Participatory Documentary

Over the years, the Western world, particularly the world of Hollywood, adopted a mode of documentary that is highly observational and conflict-centered. The popularity of the Western Observational Documentary is evident in the Oscar winners of recent years. Amy, CitizenFour, 20 Feet From Stardom, Inside Job to name a few over the most recent years. However, Inside Job began a breaking of the fourth wall in the interview setting - partly out of necessity.

In this scene from Inside Job, filmmaker Charles H. Ferguson inserts himself into the documentary through his questioning. This participation, I believe, is out of necessity, since the man isn't answering the question, rather than the purpose of referencing the filmmaker. When a documentary film becomes participatory, the film becomes a narrative of interactions between the filmmaker and the subjects of the film, rather than a report on a topic. As VICE gains in popularity, this mode of filmmaking becomes more popular in an online forum.

In Screwed in Houston, the filmmaker is integrated into the story. His demographics become increasingly apparent as he interacts with the Houston hip-hop community. These moments of interaction are a part of the story, rather than something that is off-screen. In my opinion, this creates a more honest depiction of the community as well as builds the filmmaker as an author of this history in a particular moment, not an expert or objective observer.

Bird Movies in the IMDB Top 250

For this weeks blogpost I will scroll through the IMDB Top 250 best movies of all time and take note of any movies that deal with birds. Here we go!

16 - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

83 - To Kill a Mockingbird

108 - Batman Begins (Bats are kind of birds. I'll allow it)

175 - The Maltese Falcon

Well, that's it! Very short list. Three-and-a-half movies in the top 250 movies of all time are about birds. Since I was expecting this list to be longer, I will do a two-for-the-price-of-one list.

As a case study I will also look at the the IMDB Top 250 list for the opposite of birds.... fish. Hopefully this will show us if Hollywood has racism towards birds. Here we go!

125 - On the Waterfront (I've never seen it but it probably involves fish)

133 - The Bridge on the River Kwai (I've never seen it either but again, probably about fish)

138 - The Seventh Seal (Seals are kind of fish)

163 - Finding Nemo

SIDE NOTE - I probably would have thought Shutter Island (185) was about fish if I hadn't seen it.

221 - Jaws

Well, there you have it. Scientific evidence that Hollywood is racist against birds, there are one-and-a-half more great movies about the opposite of birds than there are great movies about birds.

The Advantages of Using Bird Chatter Instead of Musical Soundtracks in Movies

Hollywood producers are always looking to find new, innovative ways to create a hit movie. Some movie producers have gone as far as putting talking dogs into their films to try to make them successful, but many overlook the power of music.

One technique that a lot of Hollywood producers haven't tried yet is to use bird calls as the soundtrack of their movie.

There are many advantages to replacing the soundtrack of your movie with bird calls, but this short essay will detail a few of the most obvious ones:

Financial

According to David Bell, author of "Getting The Best Score For Your Film," a high budget feature film can cost up to $400,000 plus a $200,000 to $400,000 composer fee. That is an awful lot of money to spend on music.

When your movie is about a haunted house for example, it would make a lot of sense to invest money into bone-chilling and spooky music because that can play a big role in giving the audience they haunt they paid for, but for movies where music is less important, it might be smart to consider using bird calls to fill the dead air.

When dealing with a medium-budget film, you could decide to use bird calls instead of music and re-allocate your funds to another part of the production because you don't need to pay a bird for the music they produce.

Legal

Under U.S. law, in order to use a song in a movie you must acquire a Synchronization License from the publisher to use the song in synchronization with the video and a Master Use License from the record label to reproduce the song in your film.

The advantage of using bird chatter in your film instead of music is that you can circumvent the acquisition of these music licenses because birds won't sue you unless a human lawyer is representing them.

The chances of a human lawyer representing a bird in court are extremely low and there have been no known cases in the history of film of somebody being sued for using bird calls instead of music.

Nostalgia

Other than scent, which is known to be the human sense most strongly linked with nostalgia, hearing might be the next. In terms of hearing, here is nothing more nostalgic than hearing a bird you remember from your childhood. That memory can be very therapeutic for people and very enjoyable for others. These emotions can add to the overall enjoyment of a film.


All in all, replacing your soundtrack with bird chatter should not be overlooked by mainstream Hollywood.

Tarkovsky and Herzog on Film Schools and life.

