Thursday, April 07, 2016

LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD (2006) vs. ALISON (2015): Visual Tropes and Motifs

The single biggest influence, both thematically and aesthetically, on my now recut and freshly completed Alison was its 2006 predecessor Little Red Riding Hood. Really Alison is both a sequel of sorts and a remake. The only reason I didn't outright remake the film was because I felt Little Red Riding Hood wasn't a juicy enough story and I'd have more fun doing an Alice in Wonderland movie in the same style with more sophistication. What amazes me the most is how many visual similarities there are between both films that I didn't even intend. Here are examples of all the thematic and visual parallels that Red and Alison share: some intentionally done to invoke my acclaimed little short, others done completely subconsciously.

Both films open with a close up of the sky shot through a telephoto lens. 

The next shot is also almost identical: the shot dissolves out to a shot of the camera, with a wide lens, panning down a landscape until reaching the film's opening setting.

The female protagonist is introduced in a close up. She is shown doing something child-like (reading a children's magazine, swinging on a swing) to establish a meek, naive and innocent quality.

Intimidating, domineering mother character. Both have masculine qualities as Red's mother is played by myself in drag and Brina, the actress who played Alison's mother, is transgender.

Before the female protagonist makes her first steps on her mock Joseph Campbell "Hero's Journey" of sorts, she flashes a nervous, apprehensive look at the camera. 

The "mouth shot" is a long standing favorite of mine. In this case, both are imposing male figures.
A panoramic shot of the forest to establish location is another favorite of mine.

The shots in both films that follow are almost identical: wide angle tracking shots from behind Red and Alison as they trek through the wilderness. This was somewhat intentional on my part.

Two characters that Red/Alison meet early on in their journey in a forested setting (the Lumberjack and the Cheshire Cat) both impart information upon the female protagonists and warn them of the movies' antagonist(s). They also later show up to rescue the heroine in her darkest hour.
Similar close ups of the female protagonist as they demand to know more information. 

Both characters played by David Luce are first seen smoking. 

The Wolf and the Mad Hatter both kidnap the heroine by knocking her unconscious, though their methods are different (Wolfie uses strangulation, Hats uses drugged tea). As the protagonist blacks out, the audience sees a trippy double to triple exposed shot that fades out.
After a fade out, the protagonist wakes up tied to a chair in a grotesque and filthy shack/dungeon. The same location was used.

The shot that follows, a close up of the protagonist waking up to realize where she is, is almost identical.

The protagonist both scream bloody murder upon seeing the antagonist. 

 These shots of the antagonist taunting the tied up protagonist are very similarly angled.
This close up of the female protagonist pleading with the antagonist are almost identical. 

The protagonist spits at the antagonist.

The Wolf and the Mad Hatter have very similar taste in macabre and grotesque decorations with a pedophilic, child-like air. They also have many torture devices and the bones and remains of their victims everywhere.
"Mouth shot" of the antagonist as he taunts the female protagonist in a rather sexual manner.

 The antagonist is taken down by a secondary character wielding a shotgun, albeit in different ways.
I seem to like fishnets on my actresses. No comment. 

Swords at the seashore. Both scenes were shot on overcast days and color graded similarly (this was intentional on my part). 

Food-based grotesquery, served up, in both cases, by characters played by David Luce.

This shot is nearly identical in both its content and intent: as the protagonist challenges an antagonist to a duel, the camera closes in on her face with a wide angle lens close up.

 The protagonist and an antagonist engage in a show stopping sword fight.

Some of the shots during the final duel are nearly identical. 

The protagonist dispatches the antagonist with an identical "sword swing" shot.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Poster for EATER and more!

Advance poster for my next, short film project: Eater. Plot details are pretty much under wraps so it'll be a big surprise, but a major hint is that it's a horror/comedy about gluttony and getting obese and something of a parody of the torture porn genre.

I redid Alison's official trailer slightly to make it more in line with the finished movie, sound effect and cut-wise and also added the updated, shortened Alison title. Next week I will be posting a 10 minute reel of assorted scenes from the final cut of Alison.

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Updates and posters

A few announcements.

I have decided to change the name of Alison in Wonderland to simply Alison. I feel the film will play better with the Alice in Wonderland references obscured. I feel like it will be better for my audience to come into the movie colder, especially given the very genre-bending quality of Alison.

