Ghetto Economics: Self-Distribution

Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:20:45 -0500

"If you can't sell to your friend, family and hometown, than who can you sell to?"

Independent Filmmakers are also starting to feel the same vibe as the independent music industry. Personally, I have shot several projects on a $110-Circuit-City-1-Chip-Manager's-Special, which have all turned out just fine. Avoiding poor lighting conditions, using interesting stories, and staying close to the camera because I didn't have a shotgun or lav, helped create the look and feel of higher production values.

Just as cameras and computers are readily available, any filmmaker can in essence "bootleg" their own project by burning DVDs and selling straight out the trunk of their car. And to be more specific, trunk of the car could mean:

1) Going to all of the local shops in your area and convincing them to carry a few copies on consignment.

2) Going to all the local bookstores, record stores, convincing them to carry copies.

3) Standing in a crowded place with a table or a bag simply hawking your wares.

4) Convincing an establishment to buy several instead of just 1 or 2.

5) Finding a special interest group to buy copies for their constituents.

The possibilities are limitless.

You are only limited by what you cannot imagine.

— Christopher C. Odom

The Thematic Truth of "Married with Children"

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:00:53 -0500

Love conquers all.

No matter how badly Al Bundy and his family talk about each other or treat each other, they still love one another, and prove it. For Example, Al always complains about having sex with Peg, telling her that he loves her (let alone likes her), or even go anywhere in public with Peg. In the episode where Al was the guest speaker at a homecoming dance, he nearly punched a man when the man started coming on a little too strong to Peg.

In that same episode, Bud made his usual jokes about Kelly being a virtue-less woman of cursory intellect while Kelly chided him for being friendless and devoid of mating skills. However, when a young lady made a mockery of Bud by hanging his pants from the ceiling and letting the whole party see Bud jump for his clothes in his underwear, Kelly came to his rescue. Kelly got even for Bud and tied a sign on the girl forewarning all not to “mess with a Bundy.”

The characters on Married with Children do and say everything you want to towards your loved ones, but should not. And no matter how awful their insults and deeds may be, when it truly matters, they really do prove that they love one another. Insults and rudeness may be the fabric of the humor in Married with Children, but it is the love that the characters embody for one another which is the thematic truth and the golden thread which has weaved the show seasons of success.

— Christopher C. Odom

Thrillers

Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:20:07 -0500

Overview & introduction

The thriller is an all-encompassing umbrella genre that corrals all other genres underneath it. It is difficult to determine if a movie is only a thriller. The most popular sub-genres of the thriller include spy, detective, psychological, horror, action, and supernatural thrillers. Thrillers habitually mix the tenants of other genres in a single film as well as the tenants of the sub-genres of the thriller. The main ingredient of a thriller is suspense, excitement, and tension, whereby thrillers set out to evoke an emotional reaction. Thrillers often create an atmosphere of creeping menace and sudden outbursts of violence, crime, and murder. Gunfights and chase scene are common set pieces. One of the main themes of thrillers is the existence of a double world -- one civilized and one savage. In Hollywood, the dark corrupt, dangerous, savage world is usually overcome by the status quo, but with lingering side effects. Thrillers also favor, loose, episodic structures with labyrinthine, mazelike plots, filled with myriad twists and tangles. There is a loss of control for both hero and spectator. Both hero and spectator become tangled up and a part of the same mysterious world that they are investigating.

The Psychological Thriller

Some of Hitchcock’s work can be categorized as psychological crime thrillers. Hitchcock felt that it maximized suspense and highlighted the subjective aspects of character. Action spectacles such as car chases and shootout were often minor to his works.

- The hero: A classic variation of the psychological thriller is one whereby the primary psychological burden falls upon someone emotionally close to a murderer or suspected murderer. The characters internal dilemma might fall along the lines of: Am I married to a murderer? Should I trust him? Should I betray him? Am I the next victim? In the detective thriller, the detective is often the centerpiece driving the plot forward. In the psychological thriller, the detective figure is usually peripheral or completely absent from the storyline. Most often the protagonist is someone to whom things just happen. The hero’s inexperience with the world she has been thrust into increases her vulnerability.

- The plot: In contrast to the classical whodunit, the psychological thriller is constructed forwards. There is less concern with what has happened in the past and the focus is upon what will happen next -- to the killer, the suspect, the potential victim. Is the killer going to be caught? Is the false suspect going to be able to clear himself? Is the intended victim going to realize the danger she or he is in?

- The antagonist: Whereas in detective stories, the characteristics of the murderer’s personality is withheld so as not to disclose the identity of the murderer, in psychological thrillers, the identity of the murderer is revealed right away or at least very early. In a classical “whodunit” the method of the murder is often bizarre, complicated, or misleading (e.g. some rare poison, exotic animal, or unusual weapon). Conversely, in psychological thrillers, the method of a murder is usually neither fancy nor misleading (e.g. plain, old fashioned shooting or strangling).