"What is important to the education of a filmmaker is not a matter learning a set of skills and techniques, but having a vital, passionate need to express something unique and personal. Above all, the student has to understand why he wants to become a filmmaker rather than work in some other art form and he has to ponder what he wants to say in film's unique form of expression. "In recent years I have met more and more young people who go to film school to prepare themselves to do "what they have to do" (as they say in Russia) or "to make a living" (as they say in Europe and America). This is tragic. Learning to use the equipment and edit a movie is child's play; anyone can learn that without half-trying. But learning how to think independently, learning how to be an individual, is entirely different from learning "how to do" something. Learning how to say something unique and different is a skill that no one can force you to master. And to go down that path is to shoulder a burden that is not merely difficult, but at times impossible to bear. But there is no other way to become an artist. You have to go for broke. You must risk everything in your quest to express a personal truth. It must be all or nothing. "The man who has stolen in order never to thieve again is forever a thief. Nobody who has once betrayed his principles can have a pure relationship with life ever again. When a filmmaker says he will try to please people - relatives, friends, teachers, or reviewers -- this time in order to get a degree or earn the money to make the film of his dreams the next time, he is lying to you, or even worse, lying to himself. Once he heads down the path of deceit he will never be capable of making a real film." --Andrei Tarkovsky, Sculpting in Time, p. 124 (adapted and updated by Ray Carney)

   

 Werner Herzog on Film School "I personally don't believe in the kind of film schools you find all over the world today. I never worked as another filmmaker's assistant and I never had any formal training. My early films come from my very deepest commitment to what I was doing, what I felt I had no choice but to do, and as such they are totally unconnected to what was going on at the film schools - and cinemas - of the time. It's my strong autodidactic streak and my faith in my own work that have kept me going for more than forty years. "A pianist is made in childhood, a filmmaker at any age. I say this only because physically, in order to play the piano well, the body needs to be conditioned from a very early age. Real musicians have an innate feel for all music and all instruments, something that can be instilled only at an early age. Of course it's possible to learn to play the piano as an adult, but the intuitive qualities needed just won't be there.

As a young filmmaker I just read in an encyclopedia the fifteen or so pages on filmmaking. Everything I needed to get myself started came from this book. It has always seemed to me that almost everything you are forced to learn at school you forget in a couple of years. But the things you set out to learn yourself in order to quench a thirst, these are things you never forget. It was a vital early lesson for me, realizing that the knowledge gleaned from a book will suffice for the first week on the set, which is all the time needed to learn everything you need to know as a filmmaker. To this very day the technical knowledge I have is relatively rudimentary. But if there are things that seem too complicated, experiment; if you still can't master them, hire a technician.

 "Filmmaking is a more vulnerable journey than most other creative ventures. When you are a sculptor you have only one obstacle - a lump of rock - which you chisel away on. But filmmaking involves organization and money and technology, things like that. You might get the best shot of your life but if the lab mixes the developing solution wrongly then your shot is gone forever. You can build a ship, cast 5000 extras and plan a scene with your leading actors, and in the morning one of them has a stomach ache and can't go on set. These things happen, everything is interwoven and interlinked, and if one element doesn't function properly then the whole venture is prone to collapse. Filmmakers should be taught about how things will go wrong, about how to deal with these problems, how to handle a crew that is getting out of hand, how to handle a producing partner who won't pay up or a distributor who won't advertise properly, things like this. People who keep moaning about these kinds of problems aren't really suited for this line of business.

 "And, vitally, aspiring filmmakers have to be taught that sometimes the only way of overcoming problems involves real physicality. Many great filmmakers have been astonishingly physical, athletic people. A much higher percentage than writers or musicians. Actually, for some time now I have given some thought to opening a film school. But if I did start one up you would only be allowed to fill out an application form after you have walked alone on foot, let's say from Madrid to Kiev, a distance of about five thousand kilometres. While walking, write. Write about your experiences and give me your notebooks. I would be able to tell who had really walked the distance and who had not. While you are walking you would learn much more about filmmaking and what it truly involves than you ever would sitting in a classroom. During your voyage you will learn more about what your future holds than in five years at film school. Your experiences would be the very opposite of academic knowledge, for academia is the death of cinema. It is the very opposite of passion."

 

Jackie Chan and Editing Action

Tony, the man behind the youtube channel Every Frame a Painting released a new video this week specializing in Jackie Chan. If you haven't seen any one of his other videos I can't recommend them enough, they are very well edited and Tony knows a lot about all kinds of films. But what I found interesting in his new video is how action and comedy are quite similar. In terms of how they should be filmed to get the best reaction and how showing everything is always better. Just like a joke showing the action and in the same frame showing the reaction is the best way to pull everything out of the picture. If someone is hit on screen showing the hand and then the reaction from the hit draws more effect from the audience. The video goes on to explain more about the differences in action between American and Asian films. The editing in Hollywood for action has become more about cutting from one shot right as they get hit to the next. Tony goes on to explain that in many asian action films editing has been used to alter the continuity of each hit. So as someone throws a hit the hit is quickly shown and then cut to close up and quickly see the hit again. With only a couple frames it's barely noticeable but adds an extra force behind each hit. I find it extremely interesting how editing can be used in this way and can not wait for Every Frame a Painting's next video.

