Matthew McDermott

Regarding Motorcycle Diaries only telling part of the story: It's been a while since I read Che's actual diaries, but I seem to remember that he wasn't nearly so sympathetic towards the poor in the beginning of his trip as the film makes it out to be. His views certainly changed as the trip progressed, but in the beginning he makes few remarks about them that aren't disparaging. I guess a gradual change in character is harder to portray than a dramatic one... I also forgot that they kept crashing the bike. It's just as humorous in writing as on the screen.

Ah those pesky bats. . . Re: homemade softboxes; I'm all for DIY and I've seen some pretty impressive ones made that work well in a pinch, but none of them really hold up over time. And do you really want to be measuring foam core to get four matching Isoceles Trapezoids every couple of times out? Unless you've got an X-Acto knife fetish, and I know some people can't get enough of the things, I'd save my money and get a proper softbox. Chimera's are certainly expensive for a bit of cloth with velcro, some metal poles and a metal ring, but they work like a dream. I think you could buy a four season single person tent for less money, but then again it'd probably catch on fire. . . I think the bats are taking my meds too. . . Cheers.

It may be depressing but it is quite accurate. Perhaps realistic is a better way to describe the situation. It's easy to be enthusiastic when starting out, but after a year or two working for little to no money (in comparisson to industry-standard rates, not what you could you'd making working at Borders or Starbucks...) and it doesn't get any better, it becomes hard to keep your enthusiasm from flagging. Psychologically, the fact of the matter is that if you are not really and truly going to become clinically insane by _not_ working in film, you're probably better off doing something else. The potential rewards, financial and creative, are quite high, but the chance of failure is essentially so high as to be guaranteed. All of this is of course rendered moot if you're within one degree of someone with Coppola as a last name. If the options were starting over in another career or work on crap productions the rest of my life, I'd choose something else.

Cinema clowns? They all come piling out of a small Fiat, a bunch of guys in web belts hung with carabiners and gaffer's tape all carrying a Pelican case and a C-stand, whilst talking on a two-way radio? And the last guy out is a sound engineer, arriving five minutes after everyone else, reading the newspaper and drinking a coffee. Now that's funny...

Film school is very expensive, and unlike other expensive programs (law school, medical school), your chances of getting employment are very low. I don't know if it's statistically accurate, but something like 4 out of 5 film school graduates are not working in film within 5 years of graduating. If you choose LFS, make sure you stick it out for the full six terms. The interesting part of the program really doesn't happen until the second year. When considering the cost of LFS, keep in mind that all your film and processing (other than your graduation film) is included in the fee. In fact you are not allowed to spend your own money on any of the films you make to increase the amount of stock you have. You're also not allowed to rent outside equipment either. When I was there, there was a controversy because a student wanted to rent a crane for their term four film. They were told that it was outside the scope of the assignment, and couldn't rent it. They were told this after paying for the rental and went ahead anyway. The school was in a fit; I think there was talk of not giving him credit for the term. They allow you complete control of your projects, but set the boundaries very close.

Getting as much experience as you can is very important. Far more important than what equipment you own is who you know. Personal relationships will get you farther faster than anything else. Of course you do need some ability, and if you know people and have the equipment then all the better, but it really comes down to knowing people. This doesn't neccesarily mean people with a ton of money at first, but people just making films where you can get on-set experience. Some thoughts on LFS specifically: I went there for one term before dropping out. I had a good deal of experience going into the program, but felt it would help me to get some credentials. (My degree is in Writing & Literature.) I was bored to tears with the curriculum. I knew it would be a slight step back for a couple of terms, but I thought I could put up with it. I couldn't and decided just working more would be more beneficial. If you work on as many shoots from now through college, you'll have more experience than going through the program.

Well, you've got to do something to preserve your sanity on a shoot where the director's completely lost control...

I second Phil; I know very few people who own much personal gear. I've got a light meter and a bunch of filters, plus a DVX100, a couple of lights and lavs so I don't have to rent just to do a quick interview. Anything else gets rented. Buying a miniDV camera can be good when starting out so you inexpensively practice composition, but beyond that don't worry about it. Develop your other skills.

