CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, 62 min, A+++++)

Things I find interesting in this film include:

1. I couldn’t quite attune my wavelength to this film in my first viewing. I found it a little bit more difficult to watch than the first six feature films of Rashidi. There are many long static scenes in this film, and these scenes are not as beautiful as the sceneries in BIPEDALITY, not as haunting as the scenes in REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, not as friendly, breezy, or sublime as the ones in ZOETROPE, and not relying on monologue as the one in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS. Because of that, scenes in CREMATION OF IDEOLOGY become more challenging than other films mentioned.

However, I found it much easier to watch when I watch it for the second time. I think it is partly because now I know what to expect from this film. My frustration that I had in my first viewing of the film may stem from my “not knowing”. I got frustrated at first because I didn’t know what happens in the film, where I should pay attention to, how long this scene will last, what the meaning of this scene is, what is really important in this scene, etc. In most mainstream films, you won’t get frustrated like this. You understand the story. You know what is happening in a scene. You know that a scene will end when there’s nothing important to tell you any more, etc. Watching a mainstream film is like walking in a narrow path. You know that you must walk in that narrow path because there are no other paths to choose from.

But watching CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY for the first time made me feel like walking in a dark labyrinth. I didn’t know where to go next. I didn’t know which way to choose. I didn’t know if I had chosen the right way or not. I didn’t know if I had overlooked something important or not. I couldn’t connect the scenes in the film together. I felt quite lost, like in a labyrinth.

There’s no frustration like this when I watched it for the second time. It’s like entering the same labyrinth for the second time, and now knowing that this labyrinth will not kill you. I felt much more relaxed watching it. Maybe I tried to use my brain too much when I watched it for the first time. Maybe I tried to “interpret” the scenes too much in my first viewing. In my second viewing, I can watch a woman asleep for a long time with relaxed mind, because now I know how long this scene will be, because now I know I don’t have to pay attention to every second in this scene or to every minute detail in this scene, because now I know I don’t have to decode this scene or explain the symbols in this scene or something like that.

2. CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY makes me feel as if I am watching and I am being watched at the same time. This film contains some scenes in which people stare at the camera, thus these characters make the impression as if they are looking at the audience. This is one of very few films in this world that let me “watch people watching”. CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY may be one of very few films in this world that is a little bit more fit to be watched on a computer notebook than in a big theatre, because I watched this film on a computer notebook, and it gives me the illusion that some characters are watching me via their webcams at the same time. However, I haven’t seen this film on a big screen, so I cannot say for sure that watching it on a notebook is “better”. I think I should just say that watching this film on a notebook could give the viewers some uncanny feelings that they won’t have by watching it on a big screen.

This film also makes me feel as if I am a secret agent or a hacker who can hack into other people’s computers and secretly use the webcam to look at the faces of the computer users. However, I’m not sure if the effects above is what Rashidi intends for this film or not. I think he might not intend to make the viewers of this film feel as if they are really skyping with the characters in the film, because if he had really emphasized on this effect, he would not have made this film in black-and-white and would not have made the pictures in this film look grainy and gloomy like this. He would have made the pictures in this film look more realistic. Whatever his intention is, I still like it very much that the characters in this film stare at the audience.

3.So what is happening in this film? I’m not sure. I think the film is about daily activities of a couple and their webcam communications with other people. The man wakes up before his wife in the morning. He takes a bath. His wife puts on some makeup. They are communicating with their friends and family via webcam. They go to bed at night. The scenes of the couple’s daily activities are superimposed or interrupted by the scenes showing what their friends do in front of the webcams. Some friends dance in front of the webcam. Some play a prank. There are also some enigmatic scenes in this film, such as the penultimate scene in which a ghost apparition appears at a stair or something like that. There are also many scenes showing building rooftops.

4.Though I almost never use webcam before, CREMATION OF AN IDEOLOGY somehow makes me think about the role of internet in my daily life. The second scene in this film shows the man opening a window. I don’t know what this scene means, but it makes me think about the internet as another window in my room, a window which allows me to look at the whole wide world or communicate with the whole wide world. Like the couple in this film, it is easy for me now to chat with a friend who lives in other countries and enjoy some funny activities together. Internet has become an essential part of my daily life and my life. I could not connect with friends in other countries like this fifteen years ago.

But am I happier now than fifteen years ago? I’m not sure. In this film, we know that the couple enjoy using the webcam, but we don’t know if the husband and wife are happy together or not. At the end of the film, the man opens a curtain in a classroom and shuts down the webcam at the back of a classroom. I don’t know what this scene means. But I know that I have been using computer too much lately and intend to use it less in the future.

Originally published HERE

Eager to cultivate my craft and voice as a filmmaker, I recently made one film per week for seven consecutive weeks. For inspiration and focus, I began by randomly drawing a Greek personification spirit on Thursdays, then screening the film on following Wednesdays.

As you can imagine, the project triggered my deepest fears: Am I wasting my time?  Can I live up to the challenge?  Will the films be any good?  I’m not sure, but that’s okay, because my primary goal was to mature as a director and have some fun.  The key was my stripped-down production approach (e.g., 1 location, 1-2 actors), which enabled me to make one film per week while focusing on directorial execution and personal expression.

Click on the images below to watch each film…

Film 1, July 7 – 13: Deimos

Film 2, July 14 – 20: Paregoros

Film 3, July 21 – 27: Coalemus

Film 4, July 28 – Aug 3: Ptocheia

Film 5, Aug 4 – 10: Phthisis

Film 6, Aug 11 – 17: Moirae

Film 7, Aug 18 – 23: Dolos

Founded in 2000, the East End Film Festival is one of the UK’s largest film festivals. An annual multi-platform festival held in London, the EEFF presents a rich and diverse programme of international premieres, industry masterclasses, free pop-up screenings and immersive live events. The EEFF’s mission is to discover, support, and exhibit pioneering work by global and local independent filmmakers, and to introduce viewers to innovative and challenging cinematic experiences.

Attracting an annual audience of more than 30,000, the EEFF has established itself as a major international film festival situated at the heart of London’s most dynamic quarter, hosting an active year-round programme as well as producing its own fringe festival in CINE-EAST, a day of completely free cinema across 100 East London venues. Committed to the work of first and second time directors, the annual EEFF showcases more than seventy features film screenings, several short film programmes, and a variety of cross-arts events and industry activities across a six day festival. The EEFF’s established awards system includes: Best Film (reserved for first and second features); Best Documentary; Best UK Short Film; and the EEFF Short Film Audience Award. Featuring in the jury for EEFF2012 will be industry experts Dexter Fletcher, Sandra Hebron, Adrian Wootton and Joe Wright.

The EEFF boasts large audiences, ever increasing industry support, high levels of international press coverage, and a large and incredibly diverse range of partnerships with organisations such as Amnesty International, Sheffield Doc/Fest, World Pride, Digital Shoreditch and Film London. As the only film festival operating in the Olympic zone during the Olympic period, the festival will be receiving unprecedented levels of attention in 2012, and will be showcasing films to diverse, engaged audiences in record numbers.

EEFF 2012 takes place 3rd – 8th July 2012.

HISTORY

Originally founded in 2000 as a platform for filmmakers living and working in East London, the EEFF has since expanded to represent and showcase the very best of contemporary British, European and World cinema whilst retaining its commitment to one of the world’s most vibrant filmmaking communities. A festival of discovery, several films from previous editions of the EEFF have gone on to win international awards.

Previous guests of the EEFF include filmmakers Ken Russell (The Devils), Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting), Richard E. Grant (Withnail and I), Julian Temple (The Great Rock n’ Roll Swindle, Oil City Confidential) and Shekar Kapor (Elizabeth); Composers Michael Nyman (The Piano, The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover) and Nitin Sawhney; producers Stephen Woolley (The Crying Game) and Andrew Macdonald, (Trainspotting, The Last King of Scotland); writers Tony Grisoni (Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas) and Ayub Khan Din (East is East); musicians from The Libertines to Annie Lennox; and artists ranging from Gilbert & George to Tracey Emin.

Previous festival screenings include the second ever UK screening of the Director’s Cut of The Devils, with director Ken Russell and members of the cast in attendance; Danny Boyle’s Millions, Richard E. Grant’s Wah Wah, and the restoration of Barney Platts-Mills’s mod classic Bronco Bullfrog; award-winning British documentaries including Jez Lewis’ Shed Your Tears and Walk Away, Nicola & Teena Colins’ The End, Julian Temple’s Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten and Jamie Jay Johnson’s Sounds Like Teen Spirit; and hard hitting, challenging foreign documentaries, including Roberto Hernández’s Presumed Guilty and the Oscar-winning Born Into Brothels. The EEFF also has a strong history of connecting the East End with Eastern Europe with premieres of award winning Polish films Mall Girls and Lejdis, and a 2012 retrospective of infamous Russian director Alexei Balabanov with Balabanov himself in attendance.

The EEFF is also committed to excavating the boundaries between cinema and other art forms, regularly hosting exhibitions, installations, spoken word and live music events in support of the festival’s main programme.Past highlights include Mark Donne’s The Rime of the Modern Mariner, an elegiac ode to Docklands culture, performed in the beautiful Hawksmoor church St Anne’s with a live orchestral score; a 50th Anniversary screening of Polish classic Mother Joan of the Angels in the Sir John Soane designed St. John on Bethnal Green; a special screening of the Limehouse-set silent classic Broken Blossoms accompanied by pianist Neil Brand; and special live performances from artists such as The Guillemots and Saint Etienne.

“There are musicians who practice all the time but we actors are not able to do that. We don't have an instrument, except if you say we are our own instrument, and yet I always try to continue searching and working for the moment where you have to deliver.” - Michel Piccoli.

I had a meeting with a filmmaker this week who asked me to read from a script which had been handed to me during the meeting. The only chance I got to look at it was there and then, a quick scroll down the pages while the filmmaker was watching me. Then I got up to read. At the end of each reading she asked me to do it again in a different way and this went on for four or fives readings. Before the first time I read it, I simply selected an objective for myself to accomplish in the scene (or more precisely, I gave myself an action within which is embedded an objective), and upon the subsequent readings, I simply adjusted my action in order to meet the new demands made upon me by the director, and was, as a result, able to deliver the goods, much to the delight of the filmmaker, and I left the meeting stronger for being able to respond fully when under pressure. And this is why I use the objective as my first principle in acting, it provides me with a mode of thinking that is entirely under my control, and if I produce results, I know how I did it and why, it was not a fluke. There is plenty that isn't under the actor's control in his working life, so at the very least let him find a concrete technique that makes sense to him and brings his work under his control.

I would go one step further, and say the actor should employ the objective in his everyday life as well as in his work. If the objective can get you out of trouble when under imaginary circumstances, thenthe objective can get you out of trouble when the circumstances are real. When analysing a script, we identify the superobjective, and all the little objectives which need to be accomplished along the way. Well, do the same in life. We humans are complex creatures, we mustn't let our mood or the way we feel entice us away from our goals, for not only will this prevent us from accomplishing our goals, but we will only regret the time wasted once our mood has passed. By using the objective in our everyday life, we can stay on track, or if we do stray, we can get ourselves back on track quickly. Crucially, having a clear objective enables us to think correctly when under enormous pressure.

And finally of course, by applying the objective in our life, we will be exercising our acting muscle every moment of every day, therefore making it stronger, and ensuring we will be ready when the call comes.

Rouzbeh Rashidi is one of the filmmakers participating in the The Forgotten Film Gallery. The Forgotten Film Gallery is a documentary film project and video art installation which plans to showcase a collection of films dealing with interpretations of the forgotten and the indefinite time period during and after the present. The goal for the Forgotten Film Gallery is to unite the new with the old Link the past to the future using the remoteness of the desert as the gallery space and the world wide web as a platform to distribute the documentary freely with the public.

More info HERE & HERE

Malkovich is one of those American actors who is regarded as a real actor, which is to say, he actually can act, he's an artist, he's in it because he wants to be a great actor, or make a great contribution, he's certainly an actor who gives something a little bit extra, he's always provocative, always intense. He's also one of those actors for whom we feel that the calibre of material offered to him is rarely commensurate to his talent – Malkovich has never had a great run of performances in the way his compatriots from the generation preceding his did, namely Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro. But then perhaps Malkovich has never quite been the Hollywood star in the same way either. Infact, off the top of my head, it's difficult to really name any of his Hollywood films. However, his output in Europe seems to be more distinctive, where he has worked with Raoul Ruiz, Manoel de Oliveira, Michelangelo Antonioni and Liliana Cavani. Malkovich though, is an actor of such strength, that he can take fairly mediocre material, and render it compelling. And Colour Me Kubrick is an example of this.

The film itself is a light, fluffy affair, loose in parts, piquant in others, and had the actor at the centre of the film been of anything less than Malkovich's standard, then Colour Me Kubrick would have been a very ordinary film indeed. But there Malkovich is, delivering perhaps one of the great underrated screen performances of recent years (this is certainly an example of an actor's work receiving less than due attention because it was done in an unfeted film – an actor cannot enjoy success unless the production he is working on, is successful as a whole – there's moral in there somewhere). Colour Me Kubrick is based on the true story of Alan Conway, who went around passing himself off as filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. It wasn't that Conway looked anything like Kubrick, he didn't, but he was able to get away with it because Kubrick's reclusiveness meant that few people were certain of what he looked like. And Malkovich goes to town as Conway, playing him as a cheap, camp, bedsitland, alcoholic – imagine one of those middle aged men wearing a brown mac and tatty old baseball cap with a cheap bottle of vodka in his pocket, and you've got him . Scene by scene, he wins the confidence of wannabe showbiz types by appealing to their vanity; he promises a young rock group work on his new film, and so they buy him drinks (“rich people don't carry cash”), and on another occasion, he beds a young costumer designer after promising to hook him up with his Hollywood connections, and on another, he agrees to invest in a swanky restaurant in order to save it from bankruptcy, offering to get his Hollywood legal team to “look over the figures”. Perhaps Conway's most audacious con, was of a light entertainer, who, in real life had been Joe Longthorne but was coded as Lee Pratt in the film. After attending a party at Pratt's house, Conway tells him he will help him crack Vegas, and the con starts in a scene where Malkovich delivers a great piece of bravura acting – waving his arms about, and speaking in a sort of unmodulated bellow: he informs Pratt that he will speak to “Moe Green in Vegas”, and, “Sheckie in New York”, and get the ball rolling. It is a sensational acting choice, hilarious, and disquietingly true, the film is worth watching if only for this scene. The net result however, is that he takes up residence in a luxury hotel, all at Pratt's expense of course.

The film is choc full of these wonderful little moments created by Malkovich. Playing a character who is himself acting, offers rich performance possibilities. It's true that Malkovich, now in his late 50s, is a master craftsman. He is innately compelling, with his intensity, intelligence, dry humour and unusual persona. His work is always precise, always simple, never adding unnecessary detail, but always striving to express the scene, and he makes it seem effortless in Colour Me Kubrick, as all great actors do. Essentially however, at the heart of this performance, is the fact that Malkovich is making acting choices he enjoys, choices which interest him, which touch off his imagination, and which ultimately energise him and fuel him through the scenes. The alternative to making enjoyable choices, is making choices we do not enjoy, and this typically happens when we act to please the director – whether that's to give the director what we think he wants in order to make him like us, or whether it's to shore up an insecure director by doing it his way (insecure directors typically talk too much, and want to control how the actor does the scene) – the irony is, most actors make choices in order to please others, which is why so much contemporary acting is joyless and stingy. Malkovich doesn't fall into that trap – and as a result, we the audience, are delighted by a performance which is properly energised, vivid, various, and, well, fun. 

Make choices you enjoy.

To quote the great David Mamet; “You not only have a right to choose actions which are fun, you have a responsibility – that's your job as an actor”.

Family goings-on and isolation. A diary from the Pyreneans. A visceral lo-fi marvel. An unsentimental portrait of minimal camera work. What you hear is not what you see. Described as the heir to British troublemakers such as Derek Jarman and Peter Greenaway, the director of Gullivant’s Andrew Kotting talks about his latest work.

1. Towards the beginning of This Our Still Life a voice says ‘It is an area of mystery, much of it is still unexplored’. Is this an introduction to the film or perhaps its promise?

The soundbite is designed to be ambigous but it is also relevant to the bit of the world in which the film is set. It is remote and enigmatic, full of morphic resonance and pregnant with possibility.

2. In search of stillness or in order to escape it? The camera keeps moving, this life is never quite still?

A play on words and designed to be ironic but nevertheless there is a stillness and sense of the animistic when we are as immersed and isolated in this Pyrenean world.

3. At points the film seems to turn to the diary form in the way of Mekas for instance, was this the initial intention? A record of the day?

Indeed but perhaps Stan Brakhage’s film Dog Star Man had more of an influence or even Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil.

4. How did you organize the voices? Did they come together with the image?

Trial and error – sometimes things fit and sometimes they don’t – happenstance and bloodymindedness was my compass and alchemy my goal.

5. To work in complete freedom, outside production constraints, but also outside narrative, do you find this freedom inspirational, perhaps even necessary?

Yes - Vital and potent and a real antidote to working within the confines of ‘industry’. The work becomes itself, the implied narratives the glue for the lo-fi shoddiness of the ambition.

6. An History of Civilization strikes me for the balance between Mao’s emphatic formulations and the ordinary monumentality of the picture. How did Mao come into this?

Mao’s there because of the ridiculousness of his cant and because incongruity has always inspired me.

 7. When Iain Sinclair described to me your latest collaboration - Swandown – I had the impression of something in between Walden and Brian Aldiss’ ‘Greybeard’. Could you say something more?

Swandown is a travelogue and odyssey, a poetic film-diary about landscape and culture. It is also an endurance test and pedal-marathon. Benny Hill meets William Blake or Basil Bunting meets Joseph Beuys. Serendipity plays a major role in both Iain’s work and my own and we construct narratives by reverse engineering ‘meaning’ after we’ve collated the ‘events’. And the glue that holds the disparity together is invariably the journey.

