you get the impression that this Pilalidis George can't
be 'for real?' Could anyone be pulling your leg? Heh.
What do you think about the 48 Hour Film Project? Our
company has decided to participate and was selected
in the first round of applicant. Starting Friday evening
at 6:30, we draw a random Genre, character, prop, and
a line that must appear in a 5 - 10 minute film. We
then have 48 hours to write, cast, shoot, edit and score.
Of course, we have had to lay out 100 bucks for the
priveledge (application fee 10 and participation fee
90 once selected). I have never liked laying out cash
for the priveledge of participating in anything but
this seemed like fun and it was only a hundred dollars.
it seems like a sure-fire way to make a crappy movie.
The difference between a good production and a bad production
is pre-production. A decent script needs to be thought
about extensively, written, re-written, and re-written
again, which can't be done in 48 hours. All in all,
it's nothing more than a silly idea, but have fun anyway.
black, but Coloured or "Kleurling". And who
cares about the last word? Getting the point acoss is
what counts. You STILL stay on gay rights. I never mentioned
anything about gay or gay rights. I said I don't agree
with them. Why do you stay on that issue? But you don't
talk about the rights of beastility or the incest. Your
true colours lie in those answers.
If you say as filmmaker you don't have to advocate the
good, what do you advocate then? I bet you will say
"choices for people" , basically what everyone
in the NEW AGE WORLD ORDER is saying, in other words
PC nonsense. Would you like it if someone taught your
childern that drugs is right? You are clearly not a
parent. I know about Lunatics. A love story. What is
so wrong about that. Nothing! Why do you feel so threatend,
feeling you have to vehemently defend yourself? Must
every director who "don't want to make 'nice"
films make anger-at-the-world films expressing dissapointment
at everything? Like Eminem? Pandering is what we ALL
do, you included. People try to change the world all
the time, I do too, but to make them feel good about
themselves. People arent robots. PC is people's spitefull
way to not change but MAKE you accept whatever they
do, leave you branded and labelled if you don't. Nonsense!
The left call it PC, the right call it censorship. The
truth is hidden always to benifit somone one group.
Pandering is it? We (directors) should cut it out, don't
you think? Millions of dollars is spent in NASA looking
for aliens outhere, where people, animals, earth is
dying right here. All for the liberal liberation of
man? PC is crap forever.
If you ever come to South Africa never call a Coloured
so we can get this out of the way, I don't agree with
pederasty or beastiality because in both instances the
other party is not in a position to consent. Adults
must look out for the underaged, and animals have no
way of agreeing. As for incest, other than the blood
issues which are real, if a brother and sister of legal
age want to have sex and not have children, that's their
business, not mine. And as for two consenting adults
of either gender having sex, whatever thay want to do
in the privacy of their own home is, once again, their
business and not mine. As for what I advocate in my
films or my opinions, it has nothing to do with "choices
for people" as you so blithely assume, it's strictly
what I think. My point of view, good or bad, postive
or negative, which doesn't have to conform to anyone
else's POV. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks.
And I don't have to be positive if I don't want to.
And pandering is not what everyone does, just those
that want to be liked. I don't care if you or anyone
else likes me or agrees with me, it means nothing to
me. I believe that movies at their best are an art form,
and you certainly don't have to get a lollipop at the
end of every story. Many stories are sad, depressing,
unhappy, unjust, and plain old mean, but they're all
worth telling. And get off the PC schtick. The only
thing that you can do is express yourself honestly.
Period. If you pander to the crowd you are ultimately
an asshole. Meanwhile, if you're not white and you're
not black, what the heck are you? Striped like a zebra?
And why can't you call a black man a black man in South
Africa? Colored is a silly term. White people are more
colored than black people -- white people turn red when
they're angry, blue when they're cold, green when they're
sick, and brown when they're tanned. Black people stay
mainly one color. But maybe it's just PC there in South
Africa to not use the term "black," so you're
just being PC, right?
have a friend that is an extremely good writer. She
has three published books, the recent a childrens book
"Caleng and the Moonstone Pearl" ISBN: 1-4107-4611-9.
She also has several screen plays written as well. I
have been trying to get her publicity localy and nation
wide but just don't know what I am doing! She has a
book signing here in St. Louis in Sep. at Barnes and
Noble. She self published said book through First Books.
I was hopeing you could give me some advice or if you
are interested take a look at some of her work. It seems
you both have the same interests in works. Maria writes
from the dark twisted side. I really think if nothing
else her works will entertain you thouroughly!
certainly wish her all the best, but I don't want to
read her stuff, or anyone else's either. I'm only interested
in making films based on my own writing. And I've got
my next twenty books lined up and ready to read, and
they're all non-fiction. What you might want to do is
query some agents and see if they'd be interested in
reading her books. Good luck.
"King Kong" was the one I came up with as
well. My father is fond of telling the story of when
he went to see it as a kid. He was about seven and he
went to the theater at nine in the morning with a group
of kids comparable to "The Little Rascals".
For a quarter you could stay in the theater all day
and they watched "Kong" four times. My Dad
never actually saw Kong himself because everytime the
Ape appeared my Dad would shut his eyes. I've always
thought that would make a great scene in a movie.
It's an interesting parallel because if I went to a
theater showing "The Hulk" I would have my
eyes closed too. This animated character-bit is nothing
but public masturbation; "Hey, look what I can
do!!" I'd rather they do it their basement like
everyone else, but I suppose they have too much money
for that. The old Bill Bixby series at least knew what
sort of story it wanted to tell, essentially a reanimation
of "The Fugitive". The pilot for that series
was really well done, for a TV show. Do you remember
Eddie Murphy's "I'm Gumby, dammit!" routine?
If they had made "The Hulk" with Murphy's
Gumby on steroids I might have been intrigued.
liked in "Cider House Rules" that the only
film they had at the orphanage was "King Kong,"
and they all watched it every week and had a great time.
Later, Charlize Theron asks Tobey Maguire if he likes
movies and he says, "Yeah, 'King Kong' is great."
It's certainly the most influential movie on all of
the effects guys I know. They can go on endlessly about
Willis O'Brien and Marcel Delgado. I love the fact that
Cooper and Schoedsack, the directors, played the pilots
that kill Kong.
Beekeeper outfits, that's a good one! I read somewhere
that Muslim women have to cover themselves because the
prophet Mohommed kept a harem of really hot babes and
didn't want anyone seeing this and getting jealous.
Thank god we've got separation of church and state,
at least to some degree.
Now if we can just get all those asshole politicians
to stop invoking God in every speech, and saying horseshit
like only male/female marriages are "sanctified,"
and nonsense like that, we'll be doing a lot better.
Every time one of these idiots ends their speech with
"God bless America," I want to ask, "Of
which God do you speak?" And what about the Agnostics
and the Athiests, don't they count, too? Everyone seems
to have forgotten that the founding fathers of this
country were mainly Athiests, as was Abraham Lincoln
(he actually wrote a book about being an Athiest before
he became president).