Check out the video below:

THE INTERSECTION OF MARKETING AND LOCATION SHOOTING: THE AHS MURDER HOUSE MADE REAL

One of the most interesting phenomenons happens with the intersection of marketing and location shooting. One particular example of this is the film location that was used for the first season of American Horror Story, which has since become titled, "Murder House." The interesting thing about this house is that it is a real place in Los Angeles about fifteen minutes from Hollywood Blvd. 

This facade should look very familiar to people that have seen the first season of American Horror Story. This is the same house that is supposedly haunted by the ghosts of murder victims that enact their vengeful wraths on the current owners of the home. Now for a little history lesson on the property at 1120 Westchester Place, which is the real world address of the house. Originally built in 1902 by famous architect Alfred Rosenheim as a personal residence for him and his wife, it was sold to a wealthy mining magnate in 1918. The mining magnate owned the house from 1918 until 1930 and then sold it to famous actor Edward Everett Horton who lived at the location for two years before selling it to a Catholic nunnery that owned the house from 1932 until 1997 and even put a church in on the grounds. In 1997 the nunnery left the property due to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake and the house was put on the market  for 3 million dollars and it has been there ever since. 

Now one might naturally question why a house that is attempting to be sold on the market would court bad press like murderous ghosts. Well, there is one simple answer to the question, MARKETING. Below are two such examples of this marketing....

  

"FILM, TV, MUSIC VIDEOS, AND SPECIAL EVENT RENTALS

Welcome to the infamous Murder House...

For over 100 years, this property has been a very popular Filming Location, having been the set for countless Major Motion Pictures, Television Commercials, and Still Photography shoots, with the biggest names in Hollywood, and around the Globe, utiliziling this property for their projects, many of whom have been back several times throughout this Century.

The list of Feature Films shot at this pristine property is endless, and the list is very long, beginning long ago, when Charley Chaplin was busy making movies.

For Television, the property has been most recently used for the Pilot, and the entire Season 1 of American Horror Story, which almost overnight, became the biggest television series 20th. Century Fox Studios EVER released, starring an amazing cast of characters, and just weeks later, becoming the most popular TV Series on Earth, even surpassing True Blood ! The property has had dozens of TV Series episodes filmed here, including, CSI Miami, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dexter, Dragnet, Hill Street Blues, Six Feet Under, Crime Story, The Twilight Zone, The X-Files, Wiseguy, Law & Order, Ghost Whisperer, NCIS, The Closer, Nurse Jackie, CSI New York, Miami Vice, The Unit, 90210, Cold Case, Angel, The Mentalist, 24, Police Story, CHIPS, Criminal Minds, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, SWAT, ADAM 12, Monk, Las Vegas, Grey's Anatomy, Bones, Californication, an many, many, many more.

Photgraphers who shoot here are the World's finest, with people such as Herb Ritts, Annie Leibovitz, Walker Evans, Bruce Weber, Michael Marks, Helmut Newton, Guy Bourdin, Henry Cartier-Bresson, Diane Arbus, David LaChapelle, Peter Lindbergh, Mario Testino, Terry Richardson, and many, many more.

In addition to Film and Photography, the property has been the location for numerous Music Videos, Concerts, and Private Events.

The Recording Studio has room for 250+ guest's, and has had hundreds of World reknown musicians record amazing sounds inside the walls of this Ultra-Private Studio."

For anyone else who is interested in finding out more about the Murder House here are some links below. 

http://www.joebabajian.com/current-listings/337/1120-westchester-place/

http://www.1120westchesterplace.com

What Has Happened to Horror?

Apologies in advance for cluttering the blog with yet another post on horror cinema, but I attended a screening recently that reminded me of a topic that has been bouncing around in my head for some time now.

So, in my last post, I mentioned that I would be seeing The Exorcist at Cornell Cinema on Saturday. It was my first time experiencing the horror classic and it should come as a surprise to no one that I thought it lived up to the hype. The film was extraordinary- a slow burn character drama with a heavily atmospheric supernatural spin. However, despite being impressed, I never found myself to be scared, at least not in the way I expected to be. Having seen the endless parodies and copycats produced since the film's release, I was desensitized to the terror on screen, but still drawn to it, fascinated, studying how it worked. Compared to modern mainstream horror, the pacing was unnatural and the beats were unusual. There was a distinct absence of jump scares and the thrust of the film was clearly toward its tragic narrative and the complex characters that inhabited it. How radical that must seem now, as Hollywood appears to have it the other way around these days.