This Our Still Life is now out from the BFI

GARAGE IS PLEASED TO PRESENT FILM COURAGE 

WITH KAREN WORDEN AND DAVID BRANIN......

Sheri Candler & Jon Reiss on Film Courage (Ep. #160)

Our finale Film Courage episode on LA Talk Radio features the return of Sheri Candler and Jon Reiss to tell us about their distribution efforts behind the film Joffrey: Mavericks of American Dance. They also tell us what a day in their life is like, whether it matters if you have 15,000 Facebook fans, whether Film Festivals are the first place filmmakers should turn, and why we do not see more independent filmmakers release their film with a ‘day and date’ strategy.

Connect with Sheri at www.SheriCandler.com & @SheriCandler and with Jon at www.JonReiss.com & @Jon_Reiss

KANAKA is an experimental documentary feature that will be filmed on location, mostly in Honolulu--the most isolated big city and also one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse spots on earth--and the Big Island (aka Hawaii)--the ancestral and spiritual home of the Native Hawaiians and one of the most awe-inspiring natural wonders of the world.

Sound design update for the film KANAKA 

As the title of the film makes it obvious, this project is about people. It's not about achieving fame or wealth. As one of our cinematic heroes John Cassavetes once stated, "There are many other ways to make money than making movies. If you need to make money, please find some other way to do it. You make movies to lose your money. That is the purpose of making a movie—to put your life into something—not get something out of it."

The acting profession is hopelessly oversubscribed, and it seems the individual actor has little or no control over his ability to construct a body of work. The challenge for all actors is to make themselves heard amid the cacophony. However, the damning perception is that individual actors are interchangeable, that one is much like another, and not individual at all: that all actor's contributions to a production will be roughly the same, and so, in casting terms, it is a question of finding the actor with the “right shaped eyebrows”, and many actors have to stake their futures and their happiness on such a margin. The implication here is that the most dedicated and skilled actor will not necessarily work the most, he may lose out to the lesser actor with “the right colour hair”. Acting is not necessarily a meritocracy if you're measuring reward for merit in terms of quantity of work, and it is this which causes so many to quit the business, or to become hacks and hold contempt for it, and on the flip side, it is also the reason acting is oversubscribed in the first place with many joining the ranks believing that acting requires not skill but the ability to “look cute”. Only the other day I was having a conversation with someone who sneered that acting was “merely a lifestyle choice”. It does not help that our leading actors continue to denigrate the work in order to cope with their own self-loathing, we rarely hear filmmakers or playwrights talk about their own work in the same way.

So how can the dedicated actor seize more control over his work, and show that all actors are not the same? Well, one way is through education, ie: to educate about the difference between good acting and hackwork, to be able to cleanly explain what good acting is and show examples, drawing attention to great work when we see it and explaining why it is great as oppose to fluff, and hopefully then, others may see the actor's work in a different light. And actors must take it upon themselves to do this education, other people cannot be expected to do it. However, in order to do it, the actor must first define his aesthetic in simple terms (that is, his ideal), and establish analytical tools and critical language in order to transfer his ideas to others. Crucially however, the actor must be able to put his own aesthetic into practice, he must be able to walk the walk aswell as talk the talk. If you're preaching forceful, true acting, then you cannot be a wet blanket upon the stage. And this ability to demonstrate our aesthetic means we will be able to educate with conviction.

To be an actor requires great strength of character which is developed over time, and after many harsh lessons. Most are crushed by the demands of the life, they cannot even survive let alone flourish. The notion that acting is a “lifestyle choice”, that acting requires little more than “being cute”, must be dispelled, and good actors must be supported concretely, and publicly. Good actors are immensely hardworking and operate at the coalface of art. It takes enormous discipline and mental strength to act well, which is developed by the very nature of the work, ie - the actor must deliver the goods with precision when under intense pressure, the eyes of the public are upon him, and if he fails, he fails publicly. The actor does not have the luxury of standing back from the canvas or writing another draft. Again, many cannot cope with this pressure. Acting is a hyper-competitive profession, the pressure of the work mirrors the pressure of the life, the good actor is energized by pressure. The good actor has a pared down ego, and will always serve the needs of the production as a whole, as oppose to serving himself, for he has been humbled by the screaming demands of his craft. The good actor is an ethical actor, a moral actor, and one of integrity, and all of those qualities are engendered in his work. The good actor loves, above all else, the truth, and strives never to compromise it but to embody it.

Most of the actors I've known down the years have fallen away for various reasons. Whilst none of us is old, of my own group only a few of us are still standing. It is a great accomplishment to not only survive but to improve year in year out as an actor, to not become a cynical hack, but to continue to strive for and serve your ideals, every single day requires determination and constant self-improvement, questions are continually being asked of the actor, and once one set of questions has been answered another set arises. In the end, to improve as an actor, the demands must make you stronger, and not bitter. It is hard to explain to someone who is not an actor the joys of this continual struggle and the effect it has upon you, I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it. But one thing is certain though: I will always love, cherish and support the actor who strives to be good.

Part of co-direrctor Gabriel's work log from the production of Sandgrains, shot by his family home in Sweden. We are reaching the very end of our phase of shooting, with only two days left of production in Brussels and Gothenburg.

Gabriel was in Sweden to organize some of that and to hand over the project to our editor Naiara Seara Romaña in Eskilstuna, near Stockholm.

Short almost-at-end-of-production work log for the documentary Sandgrains shot with Gabriel's smartphone.

sandgrains.matchboxmedia.org

I was completely stunned this week when I saw an astonishing masterpiece by Japanese auteur, Hirokazu Koreeda, called Maborosi. The film centres on Yumiko and Tamio,a couple who seem to live in a quiet marital happiness, until tragedy strikes when Tamio inexplicably takes his own life. For sure, Maborosi is not the first film to deal with this subject, however, no other film deals with it in the way Maborosi does. Shot with a quiet formalism, using largely static, frontal master shots, Maborosi does not attempt to explain away Tamio’s death, there is no expository trail for Yumiko to follow in order to come to terms with her loss. Instead, the film barely makes any attempt to find the reasons for suicide at all, instead, it focuses on Yumiko’s efforts to get on with her life. And herein lies the miracle of Maborosi; that although it does not deal with Tamio’s death explicitly (until near the end, when in extreme long shot Yumiko confesses she doesn’t understand why Tamio did it), in fact, most of the film contains scenes of Yumiko getting on with, and enjoying, her life, we always sense that the burden of Tamio’s death is with her. Much of this is done through the reminiscence of objects which Yumiko and Tamio shared, such as a bicycle or a string of beads, and through the lighting. However, at the centre of it all, is a heartbreaking performance by Makiko Esumi as Yumiko.

When I say heartbreaking, I don’t mean that Esumi was trying to be heartbraking – that is what we see in so much English language acting these days: actors lining up to pour out their hearts, crocodile tears streaming down their faces in order to get noticed, endlessly balling their eyes out; “oh look how sensitive I am, look how I feel”, the truth is, this actor feels nothing other than the pangs of their own vanity – no, Esumi is heartbreaking because of her absence of tears, because of her restraint, because of her grace in the face of adversity. These days, in British culture at least, we have enthroned our feelings, as though whatever we feel at any moment is the only thing that matters, and that just letting it all hang loose is oh so brave – but it’s not brave, it’s cowardly, and not only is it cowardly, it’s tedious, meaningless, selfish, and createsliars as we compete to be the “most emotional”. Esumi, through her minimalism, reminds us that the emotion is supposed to take place in the audience and not in the actor. There is one moment, during a visit to Tamio’s old work place, where she turns and looks, it is a moment of such terrible sorrow, and yet Esumi’s face is blank, she barely moves, and there is no music to cue us in emotionally. Essentially, we the audience, project our own pain onto Esumi, and, in the process, we are cleansed (if only temporarily). Esumi’s minimalism matches that of filmmaker Koreeda’s for sure, Maborosi is one of those rare examples of when an actor’s aesthetic has integrated perfectly with the director’s, and an astonishing whole is created as a result. I can only think Koreeda handpicked Esumi for this particular film. Esumi is also a model, and although it’s difficult to say how much her model experience has impacted her acting, we may speculate that because of her modelling she is more used to being passive, as model’s are objectified, which makes her a natural for a role like Yumiko, whereas acting is traditionally about subjectivity and taking action. I should think though, her reserved expression is something which lies in her nature to a certain extent, and not something she grafted onto the performance.

Maborosi will be a difficult film for many, because of it's gentle rythmn and lack of exposition. However, it is a film of wonderful poetry, of grace and beauty, and one which enriches the viewer and makes him stronger. Esumi at the centre, is affirmation of human dignity, and of being classy, she is also another fine example of actor as artist. If only more directors thought along these lines instead of casting because you might "seem like a milkman". Koreeda is to be commended for the delicacy and precision of his aethetic, and for providing such a wonderful platform for the talent of Makiko Esumi.