I have only watched "2001" twice. Once on
the largest sceen in Michigan at the time, at the "Americana"
theater in Detroit back in the mid-eighties, and once
in college on the big screen.
The "Americana" screening was the shit. They
ran the film for a short time to introduce their new
huge screen and sound system. It was awesome!
I also agree that it was intended to be watched that
way and that is the only way it should be seen.
Cynthia mentioned watching part of "2001"
while listening to Pink Floyd's "Echoes".
The Floyd was pretty close to doing the score for "2001",
so close in fact that they had already tracks in mind
and were ready to go into the studio to record them,
however, Kubrick decided to use the now famous classical
tracks for the film.
I agree with Cynthia about wayching that part of the
film and listening to "Echoes" by Pink Floyd.
It makes me wonder how their stuff would have worked
in the film. We can only guess!
never heard about Pink Floyd doing the score for "2001,"
and considering the film was made in 1966-67, Pink Floyd
was nobody at the time, so I have difficulty believing
it. By 1967 Pink Floyd was only known for their one
hit at the time, "See Emily Play." They hadn't
done any of their long, trippy music yet. I do know
that the great Jerry Goldsmith was hired to write the
score, and did in fact write and record it, but it wasn't
used. Of course, the juxtaposition of the old classical
against the new space footage is brilliant. He made
it all work again, too, in "A Clockwork Orange."
Here's another example of the recently oppressed becoming
Liberia was formed in the early 1800s by freed African-American
> slaves. In Liberia you can't be recognized as a
citizen unless you are black.
There is also a huge caste system, with direct descendants
(2%) of slaves being on the top, and natives (98%) being
on the bottom. As in most caste systems, the lower caste
is treated as backwards and stupid.
Not to mention that Liberia is very unstable and the
US has bailed them out on numerous occasions. Now, lo
and behold, Bush wants to invade the country. That has
very odd parallels to Iraq, don't you think?
must say that I slightly resent this idea that America
is the world's policeman. I'm beginning to feel like
an isolationist. Is this really our problem? Considering
there is still a lot of hunger and poverty in our own
country, and many people don't have any health care.
My dad, a fine representative of the conservative right,
recently said that it's good for people to not have
health care because "it gives them incentive."
The average income for a family of four in the U.S.
is $38,000. If you're paying $1,000 a month in rent,
that leaves $24,000 a year to feed, clothe, and educate,
which is truly insufficient. And we're blowing hundreds
of billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and invading
places like Liberia? I don't get it.
Is this the same Bill Maher that did Cannibal Women
in the Avocado Jungle of Death? The poor guy just hasn't
had much luck in choosing movies. But he really is one
of the few smart comics working right now. Maher and
Carlin are the only guys that I actually make an effort
to watch on HBO. What's interesting to me how how many
people really hate the guy. Friends of mine think he's
just a major asshole and can't stand him. Personally
I find his comments to be refreshing. His comments on
the current political issues are generally much more
intelligent than the editorials you'll find in the major
newspapers. We've gotten to the point in this country
where a few standup comedians are doing the job that
the chickenshit journalists are too scared to do, and
he does it in a very entertaining way.
I haven't seen his HBO show but I'll have to check it
out (ie download it since I dont have HBO). Whats interesting
about Maher is that he always finds the core truth in
an issue. He's such a bright guy that consistently finds
the side of it that you don't see in the newspapers
or on the news. I think one of his better comments is
how people need to learn to hold two opposing views
in their head at the same time. The close-minded assholes
around the world are the reason why everything is so
fucked up all the time. If people would learn to consider
both sides of an issue rather than mindlessly following
the instructions of their old books then we might be
a more peaceful society. I think that guys like Bill
Maher actually perform an important function in society,
we need more like him. I'd also like to see more movies
with something honest and relevant to say, but thats
probably asking too much.
like to hear what you think once you see the show. I
agree, he's doing society a service by saying things
that no else has the guts to say. He takes on women
at the end of the show and says that our society has
become totally feminized, that safety is more important
than fun, sensitivity is more important than masculinity,
and everything is now about "the kids." I
think he's right on the mark.
Cynthia E. Jones
I've been perusing the last page of comments with amusement.
Apparently your new, typographically challenged visitors
are unaware that you are not The Pope. This made me
think: when did people in the public eye begin to be
expected to be role models? And why are we so upset
when rich/famous/influential people have opinions of
their own that might be unpopular? I recall, recently,
that Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn were
singled out as "anti-war" and people were
choosing not to watch their films. I believe this included
a "Bull Durham" 15th-anniversary baseball
Hall of Fame party or something, where they chose not
to invite the stars of the film. Someone involved was
quoted as saying, "Actors have no right to voice
their political opinions; that's not what they're there
for." The question is: Who MAY voice their opinion?
Shouldn't it be all of us? Isn't that the point of "america"?
Freedom of speech? And isn't the internet, well, protected
by that right? Maybe I'm crazy here, but if you started
spouting crap like, "Drugs are bad, and homosexuality,
while not wrong, is fine as long as no sex acts occur...."
I'd never visit your site again.
Oh, yeah. Movies. Danny Boyle has come out with an alternate
ending for "28 Days Later," which will be
released in the theaters on Friday the 25th. (This,
apparently, is the 29th day of release.) I think this
is the first time something like this has happened,
pre-video, yes? Neat trick...still haven't seen either
And, yes, "2001" should only be viewed on
the big screen. My favorite lo-fi special effects moment
in the film is during the "To Jupiter and Beyond"
sequence (you know, the last 23 minutes, when you should
play Pink Floyd's "Echoes" at home and it
works really well), when the "universe" is
"expanding." Apparently Kubrick just used
paint on a piece of glass, shone light through it, and
then overcranked the hell out of it to make super slo-mo
universe expansion. Brilliant. Who needs CGI?
certainly didn't. Regarding opinions, many people got
on their high horse about Michael Moore's little speech
at the Oscars, and I think he was really the only worthwhile
thing on the whole show. And, of course, everything
he said was true. We started a war for no Goddamn reason
-- that's nearly bankrupted this country -- other than
to suit George junior's blood-lust. Iraq was no threat
to us, and had no connection to Al Queda, either. It
was all crap. And now we're $430 billion in the hole,
and spending about $40 billion a month to stay there.
And they hate our fucking guts. That country will never
be a democracy. Once again, I'm convinced that if a
Republican opens their mouth they're either lying, trying
to take away someone else's rights, or trying to steal
from the poor to give to the rich.
I wrote about the "deal" with 2001 a little
bit ago, and reading responses I thought about how little
I go to movies. Mostly because I could care less about
wasting the enormous amount of money it costs to even
go to the movies on films such as 2 fast 2 furious.
