Catma Project 2011: The feature now titled "What's the Use?"..for now

So, the first feature project we are attempting under the "Catma 2011" guidelines is now called "What's the Use?" At least, for now...

Without spoiling too much, it's about a young teen who goes out one summer night to seek revenge on a man who publicly humiliates and abuses her father at a barbecue party.  Along the way, she meets some interesting folks, has a brush with death, to learn that revenge is not always so sweet and the people we hate are more complicated than just your typical "bad guy."

Jason Tremblay is the writer.

We have no script...but, we have a set of scenes, seventy one of them to be exact, with the motivation of each character clearly defined.  It has begun as a series of color-coded sticky notes as in the picture above, and now it is in the process of being scheduled. I'm using EP Scheduling. This is the slow attentive part. Inputing each scene's costumes, characters, props, makeup, effects, vehicles, time of day, background characters, etc. It's a touch more complicated than a regular script as I'm working off a discussion with the writer and his sheet of scenes with descriptions like "J.C  wakes in Andrea's Arms."

After I have input each scene, I have to print "strip boards" for each scene which will allow me to move them around like bits of a puzzle around days in the calender for July and August of this year. This is the tricky part.  Working around people's schedules, trying to not move the locations much, blocking actors in chunks, etc...I actually really like this part.  I hate puzzles, which is odd, considering I actually like scheduling the shoot.

While I find this part of producing fun, it's also one of these processes that require a lot of focus, and an ability to be extremely thorough. If you forget to list a prop on one of these scenes or schedule an actor based on these breakdown sheets, your night of shooting might just be ruined. So I've just finished the first pass and will be coming through these sheets and least twice more.

Costuming is going to be tough as well as the presence of blood (there are a few gun wounds in this story) requires us to have at least 2 of each costume used in the scene where blood appears. For a tiny cast, my costume list has become quite long.  Sigh...

I'll also be scouting locations this weekend.  Most of the scenes occur at night, which helps with some noise issues and heat, but the lighting is going to be tricky. Can't have it all!

The new "Catma 2011" project continues...

So...it's been two weeks since I posted anything about the new "Catma 2011" project. Instead of floating around philosophies about it, we've decided to put our thoughts into action. We are shooting a feature length film in 2011 based on this DIY approach.  So, here's the update.  

We've chosen an idea for the film's story.  Since Catma is supposed to be about utilizing your resources, we've based the characters on actors/people we know, bringing in their own distinct personalities and traits to the characters they will become.

Because we want things to feel more "natural" and spontaneous, instead of writing a script where the dialogue is given to the actors, we are creating a road map of the story, scene by scene, with clear goals and directions for the actors to work with.  This will require the actors to be quite capable of collaboration, improvisation, or at least willing to take some risks with improvisation and exploration. 

So far, we will be a crew of three or four.  An editor to review to footage after shooting and begin an assembly cut.  A sound recordist. A director of photography. A director. 

Challenges abound however.

As Jorge and I have been bouncing around the approach, we've found ourselves having to be careful about "getting too big."  We've found ourselves talking about choosing equipment that goes beyond the budget, or equipment that would require having a larger crew than the current three or four people we have, and simply having to say outloud "STOP. We're going against our motto." We've had to also maintain this "keep it simple, keep it small" approach for the story and cast size.

Locations.  To keep things simple, all of the scenes should be able to happen just about anywhere. This has been tricky because naturally, as one tells stories, one sets the story in certain places or chooses specific actions.  Every scene must be able to be stripped of any expensive prop, costume, or be shot in a way that suggests it rather than show it.  All locations must be flexible.  

The camera: We'll be shooting without special lighting equipment, relying on whatever we light we have handy.  (It will be okay to utilize any light kits...but only if they are free and don't require a massive crew to move and set up.)   I'm currently testing footage on my Canon Vixia HF M31.  It's an HD camcorder but captures 24p recording at 60i. I've occasionally noticed some artifacts in the image that appear to be the effects of interlacing the image, especially when there is a great deal of movement.  Red Giant software makes a plug in that supposedly gets rid of that interlacing look, but as I ran some tests, it appears that six and a half minutes of footage would take about 22 hours of rendering time.  Crazy...so, that's a mark against using the Vixia. I'm going to continue to work with the footage and try some coloration using Magic Bullet.  

We might be using an Canon 7D, but more to come on that.

I'm both both nervous and excited to see what will come of this.  Movie making can be such a highly-controlled process, and I tend to gravitate towards controlling things because there is so much at stake, that this sort of come-what-may and let's-go-out-and-shoot something approach is definitely a challenge for me.  I'm seeing it akin to finding a box full of tubes of paint, grabbing a few colors, squeezing them in a cup, mixing them together to see what weird color results.  

