Oscar Predictions

The Oscar nominations were announced today. I have always felt like the nominations are more interesting than the winners – it gives a better snapshot of what is going on politically, creatively and technically in the world of film.

Appropriately, on Monday of this week I finished a journey of ten years. I watched the last of the previous 81 (yes, 81*) films that have won Best Picture. (The last one for me was the rather tepid It Happened One Night.) Someday soon I should do a post on my thoughts on having completed the task.

A month from today there will be a new film on that list. I may have already seen it. In fact, I would bet that I have, but I'll get to that further down.

About two weeks ago I declared to a few people that the Best Actor nominations would be five of the following seven: Heath Ledger for Dark Knight; Richard Jenkins for The Visitor; Sean Penn for Milk; Josh Brolin for W; Brad Pitt for Benjamin Button; Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler; and Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon.

Not only was I right, but the two of those seven that DIDN'T get Best Actor nominations got Best-Supporting – Heath Ledger & Josh Brolin (though Brolin got his nomination for Milk not W.)

I want to take the opportunity on this the day of the nominations to make predictions as far in advance as possible as to who will win – before much external analysis and jockeying for position can happen. I'll look at many of the major categories and throw in a little analysis.

I'll take this in the order the categories are posted on the Oscar website – with the exception of Best Picture, which like the ceremony, I will save for last.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

It's rare for me to look at a list of nominees and think 'I'd be happy no matter how this one shakes down.' But that is how I feel about the Best Actors.

Richard Jenkins will not win, but it is awesome that he is in consideration. The Visitor came out nearly a year ago, all the other nominees are from films from the last three months... only I believe Milk was the earliest release of the remainder, and it was late November, the other three were all mid to late December. When I saw The Visitor last spring I said to my then girlfriend "We just saw a best actor nomination." I am so happy to be right. His performance is deftly subtle and gently heartbreaking. It is also heartbreaking that Hiam Abbass, from the same film did not get a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Frank Langella has spent 2 and a half years getting stellar reviews for his stage performance as Richard Nixon... it is no wonder he is getting great reviews for the film. Similarly, Michael Sheen as David Frost – one has to wonder why he missed a nomination. I haven't yet seen the film, but it is high on my list. I have my doubts that Langella can win, though if he does it will be a combination of recognition of his solid journeyman career and his long association with this role. Playing a historical character never hurts your chances, which also applies to the next nominee.

Sean Penn, I hear, is doing his best work ever in Milk. (In alternate versions, he is doing his best work since Dead Man Walking.) I haven't seen it, but it too is 'on the list.' Sean Penn is an actor I have huge respect for, I was so glad when he won his first Oscar, I would love to see him win a matching book-end, but I think there is a wave that will prevent it, which I am getting to eventually...

Brad Pitt is doing excellent work in Benjamin Button, and one of the standard biases of the Academy is towards actors who play role that spans most of a lifetime, and there is no arguing that there has never been a lifetime quite like Benjamin Button's put on screen... but I think Pitt's work is subsumed by the technology that supports his performance and that that will prevent him from winning on this one. It's okay – he will have another chance... which is a thought which also will hurt his chances this time 'round.

Mickey Rourke's disarming self-revealing analogue is almost the only thing anyone talks about when referring to The Wrestler... and that puts even more attention on his brave performance. I suspect that the vast majority of actors who vote will find themselves deferring to their respect for his emotionally naked performance and that Mickey Rourke will take the Best Actor statue in a walk.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

In addition to Heath Ledger and Josh Brolin, mentioned above, the options for Best Supporting Actor are Robert Downey Jr., Philip Seymour Hoffman and Michael Shannon. Josh Brolin will win an Oscar someday. Philip Seymour Hoffman already has, Robert Downey Jr. is probably my favourite actor alive right now, and he disappears into his hysterically funny role in Tropic Thunder, but he too will have another chance. Heath Ledger ran circles around the rest of the film he was in, as well as making the world forget that Jack Nicholson ever wore the purple jacket and nasty smile of the Joker. Add the fact that The Dark Knight is the Godfather II of superhero films, and of course the cherry on top – Heath will never have another chance to win – and he will join Peter Finch as the only two actors ever to win posthumously.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

When I made my declaration about which performances would make up the Best Actor nominations I was struck that I couldn't come up with a suitable list for Best Actress. Looking at who was nominated, it starts to make sense. I haven't seen a single one of the films that the nominees represent. I I've heard great things about Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married and the same for Kate Winslet
in The Reader. All Meryl Streep has to do is MAKE a movie in a year to get nominated, and she is an actor who I feel deserves that recognition – she is THAT good... but her perennial nominee nature (as well as having already won) makes it less likely that she will win in any given year. I know nothing about Frozen River (and by extension, Melissa Leo), and I am a bit surprised that Angelina Jolie has been nominated for Changeling. None of the reviews I read of the film made it sound like she was doing a good job – in fact some of them were downright unflattering. She already has a statue – an undeserved one, honestly – I think the best chance of getting a second one on her mantle this year lies with her lesser half... and I've already made it clear I doubt Brad Pitt will win.