This all leads to the question: "What has happened to horror?" Obviously, the genre is still thriving and will continue to thrive as long as cinema exists and people still have the capacity to be afraid. No, what I'm getting at is the exact nature of contemporary horror, at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. It may be unfair to say this, but: Where has the creativity gone? What has become of the genre's formerly radical position? Every year, plenty of horror films come out of the the studio system, but rarely do they have something new to offer. When it isn't the same possession film we've seen a million times (The Last Exorcism, The Devil Inside, Devil's Due, Deliver Us From Evil, The Rite, The Possession), it's another derivative, unnecessary found footage attempt (Apollo 18, Chernobyl Diaries, As Above So Below) or worst of all, yet another remake, reboot, sequel or prequel to a beloved horror series (Too many to list). How many times must we revisit The Texas Chainsaw story? Does Michael Myers need to be resurrected again? Did anyone ask for a prequel to The Thing or a sequel to The Blair Witch Project?

The last horror icon?

How about some new icons of slashers and chillers? I know it's easier said than done, but I'd appreciate the effort at the very least. When was the last time an iconic character was created in the genre? Jigsaw? That was 10 years ago! Captain Spaulding? 11 years ago. And before that? Ghostface (18 years back)? Chucky (26 years)?

I think it's time we stop re-doing and ripping off old classics. Take a chance, Hollywood! Horror is possibly the cheapest type of film to make precisely because of the absence of stars, elaborate sets and big-time effects. In this day and age, it's rare for a horror movie not to make a profit because most of them are made for almost nothing. Look at the recent film, Oujia, for example. Critics hated it and I have yet to speak to a single general audience member who liked it, but financially, it was a huge success because it was made on $5 million, eventually grossing almost 10 times that figure. As Above So Below was made for the same amount and opened to mediocre reception from audiences and critics...it made 8 times its budget. Do I need to go on? Last year's Dark Skies made $26 million at the box office. That would be a fairly sad number for most films, but when your production cost $3.5 million, it's pretty fantastic. What I'm saying is: there isn't much room for a loss, so why don't studios take a chance on more original material? Some of the genre's biggest game-changers were made for nothing and went on to become enormous hits (A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Blair Witch Project, The Evil Dead, Saw, Paranormal Activity...all made for less than $2 million, most for less than $1 million).

Last to mention is a type of horror cinema that seems to be going extinct in Hollywood. About two months ago, I watched The Changeling. Made in 1980 and starring George C. Scott, it was a solid haunted house film rooted more deeply in its storytelling and grief-stricken main character than the scares it produced (Kind of like the approach The Exorcist had). Unfortunately, films like The Changeling are barely attempted anymore and when they are, it's done by independent filmmakers, their work only occasionally picked up for wide distribution (See: this year's Oculus or The Babadook). Is it just to be expected that our rapid consumption, instant gratification-based society would not be able to handle such internal, psychological material? I'd like to think that isn't the case. Even with the dominance of "quiet, quiet, boo scares, " I want to believe that if The Exorcist opened today, it would still be a hit, but then again, maybe people would call it "boring" and "slow" and it would fly under the radar...Food for thought, most definitely.

Keep Rolling

There are long shots in film and then there are really long shots in film. I've always been fascinated by filmmakers that try to compose their film of only a few shots or even one. It's hard enough to try to put a film together but it's on another level trying to do everything in one take. Imagine making a film with over 10 minute takes and on minute 9 an actor screws up his line, now that film is now completely wasted. In Hitchcock's 1948 film Rope the director tried to create a film with only 11 shots, at the time this was a crazy notion and even crazier for a Hollywood film.

Andy Warhol and filmmaker Jonas Mekas' film Empire took the next step in 1964 when they created this 485 minute experimental film. Using 16mm film allowed the duo to now have up to 33 minute takes rather than being further restricted by 35mm film.

With the invention of the digital medium all the restriction were lifted, there was no longer a need to unload and re-load film and now the one take film could be created. Timecode, Russian Ark, PVC-1 and La casa muda are all feature length films that were shot in one take. It's something truly special to see how these films work and just thinking about making a film like this makes my brain hurt. 

But the long takes don't stop there! Birdman staring Michael Keaton has just been released in four theaters and much like Rope the film only consists of a few takes but looks as if there are none. So there it is kids, take risks, fail and then take some more cause you never know what can happen. 

The Master Craft of David Fincher

In honor of David Fincher's new film Gone Girl, lets take a look into the sense of style in his direction that has put him into the forefront of Hollywood. After working a couple years with Industrial Light and Magic Fincher left to direct music videos and commercials. It wasn't until 1992 when he made his first feature Alien 3 that we got a glimpse into his talent. It's an odd film to go back and look at after knowing all the films he has made now but it's still great to check out. The crazy thing about David Fincher is that you can see him grow throughout each film he has made, either toning his style or tweaking his sense of direction.