I wound up doing another cut of Alison. I mostly did some sound tweaks and took a bit more footage out. The movie runs just over 66 minutes now.

I gave a long needed and much overdue update. Alison in will soon follow suit in the next few days.

My next project will be a short film called Eater. It will be filmed this fall. I am keeping the plot rather secret for now as I want the end result to be as shocking as possible. I will be releasing a poster for it in the next few months.

Last but not least, here's a treat, some posters for Alison that will be used to promote the film at festivals:

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Film vs. Digital: Opinions on a Long Time Debate

One of the biggest and longest running debates in the filmmaking community has been the merits of celluloid film vs. digital cinematography. As are many of the heated debates raging in the current world, it's something of a battle between more conservative traditionalism (the old "If it works, why change it camp") vs. more a technology loving and open minded mentality.

I, personally, am neutral in the debate. While I lean a little more towards film projection as opposed to digital, I see shooting on film and making a movie digitally as two equally viable filmmaking methods, both with significant advantages and drawbacks. I haven't shot as much film as digital formats, granted, I shot some footage and made a couple short films on Super 8mm when I was a teenager just to get the experience of working with film, but I've watched many, many films in theaters, old and new. Some of them were shot and projected on film, others digital and others shot on film and projected digitally and so forth, so I feel I have a keen understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of both formats and respect the filmmaker's decision to use one or the other.

Celluloid motion picture film is one of the oldest modern technologies there is. I'm not going to get into the history of photographic film, there's Wikipedia for that shit, but the process of exposing and developing is something of an alchemy: an image crafted with light.
Film is, in many ways, a superior process to digital. The image quality of a frame of 35mm film (and far more so a frame of 70mm IMAX film) is technically superior to any digital format that exists today. However, while a digital image is even and smooth, film is an analog process and thus is full of variables such as grain. Modern film stock is much crisper and far more quality controlled than what filmmakers had in the 1920s, but there is something about it that is alive, unique and that no digital cinematography process can quite manage to replicate.

There's really nothing quite like the pure way that film captures light. Film is far harder to use and takes a level of professionalism far higher than most digital cameras: handling film improperly can ruin your footage completely, pulling focus is harder with no digital image to already see and the cinematographer needs to select the "speed" or light sensitivity of your stock very carefully for the lighting conditions. But get it right and you've got magic on your hands.
The obvious drawbacks of film are that its aforementioned higher difficulty level in use and the fact that film must be developed and printed before it can be viewed. The biggest single drawback is the cost and this is indeed the main reason why digital projection has soundly defeated 35mm projection in mainstream cinemaplexes. Super 8mm film alone is about $40 for about three and a half minutes of raw footage to shoot and develop and that's not even counting the cost of telecine. 16mm and 35mm film is, of course, far, far more expensive, so expensive that only professional film productions can afford its use. A Hollywood film shoot that shoots in 35mm can expect to rack up a bill of well over a million dollars just for the use of its film stock. And the cost of making prints is extremely high. It is indeed these very large drawbacks that largely keeps film solely in the court of the pro leagues and out of the hands of lower budget filmmakers and amateurs and perhaps that's for the best. Film is an expensive, difficult but beautiful and rewarding process for people who really know what they're doing.

For me, while I would hate to see digital ever replace film completely, digital cinematography has a lot of potential. The biggest benefit it has is to lower budget and amateur, just starting out filmmakers. Simply put, digital filmmaking puts a lot of filmmaking power and higher quality imagery in the hands of people just starting out.

Back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, if you wanted to make any sort of low budget film, you needed to shoot on Super 8mm or 16mm. Now Super 8, while comparatively cheap and beautiful though it may be, is of such low visual quality that it looks somewhat cheap and "amateurish" no matter how well it's exposed, so most filmmakers graduating from the amateur arena had to use 16mm, which if handled well (especially in case of Super 16) yields results good enough to be blown up to 35mm and shown in theaters. The problem is that shooting on 16mm is quite expensive and thus, a low budget filmmaker would have to be taking their craft seriously to even want to pursue it.

This started to change in the 1980s with consumer analog video: VHS, VHS-C, S-VHS, 8mm tape and Hi8 all made it easier to quickly make films and be able to view your footage instantly, but analog video was still too crude looking a process for the professional arena with a few exceptions, though some direct to video films were shot on tape and of course forms of television such as newsrooms and sit coms, which especially benefited from a faster, "instant" work flow, had been using analog video processes for years prior. Things really began to change with the introduction of standard definition digital video (DV) in the mid 90s. This was better quality than analog processes and some of the higher grade cameras could produce an image almost on par with 16mm to some eyes. Low budget films began to embrace DV and once high definition 1920x1080 digital video came around soon after, digital cinema began its long standing battle and rivalry with celluloid film.
Now we cut to the present: incredibly low cost and high quality digital video processes are everywhere. You can buy a Canon DSLR camera that shoots HD and/or 4K video for under a thousand dollars and use it to shoot your feature film with lenses that have depth of field as lovely as any Hollywood film. 4K, 5K and now 6K Red cameras have been developed with 8K on the near horizon and the cost of these cameras, which many Hollywood productions now use, is surprisingly affordable. Hell, films have been made on smart phones which have been accepted into festivals, won awards and gotten distribution.
For the low budget filmmaker, digital filmmaking has many benefits. It's dirt cheap, of course. For the same price as about seven minutes of raw Super 8 film stock, you can purchase an SD card that holds hours of crisp HD footage. Even an hour of digital tape, which is far more expensive and less efficient than card shooting, is still far cheaper than a single three and a half minute fifty foot roll of Super 8 stock. The SD card can be formatted and reused again and again. You can view your footage instantly, Once you know your way around a digital camera of any kind, getting good, properly exposed and well focused footage is easier than if you were working with 8mm or 16mm film. Thanks to the constant advancement of digital technology, now, literally, anybody can make a movie. I know that without cheap and high quality digital technology, making my film Alison in Wonderland would have been much harder.

While it is true that anyone with an idea can now make a film, that democratization of low budget cinema has made things more difficult in some ways. There is now a massive glut of digitally filmed low budget content on sites such as YouTube and Vimeo and because of that glut, getting your film noticed, if you've finally made one, is more difficult. You have to be all the better now to shine above the many, many digitally shot low budget films out there. Back in the 70s and 80s just making your film was enough, but making films was harder back then. Now it's just the opposite situation. Yet overall, digital cinema is an excellent tool for lower budget filmmakers that is, in some ways, democratizing the industry.

Digital projection vs. traditional 35mm projection is a harder call. Initially I was not that impressed by digital projection: the first two movies I saw projected digitally were The Last Samurai and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. The technology, however, has gotten much better since then, however and I started to notice that it was getting better in the late 2000s. Nowadays, of course, it's difficult to even find a 35mm presentation of a new film, though I did manage to get to see The Dark Knight Rises in both 35mm and 70mm IMAX and Interstellar in 35mm. I guess, at the end of the day, I prefer a DCP presentation for new, 3-D or digitally shot movies, whereas, of course, 35mm is the way to go for older movies or some movies still produced on film.
Inherently, 35mm has a lot of advantages as a projection process over digital. It is far higher quality in the amount of visual information displayed than a 2K or even a 4K DCP. There is a big draw to 35mm or especially 70mm IMAX projection in that it's an experience that can't be obtained at home. The problem is that 2K DCPs, while they're of far higher bandwidth and pixel depth, are only marginally higher in resolution than a Blu-ray and with 4K TVs now becoming available and 4K Blu-ray approaching on the horizon, watching a 2K DCP in a theater is not much different an experience than watching a high resolution movie on your big TV. I fear this, along with inflated ticket prices, are what's driving the massive decrease in theater attendance. I will say this, while I've been impressed by some digital projections of films, nothing I've seen can come close to topping the experience of seeing The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises on a hundred foot screen in 70mm IMAX.
However, there are in fact some advantages to digital projection. Every time a print is run through a projector, it is damaged and scratched slightly and the longer the movie has been running, the worse the prints tend to look. This is not a problem with a digital projection, which of course, being composed of a digital file as opposed to a physical print, looks as crisp two months into the film's run as it does opening night. Another problem is that most mainstream multiplexes had poor projection practices when it came it to showing 35mm prints and projecting 35mm, maintaining a 35mm projector, etc, is far more of a difficult craft than showing digital "prints" which are far easier to project. Often prints were shown with the projectors improperly calibrated, so a DCP is actually a superior visual experience to a poorly projected, out of focus film print which is what you would often see at multiplexes toward the end of 35mm's heyday. 
Another thing is that even movies that are shot on film are now "finished" digitally in what's called the Digital Intermediate (DI) process. The film's negatives are scanned into a computer and then all post-production: editing, color timing, etc, is done digitally and the film is then mastered at 2K or 4K. This process first became popular with the first Lord of the Rings film since it allows a level of quality control and digital manipulation of the image that film lab color timing which was used until then did not. Today, almost all Hollywood productions use this process, with Christopher Nolan as one of the few exceptions since he dislikes the quality loss of digitizing footage. So, if a film, whether filmed on celluloid or digitally, is mastered at 2K or 4K, printing it to 35mm makes no difference in the quality and seeing a DCP made from the original digital master is probably a better bet.
Overall, while no digital process has yet to equal or successfully copy the aesthetic and experience of celluloid film, I am open minded and believe it will continue to get better. The rise of this new technology excites me and I believe that one day we may well be filming and watching the movies of tomorrow in resolutions as high as 32 or 64K. I think that, for the near future, celluloid film will stick around as a tool for the older guard and the professionals while digital cinematography will continue to fuel cinematic innovation among the non-professionals and put higher and higher image quality in the hands of the masses. Celluloid film may well be phased out completely in use some day due to its cost and environmental impact, but I feel that, for now, both mediums and techniques have their place in the world of cinema.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

An End and a New Beginning

I haven't posted in this blog for over two years now, I know. I've been 50% busy, 50% lazy and my blog wasn't getting many comments, so maybe I just didn't see the point of updating this blog anymore. That being said, I think I'm going to start updating it again. I enjoy writing, especially about my film work, so perhaps it'll be kind of therapeutic.
Alison in Wonderland is now complete. After the 25 months stretch of on and off shooting, it wound up taking around the same time to put the film through post-production and finish editing it. There was much work to be done. First I got all the actors with speaking roles back for dubbing/ADR sessions as I ended up using very little of the movie's onset recording. I couldn't really afford a boom mike, sound recording equipment and the talents of a sound recordist (though in retrospect, I should have invested in those as it would have made my job a lot easier), so much of the on set sound was riddled with background noise, peaking and reverb.
Further down the road, originally I was going to do the Caterpillar as a string puppet, but Dave Luce convinced me that going the digital route with CGI would be more economical and look comparable. So that's the route that we ended up going, with Dave both providing the voice of the creature and doing the animation himself. The rest of post-production included editing the HD footage to match the SD workprint cut, a shit ton of rendering and the recording and mixing of a good thousand or so sound effects. Some of the sound effects I collected from royalty free sources, most of them I recorded myself.
Several scenes actually ended up on the cutting room floor. I removed the dinner scene with Alison's parents, shortened the scenes with Derek breaking up with Alison, the Molly and Alison at the river scene and the Alison's mother scene and cut some of the Red Queen stuff down. The biggest complaint I got was that it took too long to get to Wonderland so a big part of the reediting was getting the "real world" opening to run faster and the movie in Wonderland quicker. I also completely recut and restructured the film's ending which I felt had a similar problem, in that movie took too long to end, as in, all Alison's trials in Wonderland are over, why is the film still going? The original cut has several scenes all occurring in chronological order. I ended up turning the ending into a far shorter montage of the four scenes that I felt flowed far better and ended the movie in a much better way. The hardest scene to cut was the President scene with William Bloomfield since I put a lot of work into that scene, but I ended up deciding that it had to go anyway. The scene, mainly spoofing George W. Bush, seemed relevant back in 2008 when I first wrote the script, even back in 2011 when it was shot it still seemed more raw, but seven years of Barack Obama have made the scene seem kind of dated and unnecessary. I was originally strongly considering making an extended director's cut, but now I see no need to as the shortened version is my preferred cut and I really think the film runs far better shorter.  I'll make the deleted scenes available either on the Blu-ray or online.
The music was something of a hodgepodge, akin to Romero's theatrical cut of the original Dawn of the Dead with its mix of original music by Goblin and stock library music. The amount of money left over for music was limited, so I couldn't afford a full score like I had for Little Red Riding Hood. I could only afford to have about 10 minutes of original music composed which mainly consisted of themes for all the characters Alison comes across in Wonderland. This music was done (and done exceptionally well) by Canadian composer Dave Klotz. He also re-orchestrated the Schubert and Bach pieces that I used. The rest of the more incidental music I took from Kevin MacLeod's extensive collection of royalty free stock music from this site called It's a very valuable resource and collection of high quality music that I recommend any low budget filmmaker use. There's incidental music for just about any mood you could want and it's all quite high quality and doesn't cost a dime.
I ended up making like five or six finished cuts that I thought were final but I ended up doing a lot of tinkering with. The first cut was a mess and came about basically because I was really weary after having been editing for nearly two years and I was eager to just finish the darn movie. But after showing it to a few people and watching it several times myself, I conceded that it was kind of a lazy, sloppy rush job and rolled up my sleeves and starting fixing it up. Cut #3, completed in late June, I was relatively happy with and started sending to film festivals but even that cut I realized down the road that I had problems with it. I fixed some of those problems with cut #4, but later I started to notice that that cut had some unresolved problems as well so I did a more complete overhaul one last time that just finished rendering yesterday: fixing everything that could be fixed, mostly in the sound mix, making a few edits smoother and even replacing Kendahl's screaming, which I was honestly never that high on, with much more anguished stock screams that I found.
So that's that, Alison in Wonderland is finally complete. While I still have a few problems with it, I'm a lot happier with the newest cut. Some things came out better than I could have imagined, other things fell short of my vision. It is currently in consideration in about 12 different film festivals.

