Writing Portfolio Up

Some samples of my writing are now posted to this blog. They are in the tabs up near the top of the page.

The Ethics of Chef Hollywood: Responsible Filmmaking

If America is a restaurant, Hollywood is the Chef.  One of the reasons modern Americans are so sick is that their Chef is feeding them poisoned food.  Americans swallow the food blindly, greedily wolfing it down, all the while unconscious of the fact that they are eating spoiled food.  People need to pay more attention to what they’re eating.  But as a film major, it’s clear to me that it is equally important for the Chefs to be responsible about what they give the people to eat. 

            One of the major poisons in Hollywood movies is an obsession with sex.  Many romantic comedies automatically assume that couples will and should sleep together before marriage.  Many have couples even start out their relationship in this way.  Countless action movies throw in a sex scene just for the sake of it.  Most TV shows sooner or later add some “character development” by adding a romantic relationship that is, you guessed it, sexual.  Playboys are a commonality on shows and in films.  Some writers and directors, however, make a stand: they reject the idea of the player, and suggest that he settle down and stay with one girl.  But marry her? Who ever heard of such a thing?

            Filmmakers are not only irresponsible towards their viewers, but also towards their actors.  Dr. Patton contends that many affairs start in the workplace. Unlike most employees, however, many actors and actresses have to gaze into each other’s eyes, day in and day out pretending to be “in love.”  And on top of that, many scripts demand that they make out or do other sexual acts.  Does it surprise you that celebrities are infamous for affairs and broken marriages?

            The actors and actresses are responsible for their own choices, but the directors, the writers, and the producers are also responsible for what they command them to do.  They are responsible help them protect their marriages, even if it is inconvenient for business.  It is my contention that no actor or actress who is married should be told they need to kiss anyone besides their spouse.  If that means the script has to drop its make out scene, well maybe we could have some actual dialogue instead.

            Filmmakers are particularly disrespectful of their actresses.  Actresses are used largely as eye candy, being objectified on screen.  Often, being mostly or completely naked is part of the job.  Think about it.  Most fathers and mothers would be horrified if they were told their daughter was going to become a stripper.  Most, however, would be proud if they were told she would grow up to be a star actress.  The irony is smothering! At least a stripper is only exposed to a limited crowd.  Star actresses are exposed before millions of viewers!

            Hollywood movies have more poison than just sex for their audiences.  Criminals are often the protagonists in movies.  Yet what they do is rarely portrayed as negative.  Nearly all movies have filthy language: it’s only a matter of how much.  Audiences have swear words hammered into their brain by the preaching of cinema.  And the movies that strive to rise above meaningless violence and offer a message are sometimes the worst.  The message often comes out as, “belief is good, regardless of what the belief is. Believe whatever feels right to you.”  This attitude is meaningless and flies in the face of the Gospel.

            Hollywood doesn’t care about pleasing God.  And as long as it doesn’t, we’re going to be fed the same poison.  What America needs is Christians who will set an example of honorable, responsible film making in a world that does whatever it wants to.

Here is another movie-cover style photoshop project, with three versions.

It's the Little Things: Conversation and Expression's Heightened Implication in Film and TV

In real life, people often analyze the meanings behind other's words and actions. They want to know what people really are thinking--what the subliminal messages are. Because people don't always say what they mean, other clues (nonverbals) are continually interpreted. For example, if Juan has feelings for Kate, he is not likely to immediately express these, but rather he will first "test the waters" and see how she might feel about him. He will likely do this by sometimes saying things in flirtatious tones, smiling at her more often, and dropping subtle hints in conversation. Thus, much of his testing will be based on nonverbal expression, not just verbal subtlety. With both the nonverbal and the verbal subtlety, however, his meaning is subterranean. He will also be keeping a keen eye out for similar subterranean messages sent by Kate.

How does this all relate to film and television? Film and television are dramatic productions: that is, whether they production in question is a drama or a comedy, there is nearly always plot and conflict. The plot and conflict must be advanced continually. In real life, there are many, many details that are not "advancing" a particular plot. However, in most film and television, such details would mostly be considered a waste of time: something that could risk losing the audience. Thus, most details must be important. The audience has seen enough film and television to know this, so they are always watching little details to figure out why they are important: they must be there for a reason, so what do they mean? This is true in mysteries, where people are not often saying what they mean--often hiding the truth. This is true in romantic movies: what the main characters think about each other is of the greatest interest. Since most productions have either some element of mystery or romance (or often both), hidden motives are nearly always present. They are expressed through subtle expressions, phrases, tones, and actions that take on larger meaning.

The relevance and meaning of these clues is heightened compared to reality. If the audience sees Jenna smile after Victor says something, they are quickly going to assume that she is starting to like him. They know its a likely possibility that she will develop feelings for him, simply because it happens so much in film and TV. Otherwise, their relationship would be less dramatic, and the medium demands intrigue. Also, if she is shown smiling, her smile must have significance. So her smile is not just a smile.

In real life, however, her smile could mean a lot of things. Most often, when a girl smiles at something a guy says, there is not going to be a romantic "plot-line" between them. She could be simply enjoying his conversation, but not thinking any more of it. Also, even if she did have a romantic feeling in that moment, it is likely that it will not last, or that nothing will come of it. Not so, in film and TV. It's going to come up again.

But should it be like this? That's a question worth asking. Should film be so charged with a combination of myopic interpretation and preset cliche that something that could hold many meanings often can only hold one? Are there other kinds of relationships that are worth talking about? How should directors and writers use hidden meanings, and how can they when these meanings are forced into cliche boxes?

The audience has been taught to assign a few meanings to many actions: "she likes him" and "he's a traitor/bad guy" being the to most common. Using these conventions is often useful, but it can make it tricky to film outside the box.

Improvisational Shooting

In the last year or so, I've made a few videos that were shot without a script. One of these follows eight passers by who discover a mortally injured man. He dies, but not before making a mysterious inquiry and a critic accusation. He was apparently assassinated. The group descends into an intense debate about what to do with the situation. Matters are complicated as mysterious events unfold.

A group of my friends and I had agreed to make a movie that night, and met downtown to shoot it. We had no final idea of what the plot of the movie would be. After we discussed for a couple hours, and shot some extra montage footage, the last member of our group showed up, and quickly sketched out a skeleton plot or more of a premise. The paragraph above outlines most of what we had.

With no script, the actors improved each take. I would shoot until I felt like I'd shot for long enough, whether to break up the shot and move to the next or to keep the dialogue from dragging or becoming too chaotic. Sometimes I broke it up for no conscious reason at all. In between a some takes, I would talk to the actors about what basic information or plot development we needed to convey through the take; then, when the camcorder was rolling, the actors improved their lines. This method of shooting yielded results that had both pros and cons.

One of the greatest advantages of shooting like this was that what the actors said sounded more natural than is common in a scripted movie. The lines constantly overlapped, like the discussion of a chaotic and confused group of people really might. People ignored what others where saying and interrupted. They even made errors in their wording. The camera style I had to use matched the type of dialogue. Because I had no planned shots and didn't even know who would be speaking at what time, I had to spin and pan the camera from person to person. This however, can add to a feeling of being caught up in the confusion. The camera, and hopefully the audience, becomes part of the arguing group.

The problem with this kind of shooting was, because we were shooting at night and outdoors, there was not enough light. While this too added to mood and confusion in some ways, it was a bit too dark. The video would have been better and easier to follow if it had been visually clearer. A better camera (I used a SD consumer camcorder) may have helped. It would have been nice to be able to see the characters better. Additionally, continuity was a bit harder to maintain with this kind of shooting.

Perhaps the most rewarding part of filming the movie was the ending. We realized that we had set ourselves up for an interesting ending without realizing it. It seemed to fit excellently. In postproduction, I realized that one small section blatantly contradicted the ending, but was able to edit it out, causing the end to mostly make sense.

One perk of shooting in this improvisational style was that the whole movie was shot in one night.

Here you can decide for yourself how well the video works:

CONVERGENCE

I shot another video in a similar style. This one was a more subdued gangster movie. Most of its plot was determined ahead of time, and we were a little more selective, reshooting a few of the takes, I believe. I also used a less chaotic camera style. However, there still was no script, and the movie was shot in one night. I broke it into four parts for YouTube posting. The aim was to make a subtle but tense or suspenseful movie about gangster intrigue. Whether we succeeded or just made a slow movie, you can judge for yourself. At very least, I think the two guys who played the mob bosses gave interesting and colorful performances.

High Stakes, All In (A Mobster Movie in 4 Parts)

Teaser Trailer Video

This is a video I made in the style of a theatrical teaser trailer. There's no actual film to go with it, but if there was, it would be something like a post-appocalyptic noir movie.

City of Smoke (trailer)

Here is a movie-poster style photo edit I did in Adobe Photoshop last year. I just touched it up a bit.