That green and blue.

From there Fincher would make two amazing films Se7en and Fight Club, and these two films would turn him into one of the biggest directors today. You can see in Se7en the way he directs just two or three people talking and then turns just that into something cinematic and intense. Fincher is known to not really use handheld shots and always keep the camera locked onto a tripod or a track. He knows when to cut and which shot to use to build up tension until it all falls. You can clearly see this throughout Zodiac and the anxiety you get from watching the film. Throughout the film Fincher uses some beautiful insert shots of detectives scrambling through notes and puzzles left behind by the killer. And you can see how that carried over to Netflix's House of Cards and in an odd way there's also a serial killer in that show too.

As time passed Fincher further toned his style but this time through his production design and the colors used in his films. Starting with Panic Room in 2002, Fincher's films started to get this green and blue tint. This was only expanded when he made The Social Network, The Girl With the Dragon tattoo, and now Gone Girl. Fincher combines these elements and just from watching his films you know exactly what he wants, and no matter how many takes it takes, he will get it.

The Fun Left in Hollywood

Hollywood has always been known as the cutthroat heart to the American film industry, usually filled with professionals and never much room for laughter. And all of this is totally acceptable when many budgets cross over a hundred million dollars and studios are looking for the biggest bang for their buck. But it was the seventies and the rise of the American auteur that gave Hollywood some of the most iconic films and at the same time showed that directing is really just about the inner child's imagination. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg both created so many films that will be ingrained into film history for the rest of time. And as they dominated the seventies box office looking back it almost seems as if they were playing a game with each other.

In the late seventies George Lucas was nervous about his new release Star Wars. So when he turned to his friend Steven Spielberg and saw that he was was working on Close Encounters of the Third Kind it just made him feel worse. Lucas believed that Spielberg was creating "the biggest hit of all time" and that Star Wars would fail miserably. So as a small bet at the time Lucas bet 2.5% of Star Wars in exchange for 2.5% of Close Encounters. What was a small bet at the time turned into a forty million dollar investment for Spielberg. But even that wasn't the end to their game.

For the next decade the two would play box office ping pong and when it came to video rentals the two would send letters to each other publicly about the others success. 

The two showed that what they were doing was something that was fun no matter how serious it was, and that through the millions of dollars it wasn't about money. 

For a long time in Hollywood I feel like we have lost that. The sense of fun behind the movie making and that no matter what, film should be about making something that you feel should be made and having fun with it. But hope is not lost! There has been a new resergence in the industry and in a way it comes from the same franchise, Star Wars. 

J.J. Abrams is deep into production on the new trilogy and is bringing the same atitude as Lucas once did. Meanwhile on the other spectrum Zack Snyder is working on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and between the two films they are both approaching the situation just as the original duo did. With a twenty first century twist the two have been crossing their respective franchises in a way to respect the massive amount of pressures they both hold. It's the fun that Hollywood was missing and I hope it continues to stay. 

                                     
These images have been sent back and forth to each director. And the video below is the most recent gag from J. J. Abrams.

Here's to hoping the fun is still alive. 

Why comic book movies are dominating the Hollywood Box Office

For those of you who know me, you are probably not at all surprised by the fact that I chose to write my first post on this blog about comic book movies. If you do not know me yet, hello my name is Lindsay Koenig and I am a huge nerd. But according to the Hollywood summer box office, I'm not alone.

This summer Marvel Studios, owned by Disney, released a film based on a little known comic book called Guardians of the Galaxy. This was considered a pretty big risk for the studio because unlike previous films they'd released such as Captain America or Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy was not a popular comic book series. Not only this, but Guardians was by far the most "comic book like" of all their previous films; featuring a colorful cast of alien characters such as a talking tree and raccoon. The studio had no way of knowing if this quirky film would make any money at the box office.

But Marvel Studios needn't have worried. The film opened with a whooping 95 million dollars in it's opening weekend. Not only that but it has since made over 251 million dollars and has secured it's place as the top grossing film of the summer and is on track to be the highest grossing film of the year.

Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't the only comic book film to roll in the dough this year, however.
In fact, 4 of the top 10 grossing films of 2014 are comic book movies. Here's a look at some of the other big money makers.

Amazing Spiderman 2

Released May 2, 2014

$202 Million 

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Released May 22

$232 Million

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Released April 4th

$259 Million 

So what is it about comic book films that makes them so successful? And why are some studio's comic book movies more successful than others?

To figure this out I'm going to start with the most successful studio out of the many currently producing comic book movies: the Disney owned Marvel Studios.