Now for my next project, I'm not sure what's going to happen. I have decided to abandon plans to make The Witch's Castle. I've made up my mind that the subject matter is just too awful to make into a film and I never thought I'd say this, but I've largely lost interest in it. Plus it's a straight faced drama and I don't know if I'm an accomplished enough filmmaker to pull it off on a low budget. Last year I redid my script for Divine Comedy, which is an old idea I was green on making back in the 2000s (in fact I really wish I'd make it as Red's follow-up instead of Dream House) which involves Jesus Christ battling the forces of evil with martial arts. The real project I'd like to make next is my long standing dream project Coup D'Etat which has been now retitled Coup D'Etat [or the Rebellion of Young Ellen]. I started writing that script in 2005, scrapped what I had of the first draft and finished the first draft of the new version in 2012. Since then I've done a ton of revisions on it.
It's the story of Ellen Bennett, a 16 year old girl in an oppressive fundamentalist boarding school run by the domineering Principal Ragner and the awful Pastor Hill. Each day at school is a miserable struggle for her, made only bearable by her friends including Ryan Wallace and Jim Giovanni. We later find out that she's the daughter of an anarchist who two years earlier tried to blow up Congress. During Thanksgiving, she finds the journal of her now incarcerated father in her relatives' attic and as the oppressive environment of the school begins to take its toll on her, she starts planning something truly outrageous. Assembling the fellow frustrated misfits at the school, she begins plans to stage an armed revolution in the school and remove the oppressors from power. The current draft is around 172 pages and I'm having difficulty getting it down in length. I am, however, extremely proud of the script and very confident about the x-factor of the concept. It's possibly the most politically relevant script I'll ever write: an angry condemnation of the American right wing and also an exploration of the darker side of human nature and why most revolutions tend to fail through human corruptibility. There's little ground that the script doesn't cover: the controversial issue of school violence, religious fundamentalist hypocrisy, homophobia, racism, police brutality, etc.

The problem with making Coup D'Etat is that it'll cost a considerable amount of money and need some serious professional resources, but I'm seriously thinking "Why dick around making another low budget film when I should cut to making what I really want to make?". Of course, if getting Coup D'Etat made doesn't end up working out, I will probably make Divine Comedy. I also may well make a short film or two. I'm also considering making a documentary about the English dubbing industry in Hong Kong at some point. Meanwhile, I am planning to write several new scripts, the first is called Occupy Sherwood and is a modern day Occupy Wall Street-inspired re-imagining of Robin Hood, another is as of yet untitled and will involve the issue of human cloning and the final one is an anthology film about human corruption and greed through the ages. I'm pressing on, needless to say.