The Creation of "Catma 2011"

So, Jorge and I decided to break away from our normal busy weekend film-oriented chores, and just head out in the heat for sushi at Sushi-a-Go-Go and a walk on South Congress.  Of course, we always talk film. We always talk about projects, creatively and pragmatically. Nothing we really mulled over was that much different than usual, other than we decided to put aside our high expectations of a nice camera (for now) and embrace a "fuck-all" approach.

Let me elaborate.

Jorge and I have always felt that most aspiring filmmakers in this country are hindered by two things: the belief their immediate lives are not interesting, and the mental "colonialism" by Hollywood's standards and aesthetics.  As media consumers, we are so inundated by Hollywood films, that if our own films don't match in some capacity, they simply aren't good.  Even "indie" films can be incredibly expensive projects that are out of reach for most creators.  Obviously there are exceptions, but as most filmmakers do have even cheap camcorders, making a film can be a much simpler process if we can just let go of these extremely high expectations we place on ourselves as artists. 

So, as Jorge and I dug into some delicious crepes from a street vendor on South Congress, we decided that it was time to revisit the "Dogme 95" rules of filmmaking that were established in 1995 by Danish filmmakers, the most notorious of the bunch being Lars von Trier. The rules were meant to make filmmaking a more accessible process without the incredibly huge budgets most films require. While little rules were broken all the time, the end result was still achieved: new films with different visions, focusing on story not technological pomp and circumstance, shot on cameras my mom could figure out. 

So, laughing, we decided to begin the creation of "Catma 2011," as a humorous spinoff on "Dogme 95."  It's not a reaction to Dogme, but more to the economic realities faced today by filmmakers. Most wait until they get "greenlit," constantly searching for the pot of gold, shopping around projects, searching for investors.  Years will go by and a film never gets made.

Our goal: to empower filmmakers at whatever technological level they are, to use the vast amount of accessible and affordable tools we have at our disposal, to create simple but effective and compelling stories.  We are not against technology, we are for ALL technology, as long as one jumps into using whatever tools they have. It's about making good stories, cheaply, and exploring the dynamic life that is just outside our windows.

We haven't solidified the list of "rules," as this is an exercise for us as well.  But as we plan the feature we wish to shoot , we will propose and post rules we wish to try out. For now:

1. use whatever image recording device you have free access to, wether it be an EPIC camera or your iPhone video recording device.

2. you may certainly use elaborate post effects, as long as they are free. 

3. never ever botch on sound, but find ways to make your onset recordings sound clean and pro, for cheap. If there is ever any element of production you should spend on, it should be assuring you get the best production recording you can. 

Strangely enough, we've been getting some strange "hints" of encouragement, little coincidental discoveries in alignment with our new goals.  This weekend we discovered a filmmaker by the name of Joe Swanberg who creates large amounts of material which he directs, shoots, and edits himself, with a micro-budget. He literally just jumps into his work and does it. I have yet to see any of his work, but plan to attend the Alamo Drafthouse showing of Uncle Kent in June. 

In addition, we attended a birthday celebration of a friend, and as we all sat down to catch up over our recent film forays, our friend expressed the truth that so many filmmakers spend so much time trying to launch one project, that they lose out on other opportunities to work on other ideas.  And the myth of the success story. For any successful project an artist creates, digging deeper will reveal numerous other not-so-successful projects he or she made. 

So, essentially, filmmakers must continually be creating work, with whatever tools they have access to.  Why should the big boys in L.A. have all the fun? 

So, I will continue to put updates here on Catma 2011 and the film we are looking to make.

For now, let's just say we are researching good but affordable sound recording devices and mics to use on a boom. We'll be using my mini Canon Vixia M31 HD camcorder. It's the size of a kitten.

Social Media Makes Us Less Social

As a media artist (nice loose term for doing more than just film), I am told to really utilize social networking as it will connect me with "my audience." Go out there and add as many facebook friends as I can, even if I don't know them. Tweet daily, and constantly update my profiles in LinkedIn, pay the 17 dollars a month to have a presence on IMDB, blog constantly, put all of my videos on YouTube and Vimeo...it's enough to qualify as a full-time job.

I honestly don't care about Facebook and really many of the other social network outlets that exist.  I have some 160 "friends" or something like that on Facebook. I only add people whom I know or have known in some capacity.  I'm not one of those Facebook vampires that adds someone who is a cousin of someone who I met briefly at some club. I don't drool watching my friend number increment, but seeing how some have 1000 friends, I know that there are those who value the numbers game on Facebook.  In all honestly, I rarely read anyone's profile. There are probably only fifteen people out of that nearly 200 whom I have not blocked their news posts because I just can't handle all the stimulus of people posting their favorite videos of dancing dogs and cats, their baby pictures of either themselves or their own children, or just talking about some witty anecdote that requires me to do more research than I am willing to give time to.