Being an unemployed broke student, I find myself seeing
more matinees just to spare the couple extra dollars
for lunch or something. But my point is that i find
it hard to sit through a slower movie without the excitement
of the big screen complete with surround sound. It also
sucks that there's virtually nowhere, where i live,
to go see older films on the big screen. Hope thats
no problem where you live. thanks for listening (or
virtually nowhere in the Detroit metropolitan area to
see old movies, either. Once Hollywood broke me of the
habit of going to the movies, which I minimally did
five times a week for over twenty years, I haven't got
much interest going to the movie theater anymore. And
since I really won't tolerate people talking around
me, it frequently results in a tense situation, which
I can also live without. Besides, I can sit at home,
watch the DVD, smoke, pause it when I have to pee, and
all is fine.
anyone know what happened to the real John Larouche
with the impact of the film Adaptation, or irregardless
of it? That is what I am most interested in after watching
the movie twice, besides seeing more Chris Cooper movies.
you should read the book "The Orchid Thief."
It seems like it would be a lot more interesting than
OK JOSH,SORY: I WAS STIUPED TO THINK I CAN TAKE SAMS
ATENTION BUD LISTEN TO THIS ALBUM FROM VIRGIN STEELE
AND MAYBE YOU ANDASTAND MI:
is the Great Oz, and nobody sees the Great Oz, no how,
no way. That's just how it goes. Good luck on your project.
Two cents on the "2001" subject. There are
those who believe that "The Matrix" offered
break-through special effects. They need to go back
and compare "2001" with any of the other science
fiction movies of its day. There was a sea change in
sophistication which I doubt we will ever see again.
Was there another film with a comparable quantum-leap
in special effects? In today's special-effects obssessed
Hollywood the effects in "2001" still stand
up, thirty-five years later.
Something which "2001" has which special-effects
movies of today lack (there are no science fiction movies
being made) is motivation for its effects. Arthur C.
Clarke's story logically requires the effects. Movies
today look for excuses for effects which make no sense.
I won't see "The Hulk", but who here thinks
you could really swing an Abrams tank by its barrel
without the barrel simply breaking off?
A great story draws inspiration from other great stories,
as you've remarked. Hal is the modern Frankenstein and,
like the best monster movies, "2001" leaves
you feeling great sympathy for the monster, in this
case Hal. Anyone who wasn't provoked by Hal was brain
In short, I guess, "2001" was a such a great
movie that on the basis of it alone I forgive Kubrik
for "Eyes Wide Shut".
only other film to have that much of an impact, special
effects-wise, would be "King Kong" in 1933.
All effects after that owed something to Willis O'Brien,
the great early special effects man. But the point,
which I've made before, is that Merian Cooper and Ernest
Schoedsak, who directed "King Kong," had no
intention of making a "special effects film,"
they only resorted to effects when they realized they
couldn't achieve their vision any other way. As you
said, the effects are there to help tell the story.
In the effects films of today, the effects are the point,
which to me is a great big bore. And why, BTW, does
the Hulk need to be a digital effect? It's just a big
muscular human painted green. As the NY Times said,
it looks like Gumby on steroids.
Thanks for the quick answer. This is a great website.
Yeah, the zoom lens is 17-69mm. Must be a Russian thing.
You've piqued my interest in the Canon Scoopic. Now
before I ask any more questions, let me point out that
I'm still a newbie to filmmaking. I want to buy one
of these less expensive cameras so that I can actually
get some hands-on experience and learn the craft. So
if these questions seem ridiculously ignorant, please
Anyway, I found a Scoopic online and I noticed that
the zoom lens starts at 13mm. Now, you said that the
lens can't be changed. Question: If I wanted to do some
"Evil Dead"-style shakey-cam/fake steadicam
work, would setting the lens at 13mm adequately prevent
the worst of the shaking? Or would I need to get a camera
that I could put a wider lens on?
Also, if I were filming in a small room, say 10x10,
would that 13mm be wide enough? Or would I be stuck
doing close-ups and medium close-ups of the actors?
honestly think you ought to borrow a 16mm camera first
and play around with it before buying one. Old 16mm
equipment that no one uses anymore is all over the place,
particularly at colleges. Many community colleges purchased
16mm equipment back in the '70s and '80s and it's not
used anymore. Although I think the Scoopic is a good
camera, they don't make it anymore so it will be difficult
getting it serviced or getting decent batteries. That's
what's nice about the Bolex and the Krasnogorsk, no
batteries, they wind up. But you can only get about
45 seconds of shooting on a wind. How much are they
asking for the Scoopic? I just saw a Bell & Howell
16mm Filmo with three lenses for sale here for $300,
which seemed like a good deal. But I still think you
should try borrowing the equipment first and see how
that goes. Good luck.
WHAT FOR A STIUPID ANSWERE:WITH A MINDE LIKE YOURS,I'AM
WONDERING HOW IT IS POSIBLE THET YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
DO WITH FILMS?????AND THIS IS YOU WAY TO GIVE ANSWERS;
WHAT DU YOU THINK YOU AR; YOU DON'T HAVE EVEN THE 12%
FANTASY FROM MI, AH WY I LOSE MY TIME WITH YOU YOU MUST
LERN ABAUT RESPEKT :GIASU
good at giving stupid answers, it's one of my best qualities.
I've been doing it here on this website for five years.
Stupid-Answers-Are-Us. Of course, when I get stupid
questions it inspires me to even stupider answers. BTW,
do you write in all caps because you mean to be yelling?
said 2001 in a theater was "...as close to a religious
experience as I've ever had." I agree, having caught
a revival in SF about a decade ago.
One thing beat it: Space Station 3D in Imax. A documentary,
shot by astronauts. In 3d. In bigger-than-life Imax.
Yes, it's narrated by Tom Cruise, but that's bearable.
It is an amazing experience - you all but are ON the
space station. Man, it was powerful!
Thanks for a great site -
saw "Apollo 13" in Imax and immediately thought
that "2001" ought to be transferred to Imax
and re-released. At least at the Imax theater people
shut up and watch the film.
I saw "Capturing The Friedmans" last weekend
and I liked it for the most part. I don't think it was
as solid as some other documentaries that I have seen
lately but it was very engrossing. I recommend checking
it out. The subject matter does get a bit draining after
awhile but it's still totally worth seeing.
On another note, Ari Fleischer was a guest on Letterman
the other night. I thought of you while I was watching
because Letterman asked Fleischer about Bush's pronunciation
of the word nuclear. It was hilarious! He asked Fleischer
if he could maybe make a few phone calls or something
to stop Bush from saying nu-cular because it drives
him up the wall. I just wish Colin Powell would stop
pronouncing his name as colon; as in the lower part
of the large intestine. It's really kind of disgusting.
think that Bush thinks it's cute and makes him more
of an average guy to say "nuc-u-lar." I'll
bet I would like "Capturing the Friedmans,"
I just don't want to go to the movie theater anymore.
The last time I went I nearly got in a fist-fight because
I simply will not tolerate the dolts that talk through
movies, and I'll happily tell them so.
you go again; drawing conclusions. I never put anyone
down! I don't agree with what they are doing and NEVER
will. Who are you to judge when you say don't? Besides,
since when is dissagreeing "putting" others
down? Then everyone does that. The irony of it all is
that you are decriminating but furthermore contradicting
yourself and I quote "the discrimination or oppression
of anyone pisses me off". Don't talk discriminantly
about South Africa like you're better because, believe
me you are not. Despite all the trash that happened
here I still am SA! And how can you champion drugs openly?
It is exactly what I tried to make people (directors)
here understand. 13 yo read this site and they see it.
Directors should be guides for life. Don't you get it?
Blacks aren't Blacks but African American today and
Black tomorrow. The same goes for Caucasian or White
or Oriental or Japanese. Where does this nonsense end?
Making movies with good ethics should be our mission.
It don't have to be "ALL" rated but the theme
should be positive, but never in a PC way. That will
just send the wrong message, make the good hard work
go undone and hide things under a lie. And although
I am not a white man, it doesn't make sense to trash
them, like you do your own race (read your quote above);
I have never heard of a man trashing his own race before!
Do you see how the world is losing it? When races fight
and same races in-fight, like you, you know your back
is up against the wall. However, I truely believe that
if we can get rid of PC than the whole world WILL be
better. It's up to us as directors to pave the way and
guide the people to the truth.
By the way I hit back at you with "high flying
hits" for three reasons. You swore at me, you defended
yourself by going into South AFricas history (violent
as it were) and the other reason I'll leave for you
to figure out, because you speak to much stuff that
you don't understand.
and all the other bigots of the world bore me. Homosexuals
have just as much right to freedom as you or anyone
else. I'm not trying to oppress you or deny you your
rights, I'm simply disagreeing with you in no uncertain
terms. And just because I'm a filmmaker doesn't mean
I have to be a role model. I tell the stories I want
to tell, and I make the points I want to make. Making
points that you feel others will benefit from, whether
you truly believe them or not, is called pandering,
and I feel that's far worse than being PC. I am a marijuana
smoker and advocate, and if you feel that's inappropriate
you have the freedom and the right to not come to this
website. Do keep in mind that on my website you'll never
get the last word. Start your own website and you can
have the last word. But if you are in fact a black South
African, and you think that gay people aren't worthy
of as much freedom as you, then you've learned nothing
from aparthied. Of course, it's historically very common
for the recently oppressed to immediately become the
oppressor. Nor do I feel the slightest bit superior
to you, all other South Africans, or anyone else in
the world, except the Muslims, of course, who keep their
women in bee-keeper outfits.
HALLO MISTER JOSH, i ASK APOLOGISE FOR MY BAD ENGLICH
WRITE.i SPEEK BETER. THE LAST 2 YEARS I HAVE ONLY ONETING
IN MY MINDE TO CONTACT SAM RAIMI I SEND LETERS E:MAILS
BUT NOTHING. MAYBE DON'T EVEN SAM HAF TIME FOR ME BUT
NEVER MIND THE LIfE GOES ON:IM NOT A DREAMER I DON'T
HAVE RELTIONS OR MONEY AND I KNOW IT IS DIFICULD FOR
MI ANYWAY: THE REASON IS TO MAKING A FILM CALL IT HOUSE
OF ATREUS IT IS ABAOUT AGAMEMMNON WHEN HE TURNS BACK
TO ARGOS AFTER THE FALL OF TROY AND I HAVE IMAGIN THE
BEGINING LIKE THIS:::IN MY DREAMS I SEE A MAN STANDING
IN ABOAT LOOKING UP IN TO THE STORMING NIGHT AND BETWEEN
THE THUNDERSAND LITHINGS HE SE THE ANGRY AYES OF APOLLO
AND THEN HE RISE HES ARMS AGAINST THE WIND AND SCREAM
(I HAVE DESTROY THE KINDON OF ILION I AGAMEMMNON THE
KING OF ARGOS AND WHEN HE TURNS HES HEAD TO MI THEN
ISEE MAYSELF..::::::::: HOUSE OF ATREUS)ME FATHER TOLD
MI WHEN I WAS 8 YEARS OLD ABAUT ACAMEMMNON AND I REMEMBER
HE TELL THET IN OR VEINS IS THE BLOOD OF HEM THE NAME
PILALIDIS WAS BEFORE 3000 ATRIDIS THIS TEL HIM HES FATHER
AND GRAND FATHER MAEBY I'AM I DON'T KNOW BUT BEFORE
3 YEARS AFTER ONE ALBUM FROM THE ROCK BAND VIRGIN STEELE
(HOUSE OF ATREUS) I DON'T CAN LET A STORY LIKE THIS
WITHAOUT TO BRING IT ON THE SCREEN AND BELIVEMI I CAN
IF SOMEWONE HELP MI?? DETAILS I CAN TELL YOU ABAUT MI
ONE OTHER TIME IF YOU CAN MAKE SOMETHIN I THANK YOU
AND IF NOT?????THAN I THENK YOU TO GERGE(ATRIDIS)PILALIDIS
got this all so well worked out why ruin it by making
a film out of it? Just keep dreaming. And I can't imagine
why Sam hasn't gotten back to you.
I have seen every episode Bill Maher's show on HBO.
I am glad that he was able to revive his show and on
cable too! Now he can say more and get away with it,
since he doesn't have the network breathing down his
I also watch "The Daily Show" with John Stewart
who is quite funny as well, but the show is more toned
down then Maher's show and it parodies news more than
anything else. It is on Comedy Central at 11:00pm every
night. I think it airs at 7pm too.
Lastly, I went to see the most beautiful film on Friday
and if it comes to MI, I suggest you get the hell out
of the house and break your pact and go to the theater
to see it.
The New Zealand film "Whalerider".
I recommend it to all here. In the midst of the Summer
Hollywood sludge, it is a shinning light.
new one of Bill Maher's, "Victory at Home,"
is a stand-up routine, not his new show, which starts
again on Friday. This was an amazing piece of stand-up.
So much of it is worth thinking about. He discusses
the idea that things really are better and worse in
this world and you can say so. Our system here is in
fact better than the Muslim system of stonings, beheadings,
and keeping half of their population oppressed and in
bee-keeper outfits. I'm still laughing.
just watched 2001 for the first time and dont understand
why it got/gets as much talk about as it does. Was it
just the score or what. just too slow for me. I found
that i could put that film on and make out with my girlfriend
without paying attention, look up every once in a while
and still get all the detail about what's going on.
