My Artist Statement

Here is my artist statement or statement of purpose...
Here's what I wanna do with my life:


In my life as a filmmaker, I hope, through education and explanation, to assist in uniting humanity so that we may form a common front against the phenomena that threaten all of us with suffering and pain. I envision a future world, one that I intend to help create, without the chains of corruption, bigotry, religion, and, consequently, war. My hope that such a future is possible stems from my earnest belief that the most beneficial course of action for every individual, including those who currently are more wealthy than the rest, is to unite in support of science and sympathy. However, our current global society is continuously plagued by racism, sexism, ethnocentricism, and classism, of which the direct effect is an unnecessary hindrance of scientific and philsophical progress. In this age of advanced technology that has the potential to feed, clothe, and educate every single human being, inequality and indifference exist solely because of ignorance, not necessity. It is his or her misconceptions that allow an individual to be comfortable with a life of superficial self-satisfaction and to believe that he or she cannot contribute to positive changes on a global scale. The truth is that humanity has a limitless potential for accomplishment, but only through unity. Achieving this is only possible with education, and for this reason it is education that I intend to further and promote in all projects, whether they be documentary or narrative.
Education is obviously best achieved through presentation of the truth instead of forced absorption of another's ideas. This is why, as an artist, I strive to allow those who experience my art to come to their own conclusions about how to apply, in their own live, the information contained. I realize that any form of expression is inherently biased, however, I whole-heartedly believe that this bias can be taken advantage of in order to promote shedding of bias, therefore lessening or removing altogether its effects and allowing the viewer to analyze the work of art on the same level, or, ideally, beyond the level, of the artist. This self-aware, self-referencing tone, that I find to be essential of anything that respects the viewer and necessitates his or her intellectual involvement, requires careful thought regarding the use of illusion, a fundamental trait of artistic work. In this spirit, that of Orson Welles (F for Fake) and Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line), I hope to, as much as possible, include my audience as a character in my films, thereby forcing them to interact with the subject matter and encouraging sympathy for or understanding of ideas they may otherwise never consider.

A short film I (don't) like

I decided to look through shorts that played at Sidewalkfest in order to find something to write my short-film-related blog post about. Even though we are supposed to write about a film we enjoyed, I just watched one that incensed me to the point of wanting to complain about it to the world. The short is titled "Old Bryce." The subject matter piqued my curiousity because of my involvement with it in my own life. I have visited this old, abandoned mental institution (and been run off by the cops) near the Tuscaloosa airport and have many friends who've done the same. While I was growing up, Old Bryce's proximity to the locations of my everyday life and its legendary status perpetuated by older students turned it into a metaphor for the spirits lurking just outside my perceptions.

This video, however, is self-important, terribly shot garbage. A local band, the Dexateens, who proudly proclaim the video as "The Dexateens present 'Old Bryce'," shamelessly inject themselves into the story of Old Bryce and wind up creating a film that is a childish showcase of their own "coolness" instead of a compelling story of old Bryce. Spoken by the lead singer of the band in a voice that overemphasizes his Southern accent (made obvious by dialogue in other parts of the video), the narration is by far the most interesting part of the video. It is decently written and educational. However, the tidbits expressed in the narration are just about the only things worth watching this video for. The cinematography is absolute crap. The cameraguy constantly uses high gain (which alone would be forgivable due to the late night break by the band that the film revolves around) and shakes the camera erratically. He also doesn't seem to give a damn about framing. There are probably two decent shots in the entire video. The shoddy camerawork does add a mischevious or desperate feeling, but there is no payoff. The band sets up some equipment in the dilapidated, graffiti-covered building and plays some folk songs. After an extended period of a medium shot of the lead singer performing, the cops show up, an event made much less interesting by the nonchalant attitude of the bandmembers, who clearly are expecting the intrusion. After asking for a confrontation with the police, we viewers (barely, because of almost no attention paid to the camera's position) get to see the bandmembers smoke cigarettes and act like tough little punks while they sing to the police officer, who is amused by their behavior. All of this takes place under the guise of a spirit-finding expedition. Their theory is that playing old spirituals will reawaken the spirits of the patients of Old Bryce, who were predominantly African-American. What open-minded young white kids the Dexateens are. Whoop-tee-doo.

After this encounter, a couple of them return to explore the spirits more. We get to watch more not-so-impromptu musical performances, and then the video mimics a ghost hunting TV show by having the narrator explain strange voices and then playing the video they occur in repeatedly. All these voices could easily be someone off camera (or even on camera, because you can see almost nothing). Another strange occurrence is a whistle, which could be from anywhere outside as far as we viewers know (and the Dexateens have in no way established credibility that allows us to believe their claim). In the end, this video serves as a self-designed display of the Dexateens badass opinion of themselves disguised by a false expression of intellectual curiousity and awkward sympathy for Bryce's patients.

If high school had made this video, it would be much more impressive.

I apologize for sounding like such a pretentious jerk. I admit that if I were to attempt a similar video it would not be much better (except for the cinematography, which could use a lot of help). However, this video deserves harsh criticism, because it played at Sidewalkfest. I have no idea how that is possible. There were so many excellent short films at Sidewalkfest; there must have been many more that got turned down. I do not think that "The Dexateens present 'Old Bryce'" deserves to be in a film festival of Sidewalkfest's status. Dexateens, you got lucky (or personally know a Sidewalkfest screener).