The Film

Eden and Matilda, a young couple are broke and threatened to be evicted by their landlord. Their Housing Benefit and Jobseekers Allowance have been turned down and they struggle to become members of a Society they never wanted to be part of to begin with. They don’t have the job opportunities they are hoping for, and try in vain to become a part of a system where you can’t survive if you don’t want to meet the requirements of a “standard life”. 

Matilda eventually finds a job in a sleazy night bar called “Juicy Girls” making a small living through keeping company with middle-aged men who pay to have drinks and conversations with girls. She hates her job and the customers and working at nights puts a stress on their relationship, however things become worse when a brutal serial killer murders more and more girls working at the Bar. But when she buys a pet spider for Eden, the real troubles start!

About us

We are a team of experienced and passionate film makers, actors and artists committed to creating an outstanding high quality film on a low budget. Our cast includes well known and nationally renowned actors such as:

Rusty Goffe (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Star Wars, Harry Potter ) Actress and Alternative Model Sophia Disgrace (Three's a Shroud, Kung Fu and Titties, The Shadow of Death), Victor Sobchak (The Jackal, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Ghostboat) renowned Greek TV and Theatre actor Theofilos Vandoros (Singles, Ambitions, Vice Squad) plus Britain’s Drag Queen sensation, the fanatabulous Tiffaney Wells in her acting debut. The music was composed by acclaimed composer, author, actor and performer Jeff Kristian.

The Impact

Each member of our production team has put forward a large amount of time, money and personal investment to create this feature film. After accounting for the personal funds of more than $100,000 we have already contributed to the cause, and we have finished shooting most of our footage, but now our team needs to raise a further $25,000 to complete our goal in making our film. We cannot do it alone. We require the help of the independent filmmaking community and film lovers in order to finish our project.

The Perks

We have taken a lot of effort to create an assorted collection of donations and prizes to ensure that every individual who donates to our cause goes home a winner!

Please check out our list of donating options, as well as the rewards associated with each level!As an extra bonus, a huge number prizes used in the film will be put into a Prize Draw open to all contributors offering $20 and more. A list of the items can be seen at: http://www.spidarlings.com/ All items in the Prize Draw are original props used in the making of the film.

The Prize Draw will take place after the completion of production. Make sure to check often for new prizes and giveaways.

Note: Prizes do not stack up but are limited to the individual levels of contribution.

Other ways you can help

You can help us reach our goal by spreading the word to your friends and relatives and by posting our campaign link on your social networks. Thanks.

On 20th of March 2012, 8 PM, a programme of the short films of Experimental Film Society will be screening at the Sample-Studios 3rd Floor Former Government Buildings Sullivan's Quay Cork.

1_The Decision (2011) - By Bahar Samadi / 9 Min / France

2_Partizan (2012) - By Kamyar Kordestani / 6:30 Min / Iran

3_Ashes to Ashes (2012) - By Hamid Shams Javi  / 6:30 Min / Iran

4_Snowed Under (2010) - Michael Higgins / 3 Min / Ireland

5_Chapter 2 First Date (2011) - Michael Higgins / 7 Min / Ireland

6_Merry Christmas Farmer Brown (2011) - Michael Higgins / 4:30 Min / Ireland

7_Horses (2011) - Esperanza Collado / 2 Min / Spain

8_F (2008) - Dean Kavanagh / 6:30 Min / Ireland

9_M (2010) - Dean Kavanagh / 6:30 Min / Ireland

10_Early Hours of the Morning (2009) - Dean Kavanagh / 7:30 Min / Ireland

11_Homo Sapiens Project (5) (2011) – Rouzbeh Rashidi / 7 Min / Ireland

12_Homo Sapiens Project (9) (2011) – Rouzbeh Rashidi / 11 Min / Ireland

13_Hotel La Mirage (2010) - Maximilian Le Cain / 5:30 Min / Ireland

14_The End of the Universe as Red (2012) (Super-8 only, sound on tape) - Maximilian Le Cain / 10 Min / Ireland

Total Duration: 92 Min

More info HERE

GARAGE IS PLEASED TO PRESENT FILM COURAGE

WITH KAREN WORDEN AND DAVID BRANIN......

Paul Yosemite Bear Vasquez ‘the Double Rainbow Guy’ on Film Courage (Ep. #159)

Paul Yosemite Bear Vasquez, the Double Rainbow Guy, calls into Film Courage to tell us his thoughts on whether one can brainstorm and succeed in creating a viral video, he tells us where he would be today without Jimmy Kimmel’s fateful tweet, how he intuitively feels how humanity views him since the rainbow video went viral, and whether struggling artists have the power to connect with their own success.

Watch his latest YouTube Videos and Connect with him on Twitter @Yosemitebear62

The Film

KANAKA: A Native Hawaiian word meaning human being, man, person, individual, party, mankind, population.

KANAKA is an experimental documentary feature that will be filmed on location, mostly in Honolulu--the most isolated big city and also one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse spots on earth--and the Big Island (aka Hawaii)--the ancestral and spiritual home of the Native Hawaiians and one of the most awe-inspiring natural wonders of the world.

This film is NOT about Hawaii as a tropical paradise or a tourist destination. It's the antithesis of films like Elvis Presley's Blue Hawaii and Alexander Payne's The Descendants starring George Clooney. It is a film about the people who call these islands their home, and it will strive to tell their stories with the nature and spirituality of the islands as an integral background.

Even though the film is a documentary, it will not present facts. Instead, it will strive to present small moment of what the great German director Werner Herzog--and one of our chief influences--has termed "the ecstatic truth", "something deeper, a kind of truth that is the enemy of the merely factual."

What We Already Have

We already have the basic equipment needed to make this film.

Cameras:

Canon 5D Mark ii

Canon 60D (two)

Lenses:

Canon EF 50mm 1.4 (two)

Helios 58mm 2.0

Nikon 50mm 1.4

Nikkor 105mm 2.8 Macro

Sigma 17-35mm 2.8

Sigma 80mm 2.8 Macro

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 Aspherical

Support:

Manfrotto 055XPROB Pro Tripod Legs (two)

Manfrotto 305HDV  Fluid Head

Manfrotto 701HDV Fluid Head

Sanford & Davis V12 Fluid Head

Indisystem Indisquare

Glidecam Pro 4000

Audio:

Tascam DR100

Sennheiser ME66 Shotgun Mic and K6 Power Module

Rycote Pistol Grip

Zoom H1 Handy Portable Digital Recorder

Rig:

Ikan Focus Gear Follow Focus

SmallHD DP6 Field Monitor

What We Need From You

Now I realize that none of the above makes any sense to those who are not filmmakers. But in other words, what we want to relate to you is that we possess the equipment needed to make a film of high technical quality. For example. the Canon 5D Mark ii was one of the cameras used in Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialism.

Now we realize that we are no Godard, but we want to use all of this great equipment to make the best film possible. And this is where you come in. Even though the times have changed and independent filmmakers like us have access to the same cameras as cinematic legends, we lack the funding.

The film is currently being independently produced by its director Blue Un Sok Kim, its director of sound and music Tobias Elijah Morgan, and its director of photography JP Schmidt. All of them are working pro bono. Since the film is a documentary--albeit a highly non-traditional one--the subjects featured in it will either be paid nothing or just a nominal per diem for their time.

Yet even with many of the traditional expenses being less of a burden on this project thanks to its nature, we still face enormous financial difficulties in making this film. For example, while the project will be filmed mostly on location in Honolulu, we will be making a trip to the Big Island of Hawaii in order to shoot the majestic volcanic activities of Kilauea. We have also made arrangements to shoot an actual enactment of the Kumulipo chant and dance (Kumulipo is the Native Hawaiian creation chant you hear at the beginning of the pre-production trailer) on the very peak of Mauna Kea, the highest mountain in the world when measured from its oceanic base and the spiritual home of the Native Hawaiian people.

The filming on the Big Island will mean that we will have to pay for travel, accommodations, rental car, helicopter rides, and so on. And we plan to use the highest quality telephoto lenses for this endeavor. These lenses can run in the tens of thousands. Obviouly we cannot purchse them; however, we can rent them. But even then, the rentals of such equipment can run in the thousands of dollars, depending on the length of the shoot.

This is how we have arrived at the sum of $5,000 as the absolute minimum amount we believe that we need to deliver a high quality end product. Yet in reality, we can use much more to make this film even better. As a case in point, the music for the trailer you see was created by the London-based Tobias by synthesizing a public domain version of the Kumulipo chant and scattered percussions. This was then synched by the Honolulu-based Blue to the footage he has shot in preparation for the film. All of this creative cooperation was done over countless hours of online interaction. While we believe that the trailer speaks for itself and that we can do the entire film this way, we also believe that we can create an even better film by being able to work together in person. This means travel and accommodation expenses, so we can use every dollar we get beyond the $5,000 we are asking for.

Other Ways You Can Help

As the title of the film makes it obvious, this project is about people. It's not about achieving fame or wealth. As one of our cinematic heroes John Cassavetes once stated, "There are many other ways to make money than making movies. If you need to make money, please find some other way to do it. You make movies to lose your money. That is the purpose of making a movie—to put your life into something—not get something out of it."