Whats the deal?
film you see now with special effects owes a debt of
gratitude to "2001: A Space Odyssey." This
film was the beginning of the modern, special-effects
film that was followed-up on by "Star Wars"
and all the rest of them. The only difference is that
"2001" was made for adults, and never had
a thought of video or TV in mind when it was made, so
it is only meant to be seen in a huge theater in 70mm
6-track stereo. If that's not how you saw it, then you
didn't see it. Also, it was made at a time when a director
didn't have to over-cut the shit out of a movie to try
and hold the attention of ten-year-olds. "2001"
was meant to be an amazing movie-going experience, and
it was. I went back and saw the film at the theater
every year for about ten years. With movies in the utterly
disposposable state they're in, no one under a certain
age can even imagine how important seeing a movie like
"2001" in the theater in 70mm was. It's as
close to a religious experience as I've ever had.
I was wondering if you know anything about Krasnogorsk
cameras, the Russian spring-wound ones? From what I
understand, they're comparable in image quality to Bolexes.
I don't think I've ever seen anything shot on one of
these spring-wound cameras. How would you say the image
from these cameras generally compares to other 16mm
cameras? Is it significantly worse?
If I were to film with one of these cameras using one
of the really fine-grained 16mm film stocks that are
available nowadays, do you think that the picture would
at least look as good as THOU SHALT NOT KILL looked?
The Krasnogorsk I'm looking at has a 17-69mm zoom lens.
Is that really going to be enough range? The guy is
also offering an 8mm lens. Do you think that's wide
hear they're perfectly good cameras and very comparable
to a Bolex, but I've never shot with one, nor actually
seen one in person. I have shot with a Bolex, though,
and if you do everything right it looks great, certainly
comparable to TSNKE, which was shot on high-speed stock.
The thing is with a fully-manual camera is that it's
very easy to screw up and forget to set the xposure,
or to set it, then open back up because you can't see
anything, then forget to stop back down. I don't know
how well the reflex system on the Krasnogrosk works,
but on my Bolex it sucks. If you could get your hands
on a Canon Scoopic you'd probably be even better off.
It's got a beautifully sharp zoom lens, the reflex system
is great, and the registration is far superior to the
Bolex -- I've compared them. Meanwhile, it's a 17-69mm
zoom? That's wonderfully odd. But if you have an 8mm
lens, too, well that should cover you. I didn't know
you could change lenses on that camera. You can't on
the Scoopic. If you get it and shoot with it, let me
know how it works, OK?
just got my first exposure to your work in the form
of a VHS rental of 'Running Time' after being interested
by the brief mention of it in Bruce Campbells autobio.
I enjoyed it immensely. I have two questions.
Why didn't you use 35mm? Was it simply an expense thing
or was there some more artistic/technical reason? The
16 looked good, good enough that I couldnt really pick
up on it except for in certain shots.
b) How/where/how much to get a copy on VHS. Your sales
link seems to be DVD only, I'm worried my only ownership
option is to swindle it from my rental place and flee
the country. I'm not completely sold on this idea, so
some guidance would be appreciated.
Jake Rose, Nova Scotia, Canada.
PS- Congratulations on not liking 'Ghost World'. Being
18 when I first watched it, I was filled with the same
disdain for those characters as I was for the 'realistic'
after school specials I saw growing up.
I've been to Nova Scotia. The cops actually kicked me
and my friends out of Halifax. "Running Time"
is available on VHS and I believe you can order it from
most of the big retailers, or you could go to Anchor
Bay's website and order it directly from them.
main reason for shooting 16mm on RT was budget, but
also that the cameras are much smaller and it made shooting
inside the truck a lot easier. I like 16mm and if given
a choice I'd take it over DV any day of the week.
Both India and Pakistan seem to have invented nuclear
weapons before bothering with air conditioning. Who
can reason with fanatics like that?
On what planet are you considered politically correct?
One of the problems with that term is it generally means
that someone is making a sweeping statement that some
else disagrees with. "Family Values" is just
as PC as "Liberal Democracy" but the two are
often diametrically opposed. I guess that, to me, political
correctness means holding an opinion only because a
larger group with which one wishes to be identified
also holds that opinion. No truly considered opinion
or belief should be described as PC. If Frankie in .za
wants to bark at somebody (to salve a conscience, perhaps?)
then he should look for someone who doesn't defend his
beliefs in two-thousand word essays.
on India and Pakistan having Nukes but no AC. These
are people that have no running water, but have ultra-sound
machines in every tiny little village so they can abort
the female babies. And the fate of the world is in their
hands? Yikes! BTW, did anyone see Bill Maher's new HBO
comedy special? It was really terrific and made me laugh
out loud and think, which is pretty impressive. I need
to watch it again because there was so much good stuff
I couldn't get it all the first time. I loved him picking
on the Catholic church and saying that they're all gay,
they wear flamboyant robes, funny hats, and all the
boys have to kneel down to crotych level and open their
mouths to receive God. And the keep having meeting about
why they should stop fucking children, but can't actually
decide to stop.
You hit the nail on the head with "Close Encounters."
After the mid-point in the film Spielberg loses the
humanity of the film and replaces it with fairy glamour
(gee - I saw a pretty UFO). I couldn't possibly give
a crap about the film from that point forward.
In the good news category, we have been asked by the
Dead By Dawn Horror
Film Festival (www.deadbydawn.co.uk)
in Edinburgh, Scotland to show our latest film, "Demon
Sight" at the 2004 festival. I thought it a nice
change for the festivals to be soliciting us instead
of the other way around. They featured Bruce's new film
"Bubba Ho-Tep" for the 2003 festival.
- oh yeah, keep flaming the gay-bashing biggots from
South Africa - it's hysterical. :)
on being asked to show your film, that's great. Good
luck and I hope you knock 'em dead.
have only recently started discovered your site...and
i have to say that you are such a joy to read...thank
god there is someone who doesn't follow the herd....anyways
my question is BEFORE WRITING A SCREENPLAY,HOW MUCH
DO YOU PREPLAN...ie HOW MUCH OUTLINING DO U DO...AND
WHAT ARE YOUR OUTLINING METHODS...
pre-plan as much as possible. First, I outline the story
in just a standard outline form, then I write a treatment,
then I write the script. I believe that it is completely
imperative that you know your ending before you start
the actual writing, because everything in a good story
is leading to the ending. When you're actually writing
the script you should not be dreaming the story up,
you should already know it and be filling it out. Good
luck to you.
you descriminating, Josh Becker?
If you had some common sense you would have realised
that I wasn't targeting you, but PC, small minded yourself!!!
You didn't have to fly off the handle but insecurity
does that, quick and "violent" defence. Now
I know how insecure you are.
This letter wasn't aimed at gays but PC, yet you drew
your own 'way off' conclusion. Do you think that only
South Africans dislike gays? Do you think the rest of
the world had already embraced gays during apartheid?
No. You never commented on the beastiality or incest
or dope issues. Talk about small minded. Selective focus!
I check how you are, mate, and where you're coming from.
Where's you're high flying movie hits? Read the reviews
of your films man, no-one likes it! Catch a wake-up!
Before you say anything about South Africa, check yourself.
You know less than you think.