I work with a number of directors who are quite capable behind the camera. They may not know all the ins and outs of the camera department or all of the technique, but they certainly have a very good idea how to compose a shot. In the larger world, there are quite a few directors who are good photographers: Kubrick was a photojournalist first and Wim Wenders has several books of photos published, just to name two.

I feel that either method can yield a good result but the working method needs to be thoroughly discussed and decided upon before production starts. There's nothing worse than going into a shoot thinking you're in charge of framing only to find that it isn't the case.

Obviously the wings will always _look_ homemade. I don't think it's intended that the actor is actually making the wings. Also, by just starting on the top of the cliff I think you've actually cut out the entire story, at least based on what we've been given. It's much more interesting me to see someone going through the actions of getting ready to hurl themselves into the darkness than actually doing so. The character's perspective at the top of the cliff is certainly important, but without showing what brought him there it would not be nearly as effective as an emotional moment. Though you're right that it's difficult to know what's the "right" way to interpret the scene without knowing what comes before and after, and whether the character is actually going to fly or just plummet.

This all assumes that Andrew knows he isn't going to actually fly on these wings and this is in reality a melodramatic suicide attempt. I might shoot it differently if he really thinks he's going to fly. EXT. CLIFF TOP - NIGHT An enchanting night. Cold. WS. Andrew is small in the frame. We see him from behind, in the far right side of the frame. From this angle we cannot exactly see what he is doing, only the movement of his arms. We can however hear him much more clearly than we actually would. His breathing laboured and everything he touches seems slightly amplified. He is backlit; all we're seeing is his outline, the outline of the cliff and some grass along the top. Hold slightly longer than is comfortable. the audience should be thinking, "shouldn't they have cut by now." He looks up, turning his head toward the camera, and goes back to work. Shivering, young Andrew adds some finishing touches to a set of -HOMEMADE WINGS A crafty mixture of metal, cardboard, tar and feathers. Sturdy and reliable. Reverse angle. A series of locked off close-ups of his hands, the feathers, the tar, the metal, the brush going into the bucket of tar. His motions are quick but deliberate. Finished, he gets up. Andrew fastens the wings and heads to the tip of the cliff, over looking a gut-wrenching 50 foot drop into a hungry ocean. Start low and jib up as Andrew rises, putting on the wings. We pull back as he throws them over his shoulders, revealing for the first time the wings in their entirety. Andrew stands, adjusting the wings. MCU. Slightly high angle. Andrew dead center in the frame, the wings extend to either side Back to previous angle, the camera leads Andrew as he walks forward toward the cliff (out of shot). As he gets to the edge we whip to the right, behind him and up, revealing the drop into the ocean. The stars look down on Andrew anticipatingly while he closes his eyes and takes a deep breath. Beat. CU. Andrew closes his eyes, takes a deep breath, looks down. MS. The ocean surf and beach at the bottom of the cliff. Very low key, all we can make out is the whitewater and a slight glistening on the sand where the waves have drawn back. The sound of the water is deafening. CU. Andrew's face is short-framed, partially out of shot. Most of the frame is filled with one of the wings as he raises them and jumps. He exhales -- then jumps off the cliff. WS. From the ocean. A small figure plummets from the top of a 50' cliff to the sand below. MS. From the cliff top. Andrew lies in the surf, his broken wings splayed out on either side of him. The waves run over his body.

The angle of view will change from about 60 degrees to 25 degrees. If you want the angle of view of what your 27mm lens is giving you on S16 , you still need a 27mm lens from 35. I don't really think in terms of feet when discussing field of view, but the American Cinematography manual has extensive tables showing field of view in feet for different lenses in different formats, based on subject distance from camera.

A Normal lens for 16mm is about 13-15mm, not 25mm. It's a bit of a contentious subject as I think what we consider a "normal" lens has actually gotten wider over time, but in general a normal lens in defined as one that is equal to the diagonal of the image area. This supposedly approximates the natural perspective of human vision and approximates an angle of view where vision is most sensitive (about 40-45 degrees). However, I've always found that definition a bit misleading. I've found that my natural perspective is in the 60 degree range. If I shoot with a classic normal lens I really feel like I'm zooming in and isolating what I'm framing compared to how I regularly see it.

I just got confused. We've been talking about 35mm SLR lenses, 35mm and 16mm lenses. You're saying that something around 25mm is a normal lens on which format?