We are making Kanaka in order to help people reclaim their humanity. So it is absolutely imperative that you help spread the word about this film, so that many people in turn will talk about and eventually watch it. Our goal is to get as many people out there to see it--to see the fascinating tapestry of humanity in all of its manifestations in one of the most isolated and culturally diverse places on earth.

Please remember that no amount of donations is too small. Every dollar will be appreciated. And if you are not in a position to donate money, please help us by spreading the word. It is time for cinema to reclaim its lost humanity, and we want to be a cog in the wheel that will get rolling to make this happen.

MAHALO NUI LOA

I always take great delight in seeing a director's face light up because of something I have done. I don't mean the loathsome ass kissing which goes on, I'm talking about delivering a difficult moment such that it solves a problem the director could not previously articulate – this often leads to genuine relief and joy on the part of the director. I always try to fit myself into the mode of the production, even if it contradicts my own aesthetic - this is correct – the production is not for the actor to impose himself on and make bend to his will, rather he is there to serve it. The actor should never compete with a director, and always remain respectful, if there is disagreement then it should be handled privately. It's not the job of the actor to judge the director, it's the job of the actor to communicate the play to the audience. The director is the actor's boss, and has brought the actor in to deliver very specific goods within the overall production. Moreover, if an actor cannot keep his petty insecurities in check, then he should get lost – the actor who allows his neurotic fears to dominate his reason and make the rest of the group suffer is despicable, and guilty of an act of gross selfishness - it's singularly the most destructive behaviour I have ever witnessed within a company. As the saying goes: keep the drama in the play. We are living in a society which has infantilised it's citizens by enshrining “how you feel”, however, all good actors know that how you feel is unimportant, it's action that counts. Great actors are spiritual warriors, and exercise self-control. Ultimately, generosity toward those he is working with is an important quality for the actor to possess. The actor comes across many varied working cultures and working methods, and those actors who survive in the jungle are the ones who can adapt to changing circumstances quickly, infact, I have come to believe that this is how the quality of an actors talent should be measured, ie: his ability to function effectively in a diverse range of situations. The actor then, needs to be adaptable.

However, it is important that the actor take a break from adapting to the modes and cultures of other peoples' productions, and produce his own. I've written before how an actor can understand his own work better and come to define his own aesthetic by producing his own stuff (and therefore function better on other peoples' stuff), however, I also think he should take time out periodically to do this, a sort of creative pit-stop, a chance to tend to the core which is present in all his work. Writing, directing and acting in his own productions can give the actor a crystal clear view of his work, he will be applying his own aesthetic from top to bottom, and so can see what's changed in his work, where any kinks may have developed and iron them out, what needs to be improved, what has improved. Producing one's own work means working with actors and crew, which provides a test of whether the ideas behind the work can be communicated to other people. Personally speaking, I find directing other actors is an especially useful task because it forces me to articulate my thoughts about the script in simple, actable terms (the way I would want to be directed), which also functions as a confirmation of my own working methods. Explaining what I think to other people is a very good bullshit test too, because if I can’t explain it to another such that they understand it, then I don't know what I'm talking about. Furthermore, these explanations must be practically useful to the listener when in the field, pretty theories are useless in the rehearsal room. The pressure which comes with taking responsibility overall for a production then, keeps you honest because other people are relying on you to help them do their job well, this humbles, and helps to shake off the crust of decadence which may have formed while working on other peoples' productions, where the actor is responsible for himself only, and need not concern himself with the minutiae of production (where even finding the right prop can turn into a major endeavour). Accountability is the thing, there is no place to hide, there can be no excuses, that work up on the screen or on the stage is undeniably yours, the totality of it this time, not only your performance. You set the standard, how you perform sends out a message to those around you, a message about the work in hand, about your work generally, and about how you think it should be done. Accomplish a standard which is high enough to keep the idealism of those who decided to collaborate with you intact, and hopefully then, they will want to see your face light up by solving a difficult problem – this happens when we work on something we're proud of.

Rouzbeh Rashidi has been asked to contribute to the “2011 World Poll” of “Revista Lumière” film magazine, for compilation of the most exciting films or cinematic events of 2011.

You can read his and loads of other lists by very interesting people HERE

Read Maximilian Le Cain‘s list HERE

More info about the ”Revista Lumière” film magazine HERE

“I can't stand intimate scenes in cinema....because every human being has an aura which is hard to penetrate. Professional actors imagine that it's part of their job to allow the director or other actors to penetrate their aura and enter into a totally unnatural contact with somebody they don't know.

Which is also why I consider it completely shameless to have very tight close-ups of people because the so-called “actor” cannot hide who he is, he's too close to us and he becomes distanced from the character. He becomes an actual person, an individual with all his considerations. And I have no desire to have an actual person on-screen. I want it to be a character, always a character.” - Otar Iosseliani.

I don't agree with much of what Iosseliani says here, especially about close-ups, because, for me, close-ups are not necessarily intimate. However, what did pique me, were his comments about “aura” and character. It's worth pointing out to those unfamiliar with Iosseliani's work, that typically he uses “non-actors” in his films, whose general lack of technique creates an awkwardness, and this awkwardness demarcates the performance, thus the character is always present.*  Further, the “non-actor” is usually more inhibited than the experienced actor, and is therefore less apt to “show”.

But what does Iosseliani mean when he speaks of “aura”? Well, aura, in my view, means diginity – people with an aura, act with the dignity, it's their dignity which gives them an aura. And dignity is about self-control, self-respect, acting with conviction, and behaving honourably (Chishu Ryu immediately springs to mind). The character is always present if the actor remains true to the  aesthetic integrity of the work at hand, which is to say; committing fully to the actions called forth by the scene, and excluding everything else. Whenever an actor supplies an emotion which has not been organically produced by his attempts to do the action of the scene, such as when those people with a knack for making themselves  cry decide to turn on the waterworks for no other reason than that they can, the aesthetic integrity of the piece is violated, the illusion is shattered,  suddenly the audience become aware of the actor exposing himself, and the dignity of not only the actor, but of the audience and the whole dramatic interchange, is lost (typically, in a desparate scramble for self-respect, this exposure manifests itself as admiration for the actor's technique by the audience, and for the actor's part, he speaks about the moment as “liberating”, and, “a breakthrough”).

The intent to remain true to the aesthetic integrity of the scene, is not the same as the intent to expose oneself. All this stuff about actors “going further” or “making themselves vulnerable”, points to a gross misunderstanding of what acting actually is, and is part of the trend in our wider culture to just let it all hang loose. In the end however, this transparency leads to trivial acting: because in letting us see everything, the actor expresses nothing. Great acting requires discipline and restraint, precision and control, artistic choices are made, only that which is essential is offered. A truthful performance, that is, one where the actor is true to the work and to himself, is always dignified, always mysterious, and, to use Iosseliani's language, never penetrates the aura of the actor. And, for the actor, the character does not exist other than as a reference for analysis, but by only sticking to the actions of the scene and cutting away everything else, the actor's performance becomes hi-definition, deliberate, and as a result it would seem, as Iosseliani would have it, as though the character is always present – the actor is ignoring those parts of himself which are not required for the scene, certainly his quotidian troubles have been left behind. This is also how the actor may reveal the truth of his own personality, while at the same time, maintaining the essential mystery of himself.

I hold an often ridiculed view that the scene the actor is playing can impress upon the his mindset. I don't mean that actor “becomes” the character – this is nonsense – I mean that the scene can influence the actor, for example: if the actor discerns in his analysis that the character he is playing doesn't care about what is happening in the scene, it may become that the actor stops caring about the production he is working on. Please note: the actor cannot know this influencing is taking place, it happens gradually, almost imperceptibly, and the actor will blame his eventual change of mindset on everything except the real cause: the scene itself.

However, for the organic actor, this influencing is positive and creative, even if it is unconscious. If for example he is playing a scene where the character is bluffing, all kinds of wonderful, little, provocative moments may reveal themselves in performance, small tells (eg – playing with an earlobe, or handling pieces of paper), which are unplanned, infact, could not have been planned, but there they are, fabulously expressive, complex, intense, and true. The actor doesn't want to consciously re-create these great moments - they're great because they're spontaneous. The actor may try to re-create them because he cherishes them, and further, they represent strong work and so it makes sense to recreate them, but the actor must resist this temptation and create afresh each time. Any re-created version of them will be a dead thing – that moment has passed, move on.

The alternative to the organic actor is the presentational actor, who frees himself from the hassle of creation by mapping out his entire performance: every gesture, every turn of the head, every inflection, has been planned in advance (and labelled “characterization”) and the performance is merely a plodding implementation of the plan, even to the extent that changes to his scene partner's performance are ignored. The object of presentational performance is to control everything in order to avoid the terror of facing up to the truth of the moment (which can seem like an abyss). Presentational acting has got nothing whatever to do with creating, and everything to do with limiting criticism, it's rarely provocative or exciting in it's search for bland flawlessness. Furthermore, this actor plays everything in inverted commas as it were, indicating to the audience that he isn't really the character (because of course we couldn't discern that for ourselves – doesn't this actor know that his performance is an illusion which the audience willingly buys into?), and would show that the character is bluffing by using a predetermined general physical nervousness, flicking the eyes, and other cliches, rather than letting the performance manifest itself by confronting the moment. The performance of the organic actor however, appears not to be performance at all, but simply the functioning of his personality, indeed, no differential between his work and his personality can be made.