This was just a e-mail not even targeted at you and
you COMPLETELY freaked out. We laugh at you. You could
have at least conducted yourself in a civilised manner.
Now you pulled everything out of context.
By the way, I'm not white, jy sien!
well, I like dope, too. And sorry for calling you white.
But the discrimination or oppression of anyone pisses
me off. I don't care in what name it's done, call it
morality, religion or anything else. If you're putting
someone down, as you clearly were, I don't like it.
And coming back at me that I have no "high flying
hits" means nothing. If you think you're superior
to anyone, you're crazy.
Kudos to you on both the subjects of religion, war and
your reply to Francois from South Africa.
Coming of my trip to Brasil I was really hit by something
about that country which is a very possitive thing to
me amidst all its problems.
Brasil has a many socio-economic problems and there
are many poor people, however, one thing that interests
me most is that every Brasilian considers themselves
a Brasilian regardless of race, color, or religion.
There doesn't exist this false PC thing which we have
in America. Blacks are supposed to be called "African
Americans" here and so on. The right blames the
left here and the left blames the right for the PC world
we live in now, but we are still quite a racist country.
What I realized about countries like Brasil is there
is no discussion between the right and the left about
any of these issues.
If you are Brasilian, you are Brasilian, and that is
that. There are as many different races in Brasil as
there are in America including German, Dutch, Japanese,
The southern part of the country was settled primarily
by the Dutch and Germans and much of the architecture
is very much like Bavaria. You don't even believe you
are in Brasil.
Anyhow, I have also been reading the novel "The
Life of Pi" by Yann Martel and I highly recommend
it. The way it deals with human relations, animals,
religion and survival is very inteliigent and I think
it should be required reading in schools.
Lastly, I went to see "28 days Later" last
night and it was just ok. The use of DV was done well
and the format was utilized well to compliment the story.
The first half of the film was quite good, however,
the second half ran amuck and left me bored. The film
kept slipping into too many cliches and the whole exitement
of any kind of story failed in the end. Nobody knows
how to end a film anymore.
I was thinking about "Minority Report" after
reading the post to you here. I hated that film too
for many of the same reasons you did, however, the thing
that pissed me off the most was that the development
of Colin Farrrell's character was built up and then
he just gets killed so easily. It was a cop out. That
This is the worst summer for films and I hope that Hollywood
realizes the shit they are putting out isn't selling
assure you that Hollywood won't realize anything. They'll
fire a few executives and write off the rest.
i think you hit the nail on the head concerning Spielberg...He
thinks that life is always fair, have you noticed that
since Jurassic park, everyone of his films ends with
an out the blue solution...the protagonists are about
to die and then bam, something unbelievable happens...like
the t rex just showing up to save sam neil and the airplanes
to save tom hanks in private ryan...these things just
dont happen in real life....maybe in spielbergs happy,
just thought id add this to the conversation...
he has a very poor sense of drama, and I think you can
only understand that from life, not other movies. The
biggest problems of Spielberg's life were his bomb movies,
like: "1941," "Hook," "Always,"
"A.I." and "Minority Report."
One other thing about "Close Encounters" was
that it had great timing. The UFO buzz was reaching
a crescendo there in the mid to late 70's, as was interest
in Bigfoot, Nessie, the Bermuda Triangle and all manner
of pseudo-science. Remember "Project Blue Book"?
Gerald Ford ordered a review of all info pertaining
to UFO's. A great many people were aware of the imagery
of "Close Encounters". It was also the middle
of the Cold War and people today who didn't experience
that atmosphere will never understand how much people
wanted there to be a beneficent something looking over
us. Star Trek tapped into that feeling as well.
I've been struck by how few post-apocalyptic movies
there have been since the end of the Cold War as opposed
to the late seventies and early eighties. There was
a widespread feeling that a nuclear war would bring
about a new beginning and any number of movies, TV series
and even music videos were based on variations of this
premise. I can think of probably twenty movies just
in the years 1975-85 without really trying. I was actually
in Lawrence, Kansas when "The Day After" premiered
and knew a lot of people who were extras. There is no
replicating that context, and "Close Encounters"
is likely dated by the contextual shift.
don't think people take the threat of nuclear annhilation
as seriously now as they did then. In the 1960s it felt
very real and very imminent. Having just watched the
Indian documentary, "War and Peace," which
premiered the other night on Sundance, about the tension
between India and Pakistan, and both of their attitudes
toward their nuclear weapons, the world could end any
moment and it might very well have nothing to do with
us, terrorism, or the relationship between Christians
and Muslims or Jews and Muslims. The real issue appears
to be the relationship between the Hindus and the Muslims.
In the film they show a Muslim group with a map of the
world with the Muslim countries colored green. Beside
it is an entirely green map that is titled "100
years from now." People in Pakistan are saying
that they're very pleased to have nuclear weapons so
now they can defend any Muslim country anywhere in the
world. Both countries are so fucking backward it's very
easy to imagine either one pushing the button without
a second thought. Maybe humans and all of their stupid
infantile bigotry -- my relgion is right, your's is
wrong, I'm holy, you're an infidel -- aren't worthy
of living on this beautiful planet.
this rubbish about POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? Why are you
all so insecure that you dare not attack anything it
defends? I am by far the biggest Anti-PC out there I
will never allow that PC-Leftist-Liberal-Trendies stop
me from making a movie that steps on who-ever's toes!
It is the weak that inspired PC and the weak that breed
PC but it is the strong who keeps the mind clear.
Everyone always says "I have no problem with gays..."
etc. just so that they wont be branded. It is SO our
duty as directors (artists) to guide society to the
right and morally correct path and to make the world
realise its losing control. Should beastiality be legalised
Should incest be legalised as well? Come on, get real!
Wake up! Don't you all see how PC is deliberatly throwing
away ethics and morality in order to gain more and more
money? Young ones should be taught the correct ways
of life NOT the PC way of life. No punk-ass will ever
teach my daughter that gays, beastiality, dope, incest
etc. is "right" i.e. your own choice! They
have to be tressured, as well as our fellow man.
Sure, PC (I hate that word!) will make me sell fewer
films but the ones that make it, will hit hard, that
is my goal. But there's always a more hungry producer
out there... I'm sitting here, Josh, thinking about
you and Oprah and Ricky Lake and how you ALL HAVE to
say the right PC things in order to sell your livelyhood
products. What a shame! You have all been swomped by
it and now can't get out. And the only reason why it
happened, is because you LET it happen.
Someone director here please take a moment- make films
that is morally correct, not Politically Correct. We
all recognise ethical stories and messages and it DOES
make us feel good. "Do the right thing".
the hell are you talking about? I'm politically correct?
Fuck you! I say exactly what I mean and what I feel.
I take it from your little rant you're anti-gay rights,
which as far as I'm concerned means you're a biggot.