The end of the blurb for this video on youtube says, "Things did not go according to plan."
What a crock of shit.

For everyone's pleasure:

DP Reels

Well, I've been looking through some DP reels. I find it very unfortunate that most of the aspects of a good DP reel relate to editing instead of cinematography. The best DP reels I've seen do not necessarily have the best shots. I wish this were not the case; I would like the format to be more streamlined so that a DP's shots are themselves what is being showcased. I would like to see a short title card or something similar before each shot that explains some technical details (camera used, filters, recording medium, lighting setup, and, especially, the intended effect), followed by a complete take or at least enough of it to get the gist. Instead, DP reels are all about scoring, pacing, and visual continuity from shot to shot. These are not traits of a DP that get him/her hired. In fact, I can't imagine that most DPs do their own DP reels, at least not alone. Why would you when you could hire an editor?

I don't want to sound pessimistic or like a jerk, but I really think that the DP reel, at least in the state in which I have been experiencing it, is a weak aspect of filmmaking. Making my own reel has been mostly a lesson in editing. The only cinematographic education involved has been selecting "good shots."

That being said, here are some reels I like:


DP Reel Dan Hertzog - For more of the funniest videos, click here

A moooooving shot

Here is a breakdown of a moving camera shot in Watchmen. It is certainly not the most innovative or intricate shot in the movie, but it's cool nonetheless.

The scene begins with an approach by the bad guy, the short dude named Big Figure, and his cronies. The camera moves backward as they walk forward, all the while conversing with Rorschach, whose dialogue all takes place off camera.



The bad guys then stop to converse with Rorschach from a distance, and the camera stops as well, lingering on a medium shot of Big Figure.



The camera then moves slowly backward as the bad guys walk closer to Rorschach.



Finally, the bad guys stop as they reach the bars of Rorschach's cell.



The camera, however, continues to move backward, eventually revealing Rorschach in his cell.



The camera emphasizes Rorschach's unshakable fearlessness by forcing the viewer to be much more focused on the approaching bad guys than he, not even making eye contact, turns out to be.

Meany Greeny

Green screen! What a canvas.

A successful chroma key shot is all about lighting. It is so very difficult to get a cloth evenly lit, but not doing so will result in artifacts and unevenly faded images later in the post production process. This dude explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6brdwY-dvU

Maybe he is a little dorky and not the best editor, but it's a good tutorial.

To be honest, I am not a huge fan of green screen. Using it really well (a la Star Wars) requires tremendously expensive equipment and an enormous number of man hours. I prefer the look of old movies that have false backgrounds, actually. You know? The films where they record the characters in front of another projected image. It is cheesy, but when is green screen not?

What most green screen movies suffer from is a difference in the lighting of the subject and the lighting of the shot used to replace the green screen. I hate the look of that.

Working with a DP

Well, it is a little late to be writing about what it was like having a DP for Portrait of a Place, but, in the spirit of making up blog posts, I must!

Working with Mclean was a pleasant experience, I'd say. Having a DP made it easier to focus on what to get shots of instead of worrying about how to use the camera. Still, I wound up using the camera myself a good bit, especially when there was something I wanted a shot of that I was worried would not be available for long. An example is the owl we saw and got a zoom reveal of. I am guessing that that happens with many director/DP teams. Even when he wasn't using the camera, Mclean was a valuable source. For example, with the shot I just mentioned, it was Mclean that suggested I do the slow zoom that turned out to be the money shot, until I bumped into the camera of course.

Having a DP is cool. It lets a director be more imaginative. At the very least, it creates a resource for advice and ideas. Two heads are better than one.

Single Cam all the way!

Before being able to write this post, I had to do a little research to find out exactly what is a single camera setup vs. a multi-camera one. I discovered that it is a difference in production that we are all already very acquainted with as television viewers. The stereotypical sitcom or talk show is a multi-camera setup; dramas and newer sitcoms are typically single-camera.

Single-camera is in every way a superior method of production. It is quite a bit more expensive than multi-camera (ironically) for a good reason. Single-camera shooting requires much more thought and artful intent on the part of the filmmakers. Imagine you are watching Everybody Loves Raymond. The production team writes the show, hires the actors, makes a set, gets some cameras and cameraguys together, and then BAM! the show starts and the job of the cameraguys is to keep up with actors. Just keep up with actors. Frame the actor well. Don't lose the actor...blah

And that's what we see. We see the camera following the actors. That is almost always the total amount of thought put into the shot. The actors are always what is in focus. Little thought is put into the background. All shots are still shots. "Good shots" (that is, with more artistic depth than a well-framed human) are thrown in only occasionally and usually feel jarring because of the abundance of "lazy" (it's not the cameraguys that are lazy) shooting.

Single-camera, on the other hand, is real film! Every shot is designed. Potentially everything can have significance. The actors are required to work with the camera to create well-composed, dynamic shots. Set design and prop placement can be heavily-laden with symbolism. Just think about The Sopranos. Everything you see matters. Could you possibly imagine The Sopranos being shot in a multi-camera format? Such a bastardization would in no way mimic the mastery of the real show.

Single-Camera. All the way.

Multi-camera is for narratives that don't deserve serious attention.


Edit: Live television gets an artistic pass for using multi-cam because the format necessitates it. Also, the one exception (that proves the rule) to the multi-camera sucks argument is The Daily Show.