It takes courage and strength to face upto the truth, it is far easier to brush it under the carpet, and trot around in a bland hypocrisy. Acting is not about being perfect all the time, although yes, we need to strive for excellence. The moment may not be perfect, it may not be how we intended it, but it may be true, and this truth is always provocative, always thrilling, always beautiful.

GARAGE IS PLEASED TO PRESENT FILM COURAGE

WITH KAREN WORDEN AND DAVID BRANIN......

Filmmakers Steve James & Alex Kotlowitz on Film Courage (Ep. #158)

Filmmakers Steve James and Alex Kotlowitz call into Film Courage to tell us why they are drawn to stories of poverty, violence, and education.  They also tell us the reservations they had making the 2011 Sundance, 2012 Film Independent SpiritAward winning film “The Interrupters,” how they were able to capture such intimate footage, how they were able to raise financing for the film, and what life was like for them over the course of they one-year production.

Connect with The Interrupters and learn how you can help

I’ve been making films for awhile now, in all sorts of genres. Each process posing a different set of issues and downfalls. But I’m certain that documentary filmmaking, at least in my experience, is the most difficult of all processes I’ve dealt with thus far. Like all art, filmmaking is very emotional and draining. But documentary filmmaking, specifically social based projects, is much more nerve-racking because it’s not just your future at stake. In most cases, like my own, a social action project comes from a deep place in your heart and the desire to make a difference. My upcoming feature documentary, Gwapa (Beautiful), isn’t about profit or numbers. It’s about spreading awareness and bringing not only hope, but true change to the people who need it most.

But just having passion and dedication isn’t enough. Like all things in life, it comes down to money. Don’t get me wrong, you don’t need a lot of dough to make something great. I’m a firm believer that “Where there is a camera, there is a way...” But what do you do when your inspiration lies across the Pacific Ocean? Fundraise, fundraise, and fundraise some more. My current film, Gwapa (Beautiful), is about two poor Filipino families and their struggle to help their kids with facial deformities. This project started back in the fall of 2010 when Faces of Tomorrow founder, Dr. Brian Rubinstien, told me about these special families and their remarkable stories. We’ve been fundraising ever since.

Last fall, bound and determined, I assembled a dedicated team, Lindsey Rowe, Sabina Padilla, and Carlos Espinoza, and we ran a successful crowd-funding campaign via Indiegogo. This campaign proved to be invaluable in terms of promotion and growing an organic audience for the project. The immense support and backing from our fans helped to keep the fire alive while we were running this tough campaign. People from all walks of life, from all over the world, come out to show their support for Gwapa (Beautiful). We even snagged IndieWire’s “Project of the the Month” for December 2011, winning a consultation with the Sundance Institute and SnagFilms. Although we didn’t reach our funding goal, we raised enough money to bring a small team to Bohol and Pitogo Islands, both remote areas in the Philippines. As you can imagine, that money went fast, but well spent. I think I speak for the entire Gwapa Film Team when I say it was an incredible experience and we captured an inspiring, life-changing film in action. And due to the project's exposure, we partnered up with Rayomar Outreach, the social action branch of the Filipino distributor, Rayomar Marine, who donated $2,000 for a new motorized fishing boat and supplies to the family featured in this film. A once in a lifetime experience indeed.

Now, I’m in the thick of post production, anxiously awaiting a rough cut from my amazing editor, Eamon Glennon. But the fundraising never stops. We’re actively seeking funds to finish and implement this important film. Since we’ve already hit the social networking platforms, we’re trying a more tradition funding strategy this time. On April 5th, we’re holding a fundraiser and call to action event in Los Angeles at Tuff Sissy & Co on Melrose. And, like we’ve seen before, people are lining up to support this great cause. It’s wonderful to watch so many talented people come together like this. Here are some highlights we have planned, just to name a few! Good friend and comedian, Iliza Shlesinger, winner of Last Comic Standing and Host of CBS’ “Excused," will provide some good laughs. Appetizers by Cooking With Corralez, featured on Virgin Mobile’s “Sparah” Web-Series. Cupcakes by Sweet E’s Bakeshop, featured on FoodNetwork’s “Cupcake Wars.” Blues entertainment by renowned guitarist, Ray Bailey. The world famous Laugh Factory graciously donated tickets to our silent auction too. Likewise, Bill Ostroff of FirstGlance Film Festivals, donated the “Indie Filmmaker’s Startup Package:” VIP passes, lots of merch, 1 year subscription to MovieMaker Magazine, and Gorilla Production Software. We even got a media board donated and we’re actively building a celebrity guest list. Once we put the word out there, people are jumping to get on board. This event is bound to be not only financially successful, but like the online funding campaign, it will bring more eyes to the project and thus help spread awareness. It just goes to show that if you build it, they will come!

If you’re in LA on April 5th, please join me and the Gwapa Film team for a wonderful evening. All proceeds go toward the completion and implementation of Gwapa (Beautiful), a grassroots effort to bring awareness to the thousands of Filipino children born with facial deformities every year. Support a great cause and get a Special Thanks credit on this inspiring film. Join the movement, tell your friends, and spread the word! For more information, please vist www.gwapafilm.com and be sure to join our Facebook Invite too!

Meg Pinsonneault is an award-winning filmmaking and screenwriter in the LA area. She is the founder of Thirsty Girl Films and the director/producer for Gwapa (Beautiful). She is easily excitable and her passion for filmmaking is known to be contagious. She believes that with inspiration, dedication and passion, anything is possible.

For more information:www.thirstygirlfilms.com.  Follow Meg on Twitter:@ThirstyGirlFilm

“If you want someone to serve the film, you don't want too much bullshit. You want someone who's committed, who's going to show up on time, who's gonna be in your corner. When you need someone, I'm the guy.”

The above is a quote from Mark Ruffalo in a recent interview which piqued my interest, and I was all set to write a panegyric about how Ruffalo was one of the great underrated American actors, before I decided to think a little bit more deeply about what he was saying.

Ruffalo here, is really telling us he is a committed actor, because all the points he makes are simply different examples of what a committed actor does. He has created a list of selling points, good reasons why you should hire him. I confess, however, that I was a little shocked by this, for many of those qualities listed, in my opinion, should be standard practice, not special features. I'm not knocking Ruffalo, I admire the guy, and I'm glad he celebrates these qualities, but I think all actors should be committed actors.

Commitment means the exclusion of all other possibilities, when you make a commitment you cut away all other options, total commitment implies a lack of concern for anything else except reaching your goal.

And the goal of the actor's work is to communicate the play* to the audience, and this communication is what the actor is committing to. And the first expression of this commitment is time-keeping. Not only turning up to work on time, but turning up 15 minutes early. To keep time well requires self-discipline, focus, strength of mind, and a healthy respect for life generally. Nobody ever won an Oscar for timekeeping though, it is as unglamourous as learning lines, but no less important. I learn all of my lines by the first day of rehearsal. I didn't used to, I used to learn them as I went along in rehearsal. But now I memorize them by the first day, and not because I'm a smart-alec or want to be competitive, but because I can function better: I am freer to play the scene in different ways, and play it fully, I am less self-conscious and more adventurous in my choices. Before I can confidently remember my lines, there is a tendency to lean on the script, like crutches. There is no magic recipe for learning them either, it's just a question of knuckling down with a bit of good old fashioned hard work: relentless repetition in other words. I cannot act until I can do the lines habitually, never searching for them, and this allows me to act at full tilt, in the moment. When I first started out, I, laughably, only used to half learn my lines, believing that my searching for the correct line made my performance somehow truer, more “real”. Nonsense, it had the reverse effect, often leading me to anticipate my next line because I was scared I would forget it as I hadn't learned it properly.

If the actor is not committed to serving the play, then what is he doing? Oftentimes, one finds actors in the company who would prefer to play politics, and seek power over their colleagues as oppose to simply doing the work at hand. Typical behaviour of this kind of actor includes: speaking with the director as though they were best mates, treating their colleagues like second class citizens, alternating between wanting people to kiss their ass and hold their hand, and always acting first to serve their vanity. They see the production as little more than a mechanism for expressing how “special” they are. This kind of actor is not interested in the play, much less the audience. And perhaps that is what Ruffalo meant by “bullshit”.

So the committed actor then, understands that the production as a whole is greater than himself, and strives to “serve the film”. The committed actor not only shows up to work early and knows his lines cold, but supports the production and it's director. He prepares properly, and is able to rise above petty politicking or disturbances. He shows respect, loyalty and courtesy towards his colleagues (and patience when the same is not forthcoming). The committed actor never complains, and cherishes the privileged work he does.

Commitment to work is a fundamental tenet if one is to become an artist.

*I use the word “play” as a catch all phrase to include: film, television, radio, web, mobile device, and all other performance platforms.