So... who will win Best Actress? I think this one comes down to 'whose turn is it?' This inevitably makes it Kate Winslet. She has been nearly as perennial over the past decade as Meryl Streep, and she has yet to actually win. Already walking off with a pair of Golden Globes including one for the same performance as she is nominated for by the Academy doesn't hurt her case at all.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

I have only seen one of the films nominated, and the performance in question was awesome. If someone other than Taraji P. Henson wins, I MUST see that movie. A few other notes on the subject: I don't think Marisa Tomei actually CAN win another Oscar due to the doubt and controversy surrounding her first win – deserved or not in either case. Penelope Cruz... I have nothing against Penelope Cruz, but I am SO done with Woody Allen. I could care less if one of his films gets any kind of recognition ever again.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

It seems that every year this category is made up by the inarguable eventual winner and two sacrificial lambs. This year is no exception. That said, I think the lambs this year – Bolt and Kung-Fu Panda are of better quality than most 'also rans' of the past... but so is the ringer. So far as I'm concerned, you could take nothing more than the opening half hour of Wall-E and put it up against all the winners of the past history of this category in a Battle Royale for 'Best Animated Feature Film Ever' and it would come out as the champion.

ART DIRECTION

As with many categories, I haven't seen enough of the nominees to really make a fully informed prediction, but even with those I haven't I do have SOME notion from clips and other promotional visuals.

With that in mind, I'm going to go to the mat saying that The Dark Knight is one of the most completely realized worlds I have seen on screen in years. Add to that that I expect there will be a lot of grumbling over it not getting a Best Picture nomination and that that will throw it a lot of consolation votes in the technical categories... I think it could easily win this category.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

I believe there are three serious contenders for this award. Benjamin Button, Dark Knight, and Slumdog Millionaire. Much of what makes up the cinematographic victories of the former two dovetails with visual effects, and that ultimately hurts them.

Danny Boyle's rich style is perfectly suited to the lush poverty of Slumdog Millionaire and it is gorgeously realized. Director of Photography, Anthony Dod Mantle will take home this Oscar.

COSTUME DESIGN

It seems that this award it typically dictated by a combination of sheer number of costumes and the requirement of the film in question to inspire the designer to do the most research into period dress – a factor which is magnified by having to cover multiple periods and accurately represent subtleties.

That said, I always have trouble predicting this category. All five nominees require period dress. To the best of my knowledge Benjamin Button covers the greatest scope of time and thus the most differences in dress... although Australia also incorporates multiple cultural idioms of dress. The Duchess involves the most elaborate costumes and there is a propensity to honour the detailed labour necessary to capture that on screen. It's a tough call for me, but I'm going to go with Australia. Catherine Martin already has four nominations (And two wins) combined with Art Direction, and her collaboration with husband Baz Lurmann is notoriously exacting.

DIRECTING

There are many reasons that people win Best Director. Making fabulously realized pictures. Being artistic completists. Making films with huge scope. Pushing the bleeding edge of technology for new creative realizations. Body of work. Stretching one's self into vastly new artistic territory. It's 'their turn.' And god forbid, moving us, the audience or taking us on journeys we've never been on before.

David Fincher has been one of my favourite directors for years. Of my favourite directors he is the one least known by non-cineastes, though when I start naming his films they tend to know of every single one. I've always known that his day would come, and I believe that is has. Take the list above and apply it to the five films & directors that represent them. Fincher gets a tick beside EVERY single item. No other nominee can make the same claim.

Fincher/Benjamin Button: Fabulously realized pictures – not one of his films has ever failed in this manner, Benjamin Button even more so. Artistic Completist – In Fincher's case this is almost to a fault. He is a famous perfectionist, to the degree that he alienates collaborators on occasion (most famously on Zodiac wherein he lost his original Director of Photography – not the first time that has happened to him – and the film STILL feels visually unified.) Huge Scope – Benjamin Button follows an entire lifetime through most of the 20^th Century and into the 21^st. It is truly epic in a very personal way. The Bleeding Edge of Technology – Aging Brad Pitt backwards from a tiny child-sized old-man to his natural 40 something silver screen glory and onwards to an octogenarian teen ager... you simply have to see it. It's fucking fantastic, and we've never seen anything like it. Body of Work – Fincher doesn't have a bad film on his resume. Some are lesser, for certain, but even Spielberg made Always (shudder.) Stretching oneself – Take a look at Fincher's past canon. Every one is classifiable as 'dark thriller' of some variety or another. Benjamin Button is an epic romance. It's their turn – This is the most arguable. This is his first Oscar nomination, but I guarantee that I'm not the only person thinking it's been a long-time comin'. Moving the audience – It is rare that a film utterly makes me forget I'm watching a movie. Benjamin Button sucked me right into its magic for the first 90 minutes solid and left my mind racing in all the best ways at the end.

A quick, hardly comprehensive look at how the other directors fail to hit all the points above...

Howard/Frost/Nixon – It is NOT Ron Howard's turn. He won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind. The scope of Frost/Nixon is a fraction of Benjamin Button. Technologically it's not ground breaking, nor does it strike me as a stretch for a director who has a number of historically based dramas on his resume.

VanSant/Milk – Gus Van Sant exploring gay themes is hardly new territory. Nor is he adding to the director's arsenal of tools.

Daldry/The Reader – To be fair, I know the least about this film, but from what I can tell, the scope is limited; Daldry isn't pulling any new rabbits out of the hat at the Hollywood Magic Store; despite two past nominations for solid, but IMHO unremarkable films, he only has six credits on IMDB and frankly two of them don't really count in this context.

Boyle/Slumdog Millionaire – If anyone else wins, it will be Danny Boyle. He only really fails in one of the least of the benchmarks – technological innovation – and in my opinion he doesn't make as strong an argument in fully half of the other aspects... but he sure comes close.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

It's significant that the only one I have heard of is Man on Wire, and what I have heard of it is nothing short of glowing.

FILM EDITING

I'm going to Dark Knight for the largely the same reasons I'm doing so for Art Direction.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Waltz with Bashir, like Man on Wire is the only film I have heard of in this category, and I've heard pretty good stuff about it... which at the level I have my finger on the film world is usually a pretty solid indication it's at the head of the pack.

MAKE UP

All three nominations move into a world where the line between CGI and make-up begins to blur... I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I'll throw this one to Benjamin Button.

MUSIC (Score)

I wish I knew why, but score is one aspect of film that I really tend not to notice consciously. It's kind of weird – even distressing. Upon repeat viewing score will start to present itself to me, but I rarely register it immediately. I don't know why. As a result, I'm not going to bother analysing this one at all and just go with Wall-E based on the spurious assumption that part of why the opening 'silent' (it's not actually silent) half-hour must be so awe inspiring is that is backed up by a masterful soundtrack.

MUSIC (Song)

For starters... WHAT!!!? NO BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN!???

Okay, that is out of my system. I'm not sure which of the Slumdog Millionaire nominations is the Bollywood dance number at the end of the film, but that is my pick.

>Skipping the short films and sound – neither of which I have any real basis upon which to make a determination beyond wild or even hopeful guess.<

VISUAL EFFECTS

All three nominations were pretty cool, but I only feel like Benjamin Button expanded the film-maker's palette. I'm being somewhat redundant, but Brad Pitt's aging process is enchanting.

WRITING (Adapted)

The three films I have seen are all worthy and I have no reason to think the other two aren't, but in the end I have to go with Slumdog Millionaire. It's structure is refreshingly original (ironic for Best Adapted, I know) and manages to make me forget that the story itself is consistently predictable step by step throughout the film... in fact I might even agree that the juxtaposition of original structure and predictable outcome actually complement each other admirably.

WRITING (Original)

I am kind of stuck here. Wall-E's opening half hour (again, I know) is fantastic, but I don't know that I have been so pleasantly surprised by a film's script this year as I was by in Bruges. It seems to be a pedestrian buddy film, yet it manages to make a hero of a despicable man, without genuinely redeeming him, and it also refuses to give in to an easily Hollywood conclusion. When watching it, I found myself begging the film to end before it gilded the lily by hitting the standard notes of a commercial film ending... and it obliged. I guess, if pressed, I'll go with In Bruges for bravely being 'wrong' to excellent result.

BEST PICTURE

While I didn't make an effort to predict the possible nominees, I am happy to see the results and I think I would have called four of the five if I had tried.

Slumdog Millionaire – As previously mentioned is remarkably fresh for being a film with such an obvious destination. I think it has a real chance of winning – winning a Golden Globe doesn't hurt either. Why was it nominated? It manages to avoid the obvious pitfalls that would and should prevent any film from getting nominated (I.E. It is generally speaking a high-quality film.) but above and beyond that it raises awareness of the Western mind as to the lifestyle of modern Mumbai. A politically relevant message is always a good way to add stock to your Best Picture chances. Additionally, a film that other film-makers can look at and say to themselves "that was not easy to accomplish" is doing itself favours. Specifically, going to the slums of Mumbai and shooting amongst the dense population with a paucity of controls is a significant accomplishment it itself – to say nothing of the purported risk of attempting to do so.

Frost/Nixon – The film is doing itself favours from the outset by taking a well received stage play as its immediate source. Add to that the fact that it is a historical drama that reflects upon current events and it becomes increasingly difficult to not nominate it – all basic quality control notwithstanding, which clearly it manages to achieve... it's Ron Howard – what do you expect?

Milk – Again a historical drama – a biopic, no less. Not to be dismissive, but add gay-rights and issues into the mix on top of a solid work and Hollywood is going to like you... especially in a year when gay-rights are under assault.

The Reader – The film I know the least about. Generally speaking, a well made film which touches – or even directly takes on a taboo subject is doing itself favours. In some cases a film of nominal quality can ride its subject through to a win. Gentleman's Agreement, I am looking at you.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Let me be the first to say it, I have an obvious bias and hard-on for this film. It is my pick for Best Pic. It breaks technological boundaries (which is why Forrest Gump won in 1994); it is epic in scope – like MANY past winners; it is both beautiful and moving; and it's (somewhat tacked on) relationship both on screen and off to Katrina-slammed New Orleans does it favours too; the vast number of locations and eras it covers and the fidelity with which they are rendered plays in its favour. It is not a lock, but I do expect it to win Best Picture as well as more of its other nominations than it fails to win. It's not going to run the table though – Slumdog is too strong a competitor and scattered other ringers will spread the wins around on February 22^nd.

I may revisit this with updated predictions based on the buzz and politics of the day and on (hopefully) better first-hand knowledge of the films in contention.

*The first year of the Academy Awards there were two separate 'Best Picture' categories; Best Picture – Creative (won by Wings) and Best Picture – Technical (won by Sunrise). For some reason they amalgamated the categories the next year, and today only Wings is recognized as the winner the first year.

Dark Knight

I went to Batman yesterday.

It was fantastic.

A number of months ago Dafne asked me who my top five directors were. Chris Nolan was on the bubble at that time, but there is no longer any doubt in my mind. He is an outrageously talented visionary.

There are a few quibbles I have with it, but just minor things really.

The real question though is Heath Ledger. How good is he?

He is wonderful. He seems to have put it in the back of his mind that the Joker is one of the greatest arch villains of all time. The Joker has to earn that, just like anyone else - and he does. It must be a scary proposition to know that you are going to be measured against Jack Nicholson (and no less than one of Jack’s most iconic performances) and Heath is equal to the job. It is very impressive.



It’s also very creepy that at the end, the door is clearly left open for the Joker to return, when we know that he (or at least Heath) can not. It would not have been hard to re-shoot & restructure in such a way that the Joker was clearly gone for good.



But someone needs to say this…

It is NOT an Oscar worthy performance. That is being said for the sole reason that Heath has died after such a promising performance. He probably would have been a perennial had he not overdosed, but that in itself does not make this an Oscar contender. He is great as the Joker. Let me say that again. He is great as the Joker. But most of the depth is in the script (and considering how little is known about the Joker, that doesn’t in fact allow for a lot). He is scary and gross and terrifying. But Oscar noms are worth more than this. This is hype. Well supported hype for a film that hardly needs it.

There we go. Someone said it. Let the tomatoes fly.

Bride's Maid's Oscars

Well, I regularly voice my derision for the Oscars. This makes it particularly hard for me to defend watching at least a portion of them every year.

Last night I had every intention of going home from work and playing video games, but as I got to Broadway Station I was feeling both hungry and in need of a little social contract, so I decided to have a burger at Toby's Pub.

The very charming waitress and I kept each other entertained on what was clearly a very slow night for her... and we watched the Academy Awards.

It all started with a disagreement over Ellen DeGeneres's suit. The waitress thought the colour was awful. I though she looked great... but to be fair, I was wearing an orange and green t-shirt with The Hulk on it and a blue cardigan reminiscent of Kurt Cobain. It was laundry day, what can I say?

I'm not going to bother wading through each and evey moment of the night. I'm going to comment on two thematic things and the elements within, but that's all.

The smallest first:
The two major stage performances (not counting the ubiquitous best song performances). The vocal jazz choir sound effect thingy... very very cool. Very cool. The shadow dancers... just seemed dull to me. I didn't fell like the images presented were genuinely representative of the films in question... boiling 'The Departed' down to a gun? Huh? It looked like the credit sequence of a James Bond film. And the first one where they turned into an Oscar statue... cheap-o! That was totally a cut out.

Then the over-arching theme of the evening...

I'm not sure exactly how to phrase this, but I guess perhaps this was the Bride's Maid's Oscars. The biggest example is of course Martin Scorsese finally winning an Oscar for directing. I admit I haven't seen all of The Departed - with a wee bit of irony I turned it off less than halfway through the other night as it wasn't effectively overcoming my grogginess, merely adding to it. I will watch the rest, but it hardly struck me as his best. I'm not so fond of The Aviator, but all of the other four films he's been nominated for are thoroughly worthy of an Oscar. (For the record, that's Raging BUll, Goodfellas, Casino and Gangs of New York.) Hooray for finally getting recognized for work you did 27 years ago.
Similarly Alan Arkin. I actually think the look on Alan Arkin's face when his name was announced read "You gotta be fucking kidding me. You're giving me a defacto 'lifetime achievement award', not awarding me for the actual work I did in this film!"
Helen Mirren - perhaps in less, er... desperate... need for a statue - looking like the sexiest blue-hair I've ever seen, winning after three nominations (albeit this is the first as Best-Actress).
If there was one person in the auditorium in greater need of getting a make-up call... I mean that metaphor in the sporting sense, not the thespian sense, despite the venue... than Scorcese it would be, of course, Peter O'Toole. We can pretty much assume that Lawrence of Arabia will never get an Oscar. I'm not a fan of the, as I called it above 'defacto lifetime achievement award' - but if some one had it coming, it was Peter O'Toole. At least Scorcese is going to have another chance - possibly even as soon as next year, and likely with a better film!
Moving on...
Jennifer Hudson... a bit of a 'Huh?' But she fits the theme. Didn't win American Idol - won an Oscar instead. As inexplicable a win as Marissa Tomei, but a good consolation prize for an American Idol also-ran if you ask me.
And lastly - Al Gore. Do I need to explain how he fits the theme? No? Good. 'Cause if I did, then clearly the best comedy routine of the night was wasted on you. Sorry, Ellen - you too are a runner-up. Gore's routine with Leo DiCaprio (who I admit has become a pretty interesting actor in the past year) was pretty funny, but the punch line was the best. And when Inconvenient Truth won Best Documentary, his "My Fellow Americans" line was priceless. It truly would have been a historical moment if he had announced his candidacy though, huh?

Okay one last thing... as I'm talking about Al Gore. As amusing as it was, the Academy's self-congratulatory announcement about going green was infuriating. It's 2007! The Academy Awards - Liberal Hollywood's biggest night - has just managed to 'go green' this year? How long has the environment been an issue? It's been in the public eye for easily 25 years, and the past 10 or more have been really really significant. It took this long for the Academy to adopt enviromentally low-impact practices? That is retarded.

The Quest for Oscar

That's just a little bit facetious.
Had a production meeting last night for the film I'm shooting in ten days. Jesus it's scary how quickly this is coming up.

Couldn't help but be at least a little bit aware of the fact that the Oscars had been given out the night before - that I watched them from the exact same seat I chaired the meeting from. I did fairly well in predicting the winners, in fact in our little party-pool, I was winning until the last two categories changed my fortunes and dropped me to second. Usually I suck at predicting the winners. I also tied in the Oscar trivia contest. (I should have come first, but I made the mistake of second guessing an answer that I originally had correct- dumb.) That accomplishment is not too surprizing. My trivia knowledge is embarassingly good - particularly where film history is concerned... There are only four films that have ever won Best Picture that I haven't seen - one of which is Million Dollar Baby.
But anyhow...

