On co-directing

Started by BrainSushi, January 14, 2004, 01:04:43 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

BrainSushi

January 14, 2004, 01:04:43 PM
I posted a while back about the movie I wrote about computer hackers that my friend Jeremy was going to direct, with a little financial help from his pal Brett Ratner.

Since then, Jeremy has asked me to co-direct... so, basically, this is going to be the first real movie I've directed. We haven't even begun principle photography, and already I can tell things aren't going to go very well between Jeremy and I. It is, perhaps, that we're different kinds of film fans, and filmmakers.

I'm also not one to be one of these hardcore "Indies." I enjoy studio movies, but never before have I been so "indie" now that I'm working with somebody who is all about following some sort of rule book, which he was no doubt given by Brett Ratner (after he sucked BR's dick, of course).

Initially, I was "hired" to write a movie for Jeremy to make, simply because he's a shitty writer. I was planning on seeing my school's resident filmmaker work his magic, but I've come to realize that this kid is nothing but a poseur who is fed bullshit by the corporate elite, who thinks he has all the answers about filmmaking because he's friends with Brett Ratner, his mom runs the Palm Beach film festival, and he served as "camera intern" on a "real movie" ("Shut Up and Kiss Me," which looks like garbage).

Now, I suppose I'm being a hypocrate. What makes me an authority on good filmmaking? Nothing. Hell, he's probably done more than I have, but I suppose it's our different tastes that's causing this tension. I don't see the problem with having a scene without music... he does. I don't see the problem with using different "colour tones" throughout the film (i.e. lighter scenes could have a green tint, while more darker/disturbing scenes have a blue tint)... he does.

I don't see why the end has to suggest the possibility of a sequel... he does (although, he stated, this is simply to make Mr. Ratner happy).

And he's casted two roles with actors who are completely wrong. I hope I'm not the only person who can't imagine a somebody who's both tan and built to spend all his time in front of a computer.  

I could just quit... which would seem easy, but I've grown to really like my script and would enjoy directing it. Now, however, I've grown to hate the whole reason I wrote the script. I feel like a douche bag if I try and take over, but I'd also feel like a douche if I quit.

Has anybody ever found themselves in Co-Directing Hell? What did (or whould) you do?

Edit: He also doesn't know who Paul Thomas Anderson is.

SoNowThen

#1
January 14, 2004, 01:13:22 PM
Do the movie he wants to do, but add subtle re-writes and bits of actors business that is wholly subversive, to undermine the whole thing. Then, when it's over, talk shit about everybody and distance yourself from the project.

Best of luck to you!!
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cron

#2
January 14, 2004, 03:11:21 PM
I think that being a filmmaker implies the fact of being a film buff.  I can't imagine a new director emerging without knowing the work of, say, both Andersons. It happens , but it's aberrant. Hell  , I dislike the idea of being involved in filmmaking just for the fact that I haven't seen a single Fellini film.
You've probably had those thoughts before, so i wont feed more shit ... but if I were in your situation I'd let him know who's the boss, or in other words,  who has more knowledge in the subject, as you  prove with your post . For all I know, Rattner is a PTA wannabe so USE THAT. Be honest, and unmerciful.
context, context, context.

TheVoiceOfNick

#3
January 14, 2004, 03:45:51 PM
Let's look at it from a business point of view... who put up the money?  Brett Ratner... so he's your client.  Your most important role in creating something commercial isn't to make it artistic, or to make it wonderful... it's to satisfy your client.  If you're really going to co-direct this, which implies 50/50 input, then you should get together with your financer and find out exactly what he'd like to see.  It sounds though, that your friend is really the director, and he just brought you in on this because you're friends... meaning he can fire you if he doesn't like your ideas.  A real directing team will work together and compromise.  Either way, make sure you know what your client wants, and deliver... or face not getting financing from him again.  Who knows, maybe if he likes this, he'll give each of you seperate seed money for two seperate films next time.