NB – I highly recommend Ruffalo's performance in Kenneth Lonergan's “You Can Count On Me”, Laura Linney is also very good, and a wonderful script allows for some good old fashioned dramatic acting.

“But I think actors are always having to achieve the problem before they can express overcoming the problem” - Colin Firth.

I like Colin Firth, he's alright. I've been a fan of his since I first noticed his work in The English Patient back in mid-90s. Unlike many actors who treat the production as merely a showcase for their “talent”, Firth seems simply to play the scene as well as he can and not worry about anything else, always excluding the non-essential. He also seems to be committed to the form (cinema), and is a good example of an actor who's kept his head down and striven to be the best actor he can be, quietly building a substantial body of work in the process. We don't associate him with the very silly cacophony that can sometimes accompany star actors. Firth has grown over the years, while many of his apparently more glamorous colleagues have diminished. When Firth performs, you know you're going to get something honest and true, his work warms us. Although I have not yet seen The King's Speech, I did recently watch A Single Man and absolutely loved Firth's performance in it,  it's a very good example of what I'm talking about.

However, when I read the above quote, I thought it was gobbledegook at first, the sort of actorly waffle which encourages the modern fashion of denigrating acting and actors, as evidenced by the widespread use of the derogatory term “luvvie”. But then I re-read it, and thought a little bit more about it, and soon realised that Firth's theory of acting here, is not dissimilar to my own.

In Firth's case,  he was referring  to making his stammer authentic for his character in the King's Speech. Firth's “problem” then, is the technical challenge of perfecting the stammer, and “achieving the problem” means mastering the stammer technically as an actor, and “express overcoming the problem” means what the actor actually does  when trying to overcome the character's problem as per the script, or put another way, portraying the character's struggle to deal with his speech, literally what we, the audience, see unfolding in the finished film. So Firth cannot strive to banish the stammer until he has given himself a stammer.

Another example would be Charles Laughton in The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, who famously insisted that his fake hump be made of real weight, so that he had to literally carry the burden through the scenes, as Quasimodo would've done. And in performances where the challenge for the actor is not necessarily externally technical, ie – cosmetics or physical adjustments are not required,  then the actor still needs to give himself a problem to solve, concurrent to the character's problem. Recently I played a scene where the other guy had a gun pointed at my head and my character had to talk his way out of it, so I gave myself the problem of convincing the other actor he's making a terrible mistake.

I posted Firth's words on various social media sights a few days ago, and got a range of responses, from people mocking Firth through to others who interpreted his words into their own technical language.

What do you think?

Richie Abraham is an Indian cinephile and occasional writer to lives and works in Gurgaon. Abraham has written a review on HE (2012).

Redolent of their improvised, ostensibly meandering yet finely structured collaboration ‘Closure of Catharsis‘,  actor-director pair James Devereaux and Rouzbeh Rashidi’ s new feature ‘HE’ starts of with a man dressed like an astronaut sauntering through a corridor perhaps looking for something.  This exemplary oneiric  sequence is characteristic of the dreamlike imagery that abounds intermittently across its running time.  With regards to plot and narrative structure the auteur is far more generous this time; we encounter the protagonist who is contemplating suicide, an act  seemingly stemming out of some unexplained  absurdity of his existence.  This is a theme that has frequently been  explored by several auteurs  in albeit traditional  ways,  from Louis Malle’s bleak  investigation into the desperation of  clinical depression in ‘The Fire Within’ to Haneke’s virulent attack on bourgeois complacency in ‘The Seventh Continent’.  While every Bresson film yields itself to readings of death and redemption, he made atleast three explicit films on suicide  namely Mouchette, The Devil Probably and A Gentle Woman, each significantly in  contrast with the next. What Mr. Rashidi however offers us here, is a look at suicidal consciousness at the level of dreams rejecting every banal  device.

This has been the defining characteristic of their earlier venture.  While large parts of  ’Closure of Catharsis‘  consisted of a tenuous improvised monologue by an actor with a mise-en-scene almost anti-Wellesian in its foreground background dynamics, the most gripping moments came when  vacillating images from a seemingly discordant video diary- of a Jonas Mekas kind suffused through it.  Those images form counterpoint to the sere  monologue which at times seems like an experiment in excess of the Cassavetesian or Rivettian nature. Like the introductory extended theatre improvisation that we encounter in Out1 ( which I positively assert  is extremely crucial to the entire film), the monologue inexorably sets up the crucial theme of the film, that being the subconscious mental-image. This study of the mental image in the case of a suicidal protagonist treads into territories that ordinary film makers can never encounter or create.  The interspersing of the monologue, the duologue and the dream like imagery help form a distrait mise-en-scene where in the character struggles between self revelation and disillusionment.  I am reminded of Kracauer and his essay on photography, especially his  emphasis  on the relationship between the photographic image and the mental-image. Among the images which a human being recollects , the ones that pervade across millions of potential snapshots that present themselves to the memory system, what qualifies  those selected  images to be representatives of the collective truths of certain periods?  Surely it has to do with the truth, the essence that has been liberated through suppressed  layers of consciousness or been forcefully  shunned out of it.  The memory image might fail to stand up to the technical precision of the photographic image which is concerned with the moment of the snapshot and the spatial coordinates presented to it  but it sure is omniscient across the vast temporal continuum that lies in memory.  This peremptory choice of memory cannot be obviated. Several of the images here convey the same omniscience that magically encapsulate the ‘history’of our protagonist (to borrow again from Kracauer). In one remarkable action-reaction sequence during the duologue , the camera captures the protagonist’s friend and the protagonist in his dream state alternately.  This has consolidated  the character with his mental-image, the present with the history. The chains of temporal context have been broken.  These images might certainly seem out of order, just as very often our mental-images have sought emancipation from the social context that inhibited them from innocent clear synthesis. Once this immurement ends, only  clarity remains and verity  shines through.

Providing momentum to the plot so that the viewer is not disinterested unfortunately has since always been high on the film maker’s agenda. To achieve it lesser directors introduce plot twists, peripheral characters and irritating deus ex machinas, while certain conniving self proclaimed intellectuals resort to metaphysical contrivances that lack a trace of veracity. Rashidi achieves the same almost effortlessly through intelligent manipulation of sound and imagery. The titular character’s introductory monologue merely shows a noirish b/w face while we get glimpses of his condition. Later once the surreal imagery is incorporated regularly into the run time, the subsequent part of the monologue shows him in color but out of focus, a putative acceptance of the inherent disparity in seeing less despite seeing more. The background score works wonders when we encounter sharp bursts amid the somber attentuated ambience. Emotions and awareness are both heightened for the viewer,  as they ought to be for the character himself. Every single gesture becomes monumental. Nothing is insignificant. Incoherent stills of a couple and the absence of communication both physical and verbal between them, provide ground to what the monologue conveys.

Another key purpose the inchoate imagery serves  to achieve is to develop an abstract framework of the character involved. Something that full blown specificity quite often falls short of accomplishing. The three aspects of the film ( the monologue , duologue and dream imagery ) give  us  fleeting insights into the life of the protagonist. This is very different from the bordering on legerdemain, post-modern brechtian V effect which godard and others strove to achieve. This abstraction is essential and it functions in a style completely in conflict with the post-modern approach.  The unabashed  distancing  is replaced by an  unabashed refusal to complete acquaintance. An Abstraction towards the mental image. This is the same abstraction that makes Ozu’s films universal  and independent in essence from the stringent political situation of his country  or Rohmer’s films  escape the french sensibility that seem to engulf them. In the great Indian film maker G Aravindan’s masterpiece ‘Esthappan‘ we see the titular character  lead a christ-like life balancing between fact  and fiction. The fiction  is created by the inhabitants of the fisherman town while the fiction in ‘HE‘  is predominantly created by the actor while he is absorbed in his monologue. Both  tales might not seem satisfactory for the spoon-fed hard-boiled  viewer but it is this breezy nature of the plot that helps  the receptive viewer coil right to the essence of both characters.  Esthappan is only seen as a free floating silhouette, yet is a fully developed mystical character and  by eschewing particulars and embracing the mental-imageHE  manages to create a rich silhouette of an existential end, something hackneyed mainstream cinema can only achieve by obliterating  itself.

Donald Wolfitt made a name for himself at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in 1936 as Hamlet, and he tried to persuade the management to bankroll him on a tour of the provinces. They declined the invitation, so he withdrew his savings and started his own touring company in 1937.

I, like pretty much everyone else, have been indoctrinated to believe that an actor is someone who spends his time asking the powers that be for permission to do work, and occasionally that permission is granted. If a poet wants to work, he merely grabs his pen and starts writing, a filmmaker picks-up his camera, and a painter his brush. This seems patently obvious, none of these people feel that they need to seek permission in order to work, it would be absurd for them to do so. But this is not true for the actor, who is supposed to pass through some process before he is allowed to perform*. And, as always when a new production of my own starts to come into focus, one in which I will not only act, but write the script, direct and produce**, I must once again find a rationale for doing so, or, put another way; make the way clear for artistic freedom by sweeping away the dulling crust which forms around the employee mindset. One of the problems is that there is a tendency to over complicate things – essentially, all an actor does is communicate something to a group of people – but the complications arise when we think of it as a “career”, because then the notion of communicating something to a group of people becomes the holy grail rather than the norm – bizarrely, validation must be sought from outside agencies: attending auditions and meetings, but before we attend auditions and meetings, we have to set up those auditions and meetings, and how are we going to do that, and so on and so forth...yes, it can get complicated, and it's easy to see how the true work of the actor gets lost in the tunnel-vision-pursuit of winning the favour of potential benefactors (as we perceive them) - infact, many who try their hand at acting, quit, as they become overwhelmed, demoralised and exhausted by the constant demands of having to scythe their way through the layers of resistance between them and the audience.

As I try to design a philosophy which will carry me through my next project then , I wonder if the modern notion of the jobbing industrial actor need be rethought, and my mind turns to the pre-industrial actor. In the beginning, there was only the actors (who had formerly been priests but were cast out of the church for being too entertaining), moving from village to village, delivering corner-street oration for their daily bread; if they were good, then they ate, if they were bad then they starved to death (perhaps the choice for the modern day actor is not quite as stark, but perhaps that is one reason why standards are falling despite ever more “training”). But the point is, the actors were there long before the playwrights, long before the directors and the producers, and the theatres and the marketing people, and (the most powerful class in our society) the bureaucrats. Long, long before any these people came along, there was only the actor, who entered the village as a stranger, alone and broke, possessed with only his wits and his intent to create a powerful illusion – he certainly didn't ask permission.

So now it's the 21st century, and actors have been colonized by the paper-pushers – the implication is that the courage and generosity of the actor is worthless, that only obedience has any value. The downside risk of starvation is no longer the motor for the drive to greatness. Nowadays, the street corner is the internet, and digital technology offers the possibilty for the actor to reclaim the work which is rightfully his. It's time to cut out the middle men.

*Perhaps that is part of the actor, his psyche, that needs this process, but perhaps we shall reserve an analysis of that for another time.

**The separation of these job titles is, for me, in practical terms, utterly meaningless. I only separate them here to emphasize my point.

RELATED

From Fake Independence Toward A True Artistic Culture

Never Compromise

Many actors think that the big prize of stardom will be theirs if only they just hang on in there, no matter how difficult things seem now, just give it another couple of years, afterall, didn't such-and-such-a-famous-actor spend 15 years getting his big break, didn't that other actor go on 3 million auditions before he made his first million – the inference here is: IT COULD BE YOU, if only you just keep “believing” then “it” will happen for you. The mentality of the lottery-playing-get-rich-quick-actor (irony intended) thinks that artistic ardour amounts to sticking to their routine at the gym, and spends endless money on THE MOST EXPENSIVE HEADSHOTS, the logic being that the more expensive the headshot the more likely it is to get that actor work, and further, this actor infantalises themselves and submits their life and happiness to the whim of an apparent authority figure, the person they think can unlock the gates to the Palace Of The Social Elite. This actor who spends their whole life trying to get into the country club and sneers at art, is seen as the “serious” actor in this era of crass commercialism that we live, because not only do they want to win the jackpot, but they are willing to follow the prescribed path (of obediance) in order to do so... Of course, almost all fail, as indeed almost all fail to get rich via the National Lottery.

There is however,  another kind of actor, the aesthetic actor, who recoils at the thought of kissing ass because he wants his actions to speak for him, this actor simply dedicates himself to being an artist and pursues an aesthetic agenda (or put another way: dedicates himself to attaining truth and excellence in his work). This aesthetic actor however, is seen as “unserious” because, as with all individual creative artists, he follows his own path which may be exhilarating only to himself, his actions may seem incomprehensible to others, and further, this actor is uninterested in getting brand names onto his CV, and worse, he is unwilling to spend money in the right areas. This actor is, therefore,  to be denigrated, and especially so for having the impertinence to want control over his life and work, afterall, aren't actors supposed to grovell with their begging bowls, frantically scrabbling around on the floor for whatever crumbs are thrown their way, and poking out the eyes of their brothers and sisters in the process...*cough, cough*...i'm sorry, I meant pursuing SUCCESS  not scrabbling on the floor for crumbs. I do apologise for that slight slip of the tongue. But no, the aesthetic actor will be told to forsake his reason and stop being “negative”, he will be told he “doesn't really believe”, and worst of all, that he is “a loser”...and...“just, who do you think you ARE?”

However, I say, and in the words of the great Al Pacino, “you've only got today, that's all you've got”. How much of your life are you willing to spend “standing around in the dark waiting to be picked “ (ie - the casting process). How many years? 10? 15? 20? What is an acceptable amount of time? At which point do you stop “believing”? I know actors who have quit the business entirely but continue to tell me that they still “believe”. Believe in what, I ask you? If you just keep “believing” for another 9 years you MIGHT have a shot at stardom. And what does this stardom amount to? A part on a well known television show? Perhaps work on an expensive movie? Who knows? And remember, before you actually get to become a star you'll have to be cast via the audition process where somebody will decide whether, yay or nay, you can proceed to stardom. All those years of toil and sacrifice and subservience boil down to somebody in some room somewhere, deciding for you, whether you've been wasting your time or not. Nice.

I say, don't worry if you're not conforming to the prescribed path. It's not easy to stand your ground, but do so, and don't let a flip remark by a casual aquaintance upset your apple cart. Infact, what others say or do has got nothing to do with you, and therefore should not concern you. Remember that those who would denigrate you because you refuse to pander to authority, are doing so simply in order to make themselves feel secure, they are cowards who need to feel that they too are part of the country club (whether they are or not, or whether it's even possible that they might be in the future, is apparently not open to scrutiny, it's a given). Sometimes those things you do for love will not work out, and sometimes you will look at someone who works with purely venal motives and it does work - that's life – it should not cause you to throw everything out of the window. Stick to your guns. What is important is that you're living your life, and that you take responsibility for it. Don't mortgage the present for some imaginary future good, follow your own personal truth, and do so today.

GARAGE IS PLEASED TO PRESENT FILM COURAGE

WITH KAREN WORDEN AND DAVID BRANIN......

Actor Kevin Chapman on LA Talk Radio’s Film Courage (Ep. #157)

Actor Kevin Chapman, Detective Lionel Fusco on the CBS hit-show Person of Interest, skypes into Film Courage to share his story of how acting found him, why he bypassed New York for Los Angeles, what separates those who make a living from those who don’t, how he spends that dead zone time when he is not acting, and he tells about his life on the set of POI.

Connect with Kevin - www.KevinChapman.com, @POIFUSCO, & on Facebook

WWF is working along Sandgrains to have an impact on the Common Fisheries Policy reform.

We're working towards a European fisheries policy that honours fishery agreements around the world. EU boats must abide by a sustainable fisheries policy wherever they operate to protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of overfishing.

Help us collect enough signatures for WWF's More Fish petition campaign, so that we can ask for a change in the policy.

WWF just published a page on their website to promote the work of the Sandgrains team. Visit this link to know more.

One of the most demanding aspects of an actor's life is the constant need to improve, year by year, month by month, day by day, moment by moment. There is no let up – when one set of questions has been answered, a new set of questions arise (some questions are never answered, the struggle is ongoing....), these new questions make new demands upon the actor and he must improve himself in order to meet those new demands, and further, he must become someone capable of constant self-improvement. The realisation that the actor must engage in continual struggle (with himself, his art, and his life) causes many to quit as they begin to see that the actor's life is not quite the cosy one of celebrity parties they might have imagined, and if they don't quit, then many become hacks, burying their head in the sand by pretending no improvement is necessary, and that in any case, money is the only thing that counts.

Everyday the actor needs to strive to improve himself, improve the way he thinks, his technique, reaching greater heights of self-discipline, becoming stronger in order to work more productively for longer, and in addition he must help his allies, promote the culture he wants to participate in, and ultimately strive to become the very embodiment of his ideals. And all this is not easy. When one objective has been accomplished, a new objective must be articulated and understood (and this process is in itself challenging, let alone actually accomplishing the new objective), and the actor must become aware of where he is at in this process, otherwise he is likely to become confused and lose direction. Crucially, the actor must be aware of the shortfall in his skills which may cause him to fail to accomplish the new objective, and steps must be put in place in order to make up that shortfall. Again, this process is difficult in itself. Ultimately however, this work must be done every single day if the actor wants to construct precisely the body of work he wants, this is the kind of pressure he needs to live under, constantly, and be energised by the pressure rather than crushed. And yes, this is very different to living a life hoping your CV “lands on the right desk at the right time”. If one aspires to ever greater heights, then one must commit to ever greater dedication, for you can achieve only in proportion to your capabilities.

If you want to be a great actor, then nothing less than total dedication will do. And if your goal is to become a great actor, then you will be one of those rare people who knows the meaning of their life because you will understand what each of your actions mean. Why? Because you can measure each of your actions in relation to your goal. Are you going to go out and get drunk, or are you going to go home and do your voice exercises, then read that Moliere play before relaxing in front of a movie?

If your goal is to be a great actor, which is to say, one capable of producing a great work of art, my support is available to you, and I wish you every success.