I can guarantee you others have blocked my news feeds as well. Do we all really need hundreds and hundreds of friends? Facebook is like a photo album that talks, an address book that won't shut up. Why do I bother to even have a profile, you ask?  Because I do understand the power of promotion through the beast FB is.  And honestly, it's sometimes pretty damn cool to get an add request from an old high school classmate I was sure I'd never hear from again.

Now Twitter. Ok. I appreciate the fact that it forces one to be brief in their message, but I honestly cannot keep up with all the tweets, and seriously doubt anyone reads or cares about my tweets.

Vimeo? YouTube? I recently heard a talk by someone on the team of YouTube. Her focus was on copyright infringement but she gave some startling quote about how many hours of content are uploaded hourly. I wish I could give you those numbers but I can't remember them. But let's just say it was honestly mind boggling.

The point I am trying to make is that people feel the birth of social media and the ability of the internet to connect us to people we've lost track of actually brings us closer. I think they are dead wrong.  I still believe in the strength of real human-to-human contact (not a one night stand, a conversation). There is a lot more to communication when we are face-to-face with people that is beyond just the words we speak.  There is body language, the energy of the life in the eyes, and yes...for those looking to pick up a temporary or long term mate, there is a chemical thing going on as well with the scents we give off.  This is why our internet selves will never suffice for the flesh and blood selves.  There are things our brains are doing as we assess the physical person before us.  On the internet, on our numerous profiles, we only present what we THINK people should see of us. We choose flattering photos that we think present an attractive or cool side of us. We like to think we can be so manipulative of our appearance in public as well, but bits of who we really are sneak through, creating the whole complicated and sometimes fascinating human picture.

I worry that as we all add more friends, follow more people, link up, create more profiles, we will become inundated with the amount of information coming at us.  As we become more and more overloaded with the news feeds of our internet "friends," we start to block their posting, ignore their tweets, put off seeing their uploaded videos.  We are basically teaching ourselves to shut off from others. We are training ourselves to become poor listeners, and poor empathizers.  When we choose to follow or "like" postings by those who we feel have some celebrity clout, or some other redeemable social status, we are teaching ourselves to value the socially fortunate, and ignore those who really have no immediate value to us. How will this filter into the real interactions we make with each other?  Well, I don't really need to tell you. You can see it happening already.  We are glued to our phones. When in groups of others, people check their email and text messages constantly. Our phones lie on the dinner tables in restaurants when we go out to eat. People text while walking to their next destination, not making eye contact with others, not being aware of their immediate environment.  I feel this contributes to our poor attitude on environmental stewardship, but this is a different topic for a different day.

So, social networking will actually make us less socially apt creatures. It will have a reverse effect. 

Working with and Learning from Danny Trejo

This is an older post from July of last year, but as I've recently revamped the Blue Paper Film Works website, all the blogs have been taken down. I'm reposting them here:

Anyhow, we’ve had the luck of working with Danny Trejo during the week of July 3^rd and 4^th.  He played the part of the Hermit in In the Shadow, a small but crucial role. I think both Jorge and I can say that we learned a lot by working with this man that has had a very long career in this crazy thing called the “Entertainment Business.”

We learned about something called giving back. What? GIVING? In the film business? Yes, it does exist. Danny has a very amazing open attitude about helping out those of us that are just beginning our careers. He knows his presence in a film can help it out immensely, as far as its life in the marketplace is concerned. And I believe, to hear him talk about the stories of his own life, that his desire to help out also benefits him a great deal. He is nearing 70, and more active than I am, and I am in my 30s.

I’ve seen and worked with people on the complete opposite of this spectrum, who put themselves and their career needs and egos first, who walk into a room and feel that everyone should kiss their feet and be awed by them. I’ve seen people feel that credits and their titles are more important than the actual work and community that is necessary in something as collaborative as indie filmmaking. I have seen these self-interested people continually dig their own grave, slowly alienating their professional connections, and then bring down their friends and family after.  This is usually a hole they will never ever get out of. They have destroyed the trust of too many.

I suppose in some ways, it is encouraging to me to see that the commonly-held idea that one should work in the film business with a each-out-for-his-own attitude doesn’t really hold up over time. It may give some a brief time of success, but I don’t believe this kind of perspective allows one to last very long. Something happens to the human psyche if you always believe people are out for you, and create or produce as if you are at war. At some point, you break down and stop doing what you used to like doing.  I still want to believe that common courtesy, kindness, and honesty still can matter in this business.  Luckily enough, it does.  Directing Danny Trejo, and producing scenes with him as a performer, have taught me that indeed, it’s possible, and actually necessary, to work in this business with reciprocity, gratitude, and respect.

HOW WOULD WOMEN DIRECT SEX SCENES?

