’s gritty init.’ No. It bloody is not. Shooting hand-held means having enough skill to let the camera shake and look all gritty and such, but still have the skill and ability to let the audience CLEARLY see what is happening for a HUMANLY PROCESSABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

Those who don’t adhere to this in the films I review from now on are slapped with the above picture of Jason Bourne’s face and diagnosed with Supremacy Syndrome: when the footage is so shaky/tight angled/zoomed in/fast cut/all of these things; that you can’t see what’s going on. You might as well be watching a gibbon hump a pineapple. Why? It makes you feel a bit unwell and is rather pointless you even watching.

I came across this post, written by Mike Jones, Lecturer in Screen Studies at the Australian Film Television and Radio School that quite persuasively argues against short film as a learning experience and as a calling card for new filmmakers.  I recommend that you check it out but I’ll summarise the main points here.

1. “The relevance of short film structures, patterns and conventions to feature and long-form drama are tenuous at best.”
2. “A short film doesn’t demonstrate you understand audiences and genre and know how to attract an audience.”

Mike finishes by pointing at webisodes as the solution.

I disagree.

Not with the web series point necessarily but with the idea that short film is simply about experience and calling cards.  Short films are a medium in and of themselves.  The very first movies were short films from which sprang the structures, patterns and conventions that created the grammar of long-form visual drama.  The point of similarity between the two is action.  Novels have thought and feeling, theatre has dialogue and film has action.

Regardless of length, the story is told through action however large or small that action may be.  If you can’t tell the story in 10 minutes, how can you tell the story in 90 – 120 minutes?  It’s no easy task but the underlying principles of concise yet descriptive writing and visual direction is the same.  Of course the short film is shorter and sharper, but the task of creating a truly great short film is tough… as it should be.  To be a learning experience.

The difference between feature and short is depth.  A short cannot turn over every narrative stone, every subtle nuance of theme and mood.  It can only shock, surprise and inspire you.  Yet to choose those best moments and make those right choices the short filmmaker must still look at every ‘angle’ (pun intended).

Mike makes this point himself “A short film doesn’t prove you know how to develop story over time or construct consistent dramatic tension and release.”  Yet in his enthusiasm for the point he misses it.  Short film is a step, a learning experience towards developing story over time and learning about dramatic tension and release so consistency can be achieved.

If length is such an issue… why are feature films getting shorter?

Moving on to genre and audience… in order to get short films in front of the people who will want to see them, the filmmaker has to work hard … to find out what is out there, to find what (if any generic slot) the film will get in to.  If the short film isn’t getting in front of the right audience at least 50% of the time I’m sorry but the filmmaker isn’t trying hard enough.  I would guess that all the success stories you hear about filmmakers getting a big break from their short film is because they learnt this fact through 10, 20 or 100 previous short films gathering dust on their shelves.

Its not like the feature film market is any easier… if Slumdog Millionaire nearly didn’t get in front of its audience, what chance does the mico-movie have?  It is a hard learning curve.  You have to be good!

Just my tuppence worth

DT

Over the past couple of months I have been attempting to secure finance for the lost Stanley Kubrick scripts.  The current film in pre-production is ‘Lunatic at Large’ with Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell attached.  Sadly my chances of working on this particular film was dashed when my contacts did not move fast enough to pick up the film and they found finance elsewhere.

However there are two scripts left and Steve & Phil who hold the rights for all three have asked me to continue looking for funds for the following films,  hopefully also leading me to a production role on these films which would be a dream come true to be directly linked with a Kubrick film.

Since this is my first time finding funds of over 5 million pounds for a film, I have gained some valuable insights into the way big budget films finance works.  The investors who are willing to invest could not care less who wrote it or who will star in it (as long as it has a star) and whether or not it will be critically acclaimed.  All they want is a fast turnover of cash, they put in X they want to know how they will get X plus P back – profit… that is all that matters.

This can cause problems of its own.  They need to know you have a completed article with many little but important structural point in place like sales agents, insurance, bonds etc.  In addition they want stars attached and see you making the best use of all the available incentives.  This of course means that IF you had all of this in place you would not really need them to invest as there would be plenty of others on board,  defeating the point of looking for investors.

Well to clear this up I am meeting one of the biggest VCT investors in the UK. They invest over a hundred billion pounds a year in a multitude of projects.  I’ll be asking them to explain to me the best way to leverage funds out of investors hands without all the details in place.

I will let you know how it goes.