Perhaps this is a hold-over from your days of aparthied
there in South Africa, when all whites thought themselves
superior to the blacks. You're lucky when the blacks
finally got equal rights and Nelson Mandela came in
all of you whites weren't tossed into the ocean for
over a hundred years of rotten, biggoted, self-serving,
evil behavior. Gay people have exactly as much right
to freedom as you or anyone else. I'm sure as shit not
going to be lectured to by some small-minded South African
biggot. Fuck off!
I went to see "Close Encounters" in the theater
when I was 11 years old and at that age I loved the
film. I agree that the first part of the film is still
very good, but the second part does not hold up too
The absence of the aliens and the "implied"
alien effect worked very well on my young mind at the
One of the coolest parts of the film for me when I first
saw it was that while watching the scene where the mother
and little boy are having there encounter in the house,
I noticed that the t-shirt the boy was wearing was the
exact speckled t-shirt shirt that I was wearing while
watching the film.
My mother purchased the t-shirt for me at Sears months
before the film's release obviously without knowing
anything about the film.
My cousin looked over at me in the theater with a surprised
look on his face and I looked at him with a similar
look. It was a little freaky to an 11 year old kid.
It was strange because after the film was over, I was
walking out of the theater with my cousins and some
people were staring at me and my shirt. I was kind of
freaked out for a while after that.
bottom-line of this discussion is that for me I cared
about Richard Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillon's characters,
something that Spielberg hasn't been able to do for
me since "E.T.", and that film fell apart
completely halfway through. I think Spielberg had a
grain of human empathy near the beginning of his career,
but he hasn't had any for the past twenty years or so.
This may be due to the fact that he's never had to struggle
for anything. He went straight from high school to being
an employed TV director at Universal. He knows nothing
about the struggle that everyone else has had to go
Since the current topic of discussion is Close Encounters,
I was curious as to what you thought of Spielberg's
recent foray into science fiction, Minority Report.
In some ways it's more intellectually challenging than
absolute garbage. I don't think there's anything good
about it, Cruise is awful, the photography is ugly,
he took a decent Phillip Dick story and ruined it --
since it's the story of a retiring cop at age 65, of
course get Tom Cruise. And for his best buddy of the
same age, get Max Von Sydow. Meanwhile, Cruise working
at the computer was one of the stupidest things I've
ever laid eyes on. The only thing I can say in its favor
is that it's minisculy better than that last SF piece
of shit he made, which thankfully has left my mind.
I also enjoyed "Close Encounters" and have
thought about why. I think that, given that you accept
that the main characters (Dreyfuss, et. al.) have a
type of psychic obssession, the characters respond proactively.
They are intelligent, without being unnaturally so,
resourceful and yet retain doubts in spite of themselves.
The government heavies, particularly the French guy,
aren't just wearing dark sunglasses and not saying anything.
They too are resourceful and adapt to changing conditions.
I also agree with you about the special effects. Spielberg,
for the most part, saved them for the finale, something
he would never think to do these days. Most of the alien
encounters are inferred visually. I think that is the
reason why the truck scene was so powerful.
On a different note, I just read an article that said
that corporate Hollywood has been stunned by the failure,
in general, of the blockbuster sequels of this summer.
Apparently the only two to do well have been "Matrix"
and "X-Men", with "Charlie's Angels",
"Leagally Blonde" and "Terminator"
unlikely to break even before going overseas. Personally,
I think it's great, May all sequel go the way of their
inspiration, the Dodo.
Finally, I completely bought Terry and Phil as friends.
I've had that sort of experience myself and you're right,
it just happens. Maybe it is a guy thing, though I don't
generally buy that as an explanation. But it certainly
happens and you captured it well. It is one of the great
strengths of "Hammer" and is really the progressed
theme throughout the movie. "Hammer" is not
so much about Phil and Elaine as about Phil discovering
Terry and his world view. Thanks as always,
for stepping in the "Close Encounters" debate.
I don't think that someone who wasn't there when it
opened can appreciate the power that film had at the
time. I was so stunned the first time I saw it that
I just sat through it a second time to figure out what
the hell I had just seen. I really do like the first
half of the film, and I think it has a terrific sense
of awe and wonder. Sadly, the final third is poorly
thought through and very silly, which was clear to me
on the second viewing. But all those scenes with the
little kid and things going nuts in his house, and people
just sitting outside waiting for the alien ships is
all pretty cool, I think. I also really like the scene
when the authorities first catch Dreyfuss and Francois
Truffaut and Bob Balaban are interviewing Dreyfuss,
show him some paitings of Devil's Tower and he tosses
them aside, saying, "I've got one just like it
in my living room." Then he says, "I want
to speak to the man in charge." Balaban says, "M.
Lacombe is of the highest authority." Drefuss leans
in and says, "He doesn't even speak English."
Once again, though, I still think it's FAR superior
to all of the "Star Wars" films put together.
have finally seen Hammer, yay! I really enjoyed it.
You seem to have gone against the grain in regards to
period stories. One would expect bubble gum rock in
the score and uniform costuming. I loved the jazz score,
The parents were interesting because they were satirized
(the smoking, tv heads, etc) but still very real. For
the past 25 years we have seen such cardboard characters
for that time era, the Buckleys were refreshing.
I can see why no one will distribute it though. We have
pretty much outlawed historical context. It is no longer
acceptable to portray historical moments without some
amount of PC, revisionist filters on the lens. So the
smoking, drinking pregnant lady pretty much kills any
chance of wide (and not so wide) distribution.
I thought the story went well; Lorraine's and Phil's
"motivations" seemed real enough. I didn't
really understand why Terry was so (instantly) attracted
to Phil, though. He lit up like he was in love. They
were both there to score with Lorraine but failed in
all capacities to really snag her.
I am very impressed with the musical numbers in the
"hootenanny" scene. They weren't bogus like
some bad talent show but very entertaining.
Thanks for a great film,
so glad you liked it. It is ultimately kind of a male
friendship story with a male-female love story thrown
into the middle of it. Perhaps women don't experience
such things, but I've certainly met guys that I immediately
wanted to be friends with. Make cameraderie can fire
up instantly, I think, just like lust. I do think that
Phil is more impressed with Terry early on than vice
versa. It's not until Terry sees Phil's dilemma that
he sympathizes with him. But at the finale who ends
up together? And the drinking and smoking pregnant woman
is certainly part of the time period. There was absolutely
no thought of not doing such things when one was pregnant.
My mom felt that she was gaining too much weight when
she was pregnant with me, so the doctor perscribed Benzadrine,
a strong form of speed, which my account for who I am.
Once again, I'm pleased you enjoyed it.
Boy, that was sarcastic, wasn't it? I wasn't asking
you to defend Spielberg, but I was hoping for an elaboration
about why you enjoyed it, and how it qualified as a
good movie. So I guess when people ask if you've ever
enjoyed a movie purely for the entertainment, you could
probably cite "Close Encounters" rather than
simply saying that you don't enjoy crappy movies. And
why can we brag about special effects from 1978 but
nowadays movies that have ground-breaking special effects
but little else get insulted? Maybe some other visitor
of this site might have an opinion.