As I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the transient nature of well...everything, I’ve been noting the fleeing nature of emotions, particularly, of human pleasure and pain, and our pursuit of pleasure and denial of pain. This has brought me to one of my favorite topics in film, the way sex is portrayed and explored.
            Rather unfortunately I feel, most men view and experience sex differently from most women. Of course, there are obvious exceptions to this rule, but there are probably some very real evolutionary reasons why there is this difference; reasons that complicate relationships, but simplify survival of a species that actually seems to be doing a pretty good job of eradicating itself despite this.
            Recently, some UT – Austin professors did a study on why women have sex. Not so surprisingly (and I think most women would agree), women have multiple reasons for "screwing" that seem to surpass the more simplistic reason of “lust” and “desire” that men identify with.
            Sadly, these multiple reasons really aren’t explored in film for the most part.  But this doesn’t surprise me because most films are directed by men.  So, by large, the act of sex is usually something meant to titillate, arouse, support fantasies of potency and masculinity.  As a result, most sex scenes seem to miss the many underlying reasons people “do the nasty,” and simplify an act that can be creatively more complicated. I think we’re missing the woman’s perspective of this whole thing.
            If most of the directors, producers, and those controlling the flow of money for films were women, the sex scenes would have a different tone.  Because women tend to have a more emotional identification with sex, I think film sex would explore more of the emotional aspects and less of the pornographic side.  I don’t mean to say that sex scenes created by women filmmakers would be out of a fluffy romance novel, but perhaps would explore other darker reasons women “do it,” like, seeking revenge on a boyfriend/husband, seeing what it’s like before marriage, manipulation of the sexual partner, and yes...even to give someone a disease. (I’m not lying on this one!)
            In some ways, perhaps a woman’s experience and perspective of film sex might be that “missing link” that I often note when filmmakers question what is the REAL difference between blatantly exposed sex scenes in film and those shown in porn.  Porn lacks the emotional complexity that I think a female’s perspective might bring to the same sexual moment. (Porn also compartmentalizes the body.)  Not to say that male directors cannot bring this complexity, because many of them already have, but by and large, it is often sometimes very hard to tell the difference between soft-core porn sex scene and a Hollywood sex scene other than what body parts they show, and the difference in production value. They ultimately still contain the same dry false emotional quality.

NAGISA OSHIMA'S "IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES": THE MOST UNSEXY SEX MOVIE EVER

On to Nagisa Oshima’s “In the Realm of the Senses.”  The most unsexy movie filled with about 80 percent if not more of sex. I felt at the end like I’d watched cats mate for half an hour. But this odd effect I am still sensing is why I think there is something brilliant about this film with the simplicity of the coverage, the fearless close-ups, and exploration without frills of something this culture if completely obsessed by: fucking. And how ultimately, it had the complete reverse effect of titillation and arousal that most sex scenes attempt to evoke. (Well, at least for me. I find pornography boring, and feel neither disgust or arousal from it, so perhaps I am not a good example.)

This film essentially explored the obsession of a couple that does pretty much nothing but have sex with each other. It was like watching two heroin addicts shoot up in a tiny room while you are strapped to a chair in the corner, forced to watch them suffocate themselves, dominated by their addiction to the point where they do not eat, they do not bathe, and they rarely leave the room.  I think most directors would have injected their own moral and visual agenda quite heavy-handed into the treatment of this film, especially as it deals with the most sensitive subject in art: the depiction of sex.  But Oshima was so simple and light-handed with the visual treatment of the film, that the agenda, if there was one, was so transparent and fluid. Some might argue that the use of close-ups on body parts and the general focus on the female’s experience of orgasm make it less light-handed than I suggest, but I think Oshima was attempting to not hide or amplify certain things that pornography tends to do.  He captured scenes with straightforward still shots and close-ups. Bodies were as they were.  Sex, the large amounts of it, was just as it was.  The result of having such a transparent agenda, without the director telling us what to feel emotionally or physically, was the viewer was left to experience the sexuality of this film in a very personal manner.  We were each left to bring our own various sexual ideas and psychology to this film, and that is where I feel this story had a level of brilliance rarely seen with sex scenes or films where sex plays a huge role.

Too often, viewers are told to feel aroused by the sex they are watching in movies, experience reassurance of their masculinity or femininity, or watch their fantasies unfold with movie stars who look nothing like the person we sleep next to each night.  That is because movie sex, like movie life, is always bigger and grander than the real thing.  “In the Realm of the Senses” evoked something of the opposite reaction, something of disgust and amazement at the levels this couple went with their obsession. If one were to just walk in to the middle of the film, it could be arousing briefly, but sitting through the whole experience leaves a sense of emptiness and the sad reminder that beneath our well-constructed façades of intelligence and politeness, we are fundamentally selfish animals driven by primitive impulses and the rewards of pleasure. It is our personal conflicts with this level of ourselves that gives the rise to all the fascinating and fruitful realities of obsessions, addictions, religion, and...well, art.