Just wanted to muse on the making of a film.
This is my second as director. The first is still in editing.
The two are markedly different. The first one, I made a point of keeping it simple in as many production ways as possible. One location. One actor. No dialogue. This was countered significantly by the fact that we had TWO 12 hour days to shoot it in and there were a whopping 140 shots. My team was awesome. We totally flew - we had to. For the most part we kept the takes down, lighting was kept simple, and we rolled with the magic of the moment as often as possible. It's far from perfect, but when all my experienced director friends heard we planned to shoot 140 set-ups we were told we were nuts and that we had to plan to book more days. Now, it should be said that I DID get a time lapse shot, one reshoot, all the ambient sound and about three inserts on a third day - but that's neither uncommon nor unexpected. Point being, we DID get the 140 shots in two days. It was intense and fun.
This next time, there are entirely new challenges. It's virtually all dialogue - a challenge to make interesting in a visual medium. It's one location again. A dozen extras. Five actors, all sitting around one table, which means HUGE axis issues. (If you don't know about the concept of crossing the axis, try this.)
The plan for conquering the axis issues is three-fold.
1) Taking a page from the Reservoir Dogs approach and having a lot of shots where the camera is in motion - this allows us to effectively MOVE the axis with the camera.
2) Taking a page from Steven Soderberg in Ocean's Eleven - pin pointing a number of places in the script where adherence to the axis is going to be absolutely necessary.
3) Taking a second page from O's 11 - making certain that very early on there is a shot which clearly lays out the geography of the table - where everyone is sitting. And when it suits our needs, abandoning the concept of the axis entirely. Framing the camera from the centre of the table on the subjects a-la That's 70s Show will also aid this approach.

It has been said - by people much more talented than I - that film-making is like waging a war. No doubt that's an apt analogy in many ways. The logistics of mounting a film and waging a war are both hugely complex and both at the mercy of so many X-factors that the laws of chaos are in full effect.
I would go on to say that film-making is not only a war, but it is a war of attrition. Time and circumstances wear away at the integrity of your artistic vision. Planning and ingenuity pick away at the puzzle that is a film. But there is only so much planning that can be done. A certain amount of vision needs to be left for the set circumstance of the moment. Inspiration, innovation, ingenuity are your greatest weapons in the moment.
I think it was Winston Churchill who said that "In order to succeed, planning is not sufficent. You must also improvise." (I paraphrase.) Never more true than in film-making.

I believe that we are winning many of the battles. A few key early skirmishes are still being fought. We have a cast member who is very hard to get answers back from - the same can be said for our camera-op (who was our D.O.P on "Godot"- my first film), and our 2nd A.D. We only have one confirmed extra, my co-director stepped up to the plate yesterday about set-dressing... a long battle that has been. And he and I have disagreed on a number of points along the way. There are things I less want to skimp on - like back-ground details (although I think we've found a happy medium there); he is crankier about the schedule than I am (I understand that it is often necessary to shoot through the night - and rarely made issue of. But I grant that it would be nicer to not be shooting at 4am.) These two things are actually connected. I would rather spend the time (we have the location for 48 hours) to cover ourselves by dec-ing the background as fully as possible - something we can't go back on retroactively and do, and if it looks like hell, the movie sucks. Luckily the impact will be minimized by the choice to desaturate the image to Black and White, but still... spending one night a bit sleepy- fine by me. Especially seeing as we can be prepared for that and everyone can try to come in as well rested as possible. Anyhow... we're aiming to get started as early as possible, but the time has not yet been fixed - currently we're expecting a 3pm start.
Last night I was (doing a poor job of) sharing one of my planned shots (he is directing the actors I am directing the camera) and I could tell he didn't like it. Later when we were alone he said he didn't think it was focusing on the right thing. That may be so. But that's assuming that there is no other coverage of the same moment. I like the idea of the shot. It's not going to require much additional work (the camera will already be in that position.) and it provides an option that will change the pace of editing at a key moment in the film.
We may never use the shot - that's not the point. This project is (as was the last one) about learning. I think we learn more by shooting something interesting that we never use than by not (especially if we find we could have used it). I think this is one internal struggle I will win - not that it's about winning. I just think that what we have to lose doing the shot is minor compared to what we could lose NOT getting it.

To call up another combat metaphor - this one my own - film-making is an art of triage (battlefield medicine.) What do you sacrifice in order to save the most and best of what's left?

Anyhow, we're getting down to the wire. The next ten-days have alot of work to fill them. This is really where it all gets exciting.



Anyhow - these artistic differences are ultimately trivial. They're even necessary.