And by the way, the reason I wouldn't ask Spielberg
or his millions of fans was specifically because your
opinion was the only one I was interested in. But, oh
if I was sarcastic to you, but it's difficult for me
to retain any of the good feelings I once had for some
of Spielberg's films. The only one that I can honestly
defend is "Jaws." But I still retain some
warm feelings for both "Close Encounters"
and "Star Wars" simply because they both seemed
very fresh there in 1977-78, and were the follow-ups
on "2001" that I had been waiting for for
ten years at that point. I don't think either film holds
up very well, but I'd certainly take "Close Encounters"
over "Star Wars" if for no other reason than
it's about people. But, once again, I'll take "Jaws"
over everything Lucas has ever done and everything Spielberg
has done since then.
I noticed someone asked you about your favorite romantic
comedies, and thought your selection was incredible,
especially since I'd seen all but one. Somewhat pleasantly
surprised that you liked "When Harry Met Sally"
- any particular reason?
Also, let's set you up for another list - your favorite
westerns. Our local TV/movie writer here compiled his
list of 100 Best, and it was pretty comprehensive, even
including some Tom Mix silents, as well as some films
that he explained as "frontier" films even
though they were set in the 1700's. The usual choices
like "Shane" "Stagecoach" and "High
Noon" were in his top 10, although I was a little
surprised to see "The Searchers" at number
I'm not sure what my top choice would be, but "Red
River," "Rio Bravo," and "El Dorado"
would be right up there.
like "When Harry Met Sally . . ." because
it's well-written, well-performed, well-directed, funny,
and it dramatically works very well. No, it's not entirely
original, and it seems like the unauthorized sequel
to "Annie Hall," but Nora Ephron and Rob Reiner
took it very seriously, I think. More so than anyone
here's my fifteen top westerns (in no particular order):
2. The Big Country
3. Red River
5. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
6. Hell's Heroes
8. The Shootist
9. Ulzana's Raid
10. The Wild Bunch
11. Dodge City
12. Jesse James
13. The Professionals
15. The Outlaw Josey Wales
a few quick questions: how important is rehearsals to
you? Do you even do them? I can understand a complex
scene to be rehearsed before filming but wwhat if it
is as story like "You got mail" for instance?
It is just basically talking-heads. So how important
is rehearsals then? I am directing a stageplay at the
moment and if that is anything to go by Id say it is
VERY important. Yes, stage and screen differ but there
is a link in that regard. In film I generally stay with
one rehearsal. That keeps the exitement, spontanaity
and prevents burnout. I think I am right in this regard
and'll stay stuborn but again, you know more so I'll
listen. (Spielberg never rehearses so what do I think?)
take as many rehearsals as humanly possible. I rehearsed
"Luantics" for a week, and I rehearsed "Running
Time" for a week. It's all invaluable, and that's
when any improvisation should occur. That way, if any
of it is good it can be written down and inserted into
the script. Improvising in front of the camera is generally
a mistake, and it wastes valuable shooting time. And
I don't believe in the burn-out or going stale concept.
Once the actors are on the set or location and in front
of the camera and crew, it will all certainly come back
you watched the old movie "The Rose Tattoo"?
If you did, I was wondering what you think about that
movie. Also, I noticed you had "The Cider House
Rules" in your favorite list. Is there an older
version of this? Because I watched a seemingly up to
date version (90s movie maybe) of it, and I didn't think
it was that good.
I have seen "The Rose Tattoo" and I didn't
like it. I thought Burt lancaster gave the worst performance
of his career in it, and I don't see the appeal of Anna
Magnani. And no, there was no earlier version of "The
Cider House Rules," it's a recent book. I certainly
didn't think it was great film, but one of the better
ones of recent memory. I never bought Michael Caine's
I just saw "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."
What exactly did you like about this movie? For the
life of me, I can't see the structure, or rather, I
can't see anything in it that illustrates any kind of
The space ships were unmistakably established early
on, so it wasn't a story of "are there or aren't
there aliens?" tension. It wasn't like an invasion
movie where they show up early on and the tension is
built through the battle. So what's left? Some intangible
interior journey? You might say that his close encounter
and subsequent obsession was the inciting moment, and
his wife leaving him was the complication, but it didn't
increase the tension because he seemed to not care.
The only tension I felt was frustrating impatience.
You say that a good movie will tell you where it's going
to end by the close of the first act. As in, they will
win the World Series, or they won't. They will get married,
or they won't. He'll defeat his foe, or he'll be defeated.
But what about this one? Unless we're being charitable,
there is no way of knowing when it's going to end until
the credits roll. And if we are being charitable, then
we could say "when he understands what the signs
mean." Okay, fine. So he gets on a ship. I'm glad
he's happy, but I have no fricking clue what the filmmaker
was trying to tell me.
So, if you would, enlighten me.
have a good idea, write to Spielberg, or any of his
millions of fans. But since I'm not one of them, I'm
not going to defend his films. I enjoyed the film on
a straight entertainment level that is forever being
bandied about as having termendous meaning these days,
which I don't agree with. It was also rather ground-breaking
in its use of special-effects in 1978. That's it.
Like yourself and a few others on this site, I've stopped
going to the cinema - or rather, the multiplex. All
the smaller cinema chains and independents round here
went the way of the dodo years ago.
I may get shot down in flames for this, but I caught
Tin Cup on TV last night... and (despite disliking golf!)
really enjoyed it. I thought Costner was great in this
light, frothy role.
I was talking with a friend last night about ensemble
TV shows/films/comis strips. It seems in many the central
character isn't as interesting as the other players.
In the Muppets, Kermit isn't as bizarre as the other
mainstays. My friend and I came to the conclusion that
the central characters in these stories are slightly
anonymous, so the viewer/reader can project their own
identities onto them, as if they were experiencing the
adventure/story. It seems to me that flawed characters
are much more interesting to write and perform than
characters who mentally are poerfect athletes. I guess
at the end of the day, conflict is drama, so why not
start with a protagonbist who is troubled. My friend
mentioned Buck Rogers - what a dullard!
I just wondered what your thoughts were on this phenomenon
of dull characters at the centre of ensemble stories.
Catch ya later.
lead character isn't the dullest character on purpose,
it's just a standard trap of bad writing. If the writer
doesn't really know their story, or the story's point,
then the lead character who represents the point of
the story will be shallow and dull. It's so common it's
was just wonderin. Who "decides" who gets
a star on the hollywood walk of fame? How does that
work? For some reason, when I heard that Brittney Spears
was getting her star along with Anthony Hopkins, something
in my brain said...hmn. What's wrong with this picture?
need to read my article about the Hollywood Walk of
Fame, which explains the whole thing, although the price
is much higher now, I believe. But basically you just