If all else fails, get to know Ratner well, tell him your ideas, then make sure the project goes the opposite direction.  Then, when the movie sucks, you can say "I told you so" and look good in his eyes... think "The Player"...  :lol:

BrainSushi

#4
January 14, 2004, 06:16:10 PM
Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickLet's look at it from a business point of view... who put up the money?  Brett Ratner... so he's your client.  Your most important role in creating something commercial isn't to make it artistic, or to make it wonderful... it's to satisfy your client.  If you're really going to co-direct this, which implies 50/50 input, then you should get together with your financer and find out exactly what he'd like to see.  It sounds though, that your friend is really the director, and he just brought you in on this because you're friends... meaning he can fire you if he doesn't like your ideas.  A real directing team will work together and compromise.  Either way, make sure you know what your client wants, and deliver... or face not getting financing from him again.  Who knows, maybe if he likes this, he'll give each of you seperate seed money for two seperate films next time.

If all else fails, get to know Ratner well, tell him your ideas, then make sure the project goes the opposite direction.  Then, when the movie sucks, you can say "I told you so" and look good in his eyes... think "The Player"...  :lol:

Actually, I've just learned that Brett Ratner will NOT be supplying us money. I'm beginning to lose trust in Jeremy. Initially, he told me Ratner WOULD be giving us money. Then, when I told him we'd need FBI jackets for the film, he says: "I only want to ask Brett for money if we have to."

So, as of now, this movie is NOT being made for Brett Ratner. It's being made for us. We had our first cast read through today, and when it comes to interacting with the actors, Jeremy seems to know what he's doing, which doesn't surprise me because he's actually more involved with the drama club than he is the film club.

This lead me to believe that perhaps I could propose he does more work with the actors and I do more things in terms of what shots we're going to use, etc., etc.

The only thing that bothered me today was, well, I'd say he embarassed himself. This was a conversation I seriously had with him today:
Him: "Oh! You gotta write in another character because I could get Paris Hilton to be in our movie?"
Me: "O.O uh... no."
Him: "No, dude I'm serious, I could get her to be in the movie."
Me: "Why the fuck would I want Paris Hilton in my movie?"
Him: "We need as big a name as we can get, and we could make money."
Me: "I don't wanna make money and I wouldn't want Paris Hilton in my movie, even if you weren't bullshitting."
Him: "I'm not bullshitting! We could get Paris Hilton!"

Now, with his mom being the producer of a film festival, I suppose it's likely that he has or will sometime meet Paris Hilton, as he's met many a celebrity, but to even think that she would act in a gay twenty minute movie is just hilarious.

Pubrick

#5
January 14, 2004, 09:48:27 PM
haha, woah. ok, ur friend sounds completely deluded and superficial about the whole movie thing. if ur pride prevents u from getting out of the deal, ur gonna hav to ride it out and make the shittiest film u can. this way u can ruin his career, and from what u've said, it's going in this direction anyway.

next time, don't co-direct unless it's with ur wife, or brother.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#6
January 15, 2004, 08:48:52 AM
Though, directors can get the hot ass if they really try for it. I say, get Paris in your movie, get a little extra side movie going (if ya know what I mean), and do a straight-to-video distribution to fund whatever art project you wish to take on in the future.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

TheVoiceOfNick

#7
January 15, 2004, 10:58:06 AM
I think it's really important to use some type of celebrity actor in your movie to get more people to want to see it.  Even though I don't like Paris Hilton, if I had an opportunity to use her in one of my movies, i'd jump at the chance... that ensures that my movie goes from a little indie short that'll just be on the net, to something I can actually sell for $10 per DVD... and sell thousands of copies.

cron

#8
January 15, 2004, 11:03:48 AM
yes, use her.
context, context, context.

BrainSushi

#9
January 15, 2004, 12:14:47 PM
Well, according to Jeremy (though he fibbed about getting Ratner's money), our movie already has a slot at the Palm Beach Film Festival, which his mom runs.

SoNowThen

#10
January 15, 2004, 12:23:20 PM
In all seriousness, if this is a downhill project, the best thing to do is this: suck it up, do the best you can with what you're given, stay quiet and act professional on set... and most importantly MAKE FRIENDS WITH AS MANY CAST & CREW MEMBERS YOU CAN. That way, when this nonsense is over, you can segue into your own project and use all these connections to hopefully work for free, without the albatross of Jeremy and Ratner around your neck.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions