After the winter hiatus, we're back and running with another round of Instant Films. Tonight, seven writers will pick their random words and deliver a script in the morning. Seven directors pick a script and their cast at random, and by Sunday night it's all over. The participants include talent from the TV and feature world. Come see the results at the Los Angeles Center Studios in downtown LA! More information at the Instant Films website (www.instantfilms.tv).

I've actually taken a leave of directing this time around, choosing instead to shoot for one of our celebrated directors, John Asher, whose film "Dirty Love" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327643/combined) was well-received (and picked up) at Sundance this year.

It's a great screening and a fun party afterwards...

Very cool, when I move out there I'll get involved for sure! Also, excellent job on your short Charles!

Very funny Charles- Joe as the reporter and spanish woman was hilarious. Y'all got a good range of looks without being recognizable.

Who is Alice Smithee? Is that her real name or an alias?

Thanks Mark and Christopher. That one was a peculiar and particular challenge--the script was a little hard to wrap our minds around, and the makeup/hair/wardrobe complications of turning around 3 actors into 10 characters was uh, fun to say the least. I didn't have an AD so I had to develop the shooting order based on those considerations myself...remember that I received the script the same day we shot the film! We couldnt' resist the joke of having the goateed press conference reporter interview himself as the clean-shaven Captain Freedom, although it definitely created another complication in the schedule.

But yes, the Hispanic couple was a well-needed revelation at the end of a long day; the first time those two ran through the scene we all lost it!

My DP decided that the deliberate TV news look we adopted for parts of the film might damage her reputation and wanted to take her name off of the film, thus the female version of "Alan Smithee". There it is.

Returning home from a long and successful Instant Films shoot, also visited another Instant Films set (where my actress girlfriend was portraying a cavewoman being thawed out by scientists!)

DVInfo.net member Tyler Cartner helped out with the grip/electric side of things and did a great job.

Once again, I think those members who are in the metro LA area will enjoy coming to the screening tonight (Sunday)...I have a sense that this will be a festival to remember!

So when are you guys gonna do a live webcast from those events
for people who can't join (like those who are stuck in other
countries....)? <g>

plans are in the pipeline--serious sponsorship $$ needed for this sort of thing.

I can imagine, bandwidth can still be pretty expensive these days,
although the setup (hardware wise) at the exhibition wouldn't be
too hard or expensive to do.

Anyways, have a good screening!

While the films from last weekend won't be up for a few days, I've posted the one I shot for John Asher here (http://homepage.mac.com/chupap/Film/iMovieTheater62.html)...

http://homepage.mac.com/chupap/Film/iMovieTheater62.html

p.s. send the kids out of the room.

Nice to see you guys busting down doors and penetrating new territory. This comes at the perfect time, getting into real hard truths through Hollywood's back door.

A hard project, but you all handled it quite well.

Charles,

I'll never look at a lava lamp again.

Nice, guys.

I just make the pictures, I just make the pictures...

We had to give you a hard time about it. (Tee, hee)

We're not busting your balls.

I'm running out of jokes.

and there I was thinking you were just feeding me some cock 'n bull story.

Charles,

So, in a project like this, when choosing a lens, is longer better than wider?

In your other post, didn't you describe this as "70's softcore"?... it looked pretty, ummm, hard to me.

Seriously though, nice job on the shots... the filtered look worked, and the overall cinematography was excellent as usual.

So really... thanks for sharing :).


(Just got Mr. 3000 from NetFlix... looking forward to it)

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : Charles,

So, in a project like this, when choosing a lens, is longer better than wider? -->>>

It's not really the focal length, but how you use it. In a tight spot, sometimes you might grab your favorite, or maybe put on something bigger. Depends.

Barry: yeah, I guess it would have been a hardcore spoof. I'm not an expert (really!) but I guess back in the day they had story lines in hardcore movies, now I think they just reserve those for softcore. This film was written to be set in the 70's but the director ultimately felt we didn't have to go overboard with the accuracy of the period.

Richard, to me choosing lenses is sort of an internal alchemy that is hard to pin down. In some instances it was dictated by the layout of the rooms; the dolly shot back from the bathtub used every inch of available tracking room before we banged into the vanity, thus the longest lens I could use and still get a 2-shot was (I think) a 32mm. When the director asked for an establishing shot of the exterior walk-and-talk, it felt natural to park the camera at one end of the long driveway and use a 135mm (our longest lens).

In general, as Mark says it comes down to the shot itself and a "feeling" that one gets. Sometimes I have done shows that are specifically designated as wide-angle or telephoto styles. One of the directors on "Scrubs" used to frown on anything longer than a 28mm as not being "funny". If I would try to sneak a few more millimeters into a close-up of one of the actresses (as most like to be shot longer-lens) and he happened to catch sight of the lens, he would frown and say "hmmm...not funny". I'd quickly zoom out again and he would brighten up and say "funny!". Other shows we constantly have the camera backed up against every wall or through windows in an effort to get as much glass as possible between us and the subjects.

I have noted with some interest that many DV users who get hold of a Mini35 or build their own seem compelled to shoot things on the longest lenses possible so that they can achieve the shallowest focus and be able to rack etc., possibly because it is a novelty to them. I just like having the flexibility to be able to choose that as an option.

Mark, Charles...

Thanks for the insight... really. I guess the pun of "Longer or wider" just missed the mark, huh? Ah well, the risks of being a writer... either too 'on the nose' or to 'obtuse'.

But good info anyway!

Poor "ted"! <g>

I was with you all the way on the pun. I saw it and laughed. Maybe I was too subtle, or Charles is trying to elevate the conversation above the beltline. The weiner jokes were getting kind of limp.

Darn, I sort of look like a wet noodle now. I forgot that this had become a string of double-entendres and took the last few posts at face value.

No worries, it was actually a really interesting insight as to how other directors work. Call me old fashioned, but you always want to be kind to the ladies and make them look good. Which you did try and do.