Back in 2008, Marvel Studios released it's first film. Iron Man became the first in what would become one of the most successful film series of all time. Iron Man was a huge hit not only with audiences, but also with critics. Before 2008 (which also featured the success of Warner Brothers comic book flick The Dark Knight) comic book films were looked at as a bit of a joke, or one notes without much depth to them other than actors in spandex fighting bad guys. 

What made Iron Man so unique, and I believe ultimately so successful, is that there is much more to the film than it's action and explosions.

Firstly, the main character of the film is flawed. Tony Stark feels like a real person, not the typical "do-gooder, responsible hero" type character one might except from a children's cartoon series. Because Tony Stark feels like a real person it is easy for the audience to relate to him and become invested in his story. I would argue that Marvel does an excellent job of making all their heroes seem like real people with real flaws, problems, and emotions. It would be easy for a larger than life character like Iron Man or Captain America to slip into something like a caricature, but these films do a great job of grounding their heroes and making them accessible to the audiences.  

Secondly, something that I found hugely important to the success of a film such as Iron Man, is the respect for the source material. While many might find the subject matter to be a bit of a joke, or something silly or goofy (see the Batman films outside of the Dark Knight Trilogy); Marvel Studios has been extremely respectful to it's source material. There is an element of seriousness to Iron Man and the other Marvel films, even when events on screen would seem far fetched in real life. The stakes are real for these characters, which makes it real for the audience. If you don't understand what I'm getting at think about it this way, Iron Man doesn't make "boom" "pow" nosies when he is fighting bad guys, does he?

Thirdly, and what I would argue most importantly, is that Iron Man deals with issues that are relevant to our world and society today. Within the first few minutes of the film our main character is captured by terrorists. Not only this, but Tony Stark's character arc involves him dealing with the fact that his company not only sold weapons to the American Military but also to terrorist groups, and Stark realizing his responsibility for what his company has done. These plot lines hit pretty close to home, especially in a world where terrorism is such a prevalent issue. By tackling such topics, Iron Man becomes more than just a movie about a superhero.

Since Iron Man, many other comic book flicks have tackled important societal and emotional issues. Iron Man 3 dealt with anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder, while Captain America: The Winter Solider had a heavy political subplot about government and power. Even Guardians of the Galaxy, for all it's crazy space shenanigans, contained undertones about loss and dealing with grief. 

Marvel Studios isn't the only studios whose comic book films deal with issues outside of what might be excepted for the average Hollywood action flick. 20th Century Fox's X-Men franchise deals largely with the way society treats minorities, while Warners Brother's Dark Knight films focus on issues such as terrorism and corruption.

These are just a few of the many reasons I believe comic book movies have been so successful in recent years, and why they continue to dominate the box office. I can only open that other genres start to pick up on what makes these films so successful. If every popcorn flick was as good as the average comic book film, Hollywood would be in good shape.

When Will Film Die?

How many movies in a theatre have you seen in the past year that were shot on film? You could probably count them out on one hand. And at this point everyone knows why that is. Money, money, and more money. With the cost of everything else that is squeezed into a film production it is easy to understand why cutting something that is so expensive is reasonable. Digital movies are cheaper, most times easier to make, and way easier to manipulate in post production. The fact that cinema is dead is nothing new but the question is whether film stock will disappear forever?

 

The simple answer is no. Film is what created this industry and art form into what it is today. And with all the signs of film dying out it may look like it but the fact of the matter is that film will always have it's place. In a similar way to painting you can see the evolution of the materials used to create that art. Using acrylic paint does not mean that your painting is any better than a painting with oil paint. It is just different. And like movies that choice is made because of cost or the personal preference of the filmmaker. The way I see it is that without digital their would be a lot less films and a lot less films means a lot less stories. And who wants that? I don't care what you make your film on or what type of camera you used, just make a film. 

I will not lie and say that you will see a lot of film in the future of Hollywood but with enough money or power their will always be analog. Directors like Chris Nolan, J.J. Abrams, and Quentin Tarantino have fought through the Hollywood main stream to support film. And even in July banned together with the help of their respected studios to support Kodak in it's effort to continue the production of film stock. Nolan and Tarantino have been behind film since the start of their careers and Abrams is currently shooting Star Wars: Episode VII on 35 mm. Hollywood will and always be a business and it's not a surprise why you will rarely see a movie shot on film in a AMC or Regal. In a way it's sad to see less and less of film but always remember that its out there. And movies will always be made. 

Check out the story below:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Quentin-Tarantino-Chris-Nolan-J-J-Abrams-Save-Film-From-Extinction-66537.html

James Franco Scandal

Now I'm usually not one for celebrity gossip, but occasionally I stumble upon something that I think is absolutely hysterical. This week was James Franco's 17 year old girl scandle from Buzzfeed. So according to the site James Franco messaged some girl from scotland via instagram because she was staying in New York for the week. The only problem was she was with her mother, and oh yeah, she is 17. I first read the messages and said "no way," but what forced me to believe that it was actually James Franco was the pictures he sent the girl. There was literally a picture of him with a letter of something she asked him to write for proof. What I think is humorous about this whole thing is I can totally see Franco being a little creepy when not in front of a camera. But what tops this entire thing off is that yesterday on the Kelly & Michael show Franco was interviewed and asked about this exact issue. When asked Franco's response was actually kind of respectful and intelligent. "I was just feeling awkward, I didn't want to come on the show and feel awkward. Yeah, I'm embarrassed and I uhhh… I guess Im just a model of how social media is tricky. It's a way of how people meet each other today.. But what Ive learned, I guess cause Im new to it, is that you don't know who's on the other end. You get a feel for them, but you don't know who your talking to. So, I used bad judgment, and I learned my lesson." So I guess the message of this blog is that stay away from James Franco if your an underage girl.

Where the Wild Things Went: The Art of Adaptation

"There is no such thing as a new idea." Mark Twain knew it, and Hollywood knows it too. The best you can do is put your own spin on an old tale. Or, you can just realize that you'll never be good enough to think of anything on your own and adapt a piece for the screen.

In all seriousness, there is a true art to adaptation. Taking someone else's work and turning it into a visual and auditory experience is extremely difficult to do successfully. For time's sake, let's talk about books and short stories specifically. There are just as many challenges as there are benefits to adapting a written work into a screenplay. Here are some of the biggest ones:

Challenges:

Condensing/Expanding - So you have a 1000 page novel and somehow you have to turn it into a 120 page screenplay. Or on the contrary, like Spike Jonze, you have a ten sentence children's book and need to pull out a feature length film.

Bye, bye Max...

Where the Wild Things Are, a classic story written and illustrated by Maurice Sendak, is a perfect example of expanding a written work into a film. Jonze had to give each of his character's their own depth, and lengthen the plot to keep the audience's interest for a longer period of time. Almost the entire first act of the film wasn't even in the book, but it was well done and implicitly supplied us with information of Max's home life, and the motivation for the rest of the film.

Externalizing the Internal -  Screenplays consist only of action, whereas novels include the interior thoughts of its characters. The job of the screenwriter is to take the emotions and internal motivations of the characters and translate them into something visual. A great example of this is Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman's take of another classic, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The entire novel is told in the first person from the perspective of one the patients, Chief Bromden. Instead of having Bromden narrate the movie, the screenwriters decided to tell it in the third person so that we can see all of the characters' experiences.

It's a third person party!

Benefits:

Insta-Plot - Most of the work is done for you. The plot, the characters, a lot of research and even some of the dialogue. Although the plot and many of the characters may have to be tweaked due to length and elements added to the story, the main concepts are there. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the first installment of the Harry Potter film franchise, is known for its loyalty to the novel. 

The Boy Who Adapted

Although there is some criticism that it stuck too closely to the book and didn't offer anything new, it is a good example of staying true to the novel's plot and characters.

Built-In Audience -  Okay, I know I said to stick to novels, but let's consider comic books for a second (that's a book, right?). We've all seen superhero movies. Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the list goes on forever. But these were all adapted from comic books at one point or another. The great thing about producing these films is that you already have a guaranteed number of viewers. Avid comic book readers will pay money to see their favorite heroes come to life on the big screen. This applies to regular books as well. For example, The Hunger Games was extremely successful because of the giant success and following of the novel it was adapted from.

"Shout out to all my fans."

So go out there, find yourself a popular book, and adapt it into a screenplay before anyone else discovers it. Then get yourself to Hollywood and sell it for as much as you can get your hands on. It can't be that hard, right?

A Changing Steve Carell

My favorite comedic actor, Steve Carell, has recently taken a completely different path in his acting career. Steve is most know for his ridiculous, embarrassing humor is films like The 40 Year Old Virgin, and television show The Office. But this time, he is taking on more drama, and apparently doing an incredible job doing it. The last time I saw Steve act in something somewhat dramatic was Little Miss Sunshine, where he played Frank Ginsberg, an uncle who recently attempted suicide. Apparently Steve's dramatic acting has been thriving in the oscar community in his recent role in Bennett Millers Foxcatcher. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Steve is a highly regarded candidate to be the winner of best supporting or lead in the next year or two. This new project he has signed on to The Priority List, where he will play a teacher dying of cancer attempting to go on a road to connect with his students while making the most of his last days. This is a very different Steve Carell that we may be seeing very soon, one that can potentially be named best actor. Hey, if the main character in How To Loose A Guy in 10 Days can do it, why can't Steve?

Morality's Place in Hollywood

If you had to ask me, at least a few hours ago, I would've said that there wasn't one. That morality and Hollywood were simply incompatible, that both could not exist at the same time. It seemed to me that Hollywood was run by a number of Gordon Gekko's and that "Greed is good". Sure, there are good, honest people trying to do good, honest things, but let's be honest, money is the name of the game.

That being said, the moral high ground IS in fact taken quite often, but less out of voluntary action and more the cause of the driving forces of impending blows to profit and "political correctness". Offend as few people as possible and reap as much profit as you can. I hate to sound cynical, because I certainly don't consider my self to be so, but I feel that this blasé effort to do some good within the medium, which undoubtedly has the ability to help an influence people exponentially, to be frustrating. A little proactivity with the old moral compass goes a long way. 

That's why I was so happy when I heard that Disney and Pixar had made alterations to the ending the upcoming animated film "Finding Dory" after some of the creators watched a documentary called "Blackfish". "Blackfish" is a documentary that addresses the dangers of keeping animals, specifically whales, in captivity in places such as the Sea World aquatic park. The folks at Disney were apparently so moved by what the saw, that they decided to rework the ending of the script, which in fact had the main characters of the film at a SeaWorld type place. Of the change, the people at Pixar stated that they didn't want to look back fifty years from now and see that this film had become something of a "Song of the South". 


If you haven't really heard of  "Song of the South", there's probably a good reason, as Disney doesn't exactly broadcast its existence. That's because today, the 1946 Disney musical is largely considered to be somewhat racist. But I digress. 

Now, that comment about Pixar not wanting it to be a "Song of the South" does suggest that Pixar has their best interests in mind. But here's what separates this instance from others: there was no public outcry, no online petitions, no focus groups. Heck, the script wasn't even released to the public. All this was was a few people who saw a documentary and felt so compelled to do some good. 

Now, I have no idea whether "Blackfish is wrong or right. There are arguments from both camps, with SeaWorld even releasing a public statement on the matter:

"Blackfish is billed as a documentary, but instead of a fair and balanced treatment of a complex subject, the film is inaccurate and misleading and, regrettably, exploits a tragedy that remains a source of deep pain for Dawn Brancheau's family, friends and colleagues. To promote its bias that killer whales should not be maintained in a zoological setting, the film paints a distorted picture that withholds from viewers key facts about SeaWorld – among them, that SeaWorld is one of the world's most respected zoological institutions, that SeaWorld rescues, rehabilitates and returns to the wild hundreds of wild animals every year, and that SeaWorld commits millions of dollars annually to conservation and scientific research. Perhaps most important, the film fails to mention SeaWorld's commitment to the safety of its team members and guests and to the care and welfare of its animals, as demonstrated by the company's continual refinement and improvement to its killer whale facilities, equipment and procedures both before and after the death of Dawn Brancheau."

But here's the kicker, I honestly don't care who's wrong or right. I feel that Pixar's heart was in the right place in this conscious, unforced decision to do what the people behind the film thought was right. That's enough for me.    

Night at the Museum 3?

If there's one thing I hate about the film industry, it's the perpetuation of a film series in order to make  more money. Lucrative films are always getting sequels, prequels and and other type of "quel" that can be squeezed out. Sometimes, these subsequent films build upon the foundation set by their predecessor and are quite good. However, I've found that nine times out of ten, the series reaches a threshold where the films simply stop being good. Take the Shrek series, for example. The original "Shrek" movie was great. Funny, charming, built with a great cast, it was one of my favorite films growing up. Shrek 2 was a pleasant surprise, and in some cases proved to be better than the original. Then "Shrek the Third" rolled around. I remember thinking to myself, my goodness this film is terrible. I didn't even bother going to see the fourth Shrek film. For better or worse, each film was considered a blockbuster hit, and perpetuated the creation of other film. I bet right now there's someone in Hollywood who thinks another Shrek film is a brilliant idea. My point is, monetary success is not proportional to quality, and should not be considered as such.

Recently it was just announced that the "Night at the Musuem" franchise is getting another installment. Now, this one particularly bothers me. I remember being in elementary school when the first film came out, and I was very excited. Rightfully so, as the film was charming, witty, and had a pretty good premise. After seeing the second one, it was clear that the source material for the films had quickly evaporated. It was essentially the same as the first, only it had lost it's charm. I feel like this downhill slide could only continue with a third film. I mean, how many museums can Ben Stiller almost ruin?

It seems like this project is going to get the greenlight, as Robin Williams recently announced that he would reprise his role as Teddy Roosevelt. Nothing to keep a film going like the attachment of big-name actors.

Although I don't want it to, this film will definitely and unfortunately happen.