- The world: A psychological thriller is dominated by the emotional relationships of the characters affected by the inciting incident. Concealment of clues becomes less important than the characterization of characters.

Some Films with Psychological Thriller Elements: The General's Daughter (1999), The Sixth Sense (1999), Sphere (1998), The Devil's Advocate (1997), Event Horizon (1997), The Usual Suspects (1995), Se7en (1995), Boxing Helena (1993), Basic Instinct (1992), Reservoir Dogs (1992), The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Cape Fear (1991), Misery (1990), Total Recall (1990), Pacific Heights (1990), Dead Ringers (1988), Dirty Harry (1971), The Cabinet of Caligari (1962), The Manchurian Candidate (1962), Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958)

The Action Thriller

The main objective of a thriller is to evoke an emotional reaction from the audience albeit, suspense, tension, fright, or excitement. The method is through emotional attachment or identification with character. The action thriller is the infusion of spectacle with the thriller agenda.

An action thriller can be a psychological thriller, spy thriller, or any other thriller, which utilizes spectacle to heighten the excitement of some of the movie moments. Or, an action thriller can be an actual action-packed film whose major set pieces revolving around some form of spectacle yet it incorporates some of the tenants of the thriller or one of the thriller sub genres.

- The world: Action thrillers virtually always depict double lives and double worlds. One world is bleak, dark, dismal and corrupt. The other world is pure, optimistic and reprehensive of the status quo. In order for goodness and hope to prevail, the other world must be defeated, but it is never actually conquered, thus the battle between good and evil wages on.

Some Films with Action Thrillers Elements: U-571 (2000), Arlington Road (1999), Fight Club (1999), The Matrix (1999), Enemy of the State (1998), The Negotiator (1998), Face/Off (1997), The Rock (1996), Crimson Tide (1995), Heat (1995), Pulp Fiction (1994), Speed (1994), True Lies (1994), The Fugitive (1993), In the Line of Fire (1993), Jurassic Park (1993), Deep Cover (1992), El Mariachi (1992), Reservoir Dogs (1992), The Hunt for Red October (1990), Total Recall (1990), The Abyss (1989), Batman (1989), Die Hard (1988), Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), Predator (1987), Dirty Harry (1971), North by Northwest (1959), High Noon (1952)

Conclusion

The thriller is an umbrella genre encompassing all other genres. It is difficult to say that a movie is only a thriller and not a member or any other genre. Any addition to touching every other genre, thrillers are known to mix genres within the same film including mixing the various tenants of the subcategories of thrillers. While other genres focus upon particular events and elements the thrillers strives for the evocation of a particular emotional response or visceral stimulus. And, although the thriller is connected to modern day life, it often preserves its earlier storytelling traditions (e.g., romance and adventure). Psychological thrillers are dominated by the emotional relationships of the characters affected by the inciting incident. Concealment of clues becomes less important than the characterization of characters. Action thrillers are the infusion of thriller tenants and spectacle to heighten excitement.

The thriller today has remained a popular and thriving genre because the thriller strives to heighten the emotion, excitement, and take the viewer on a roller coaster thrill ride. Since its birth, the thriller has remained a reflection of modern society. The classical thriller presents a double world -- one dark and savage; one bright and civilized. The so-called civilized world is representative of the status quo. In recent modern day thrillers, the paradigm is reversed whereby those dwelling in the darkness are actually representative of goodness and must overthrow the status quo for truth and hope to survive. In the future, as the underclass expands, and the upper class closes up its ranks, it is likely that we will see more of this paradigm shifting in the thriller as well as other genres.

— Christopher C. Odom

Is Jenkins Metaphor of Poaching Valid?

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:20:49 -0500

Textual Poachers
In Henry Jenkins book, “Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture,” Jenkins presents the interesting metaphor of TV fans as textual poachers. In short, textual poaching is the action whereby aficionados become so versed and immersed in a text, that they proclaim themselves legitimate experts of the text and thereby create their own contextual meanings which supercede the meanings of the legitimate critics and original authors of the text. On some levels, the aficionados do possess specific knowledge about their texts, but these aficionados often socialize in isolated subcultures - fan clubs - which propagate mythical contextual meanings regarding the text which thus become fact, being accepted as true by the majority, within their own social circles; circles in which they perceive themselves to be the experts of the contextual meanings of their texts of interest. By this token, the elitism and hubris of the contextual precepts of the aficionados, thereby intrinsically make the aficionados textual poachers, whereas the legitimate critics are careful to delineate.
“Taste great. Less filling.” - Budweiser
I myself, a fan of many contexts that enjoy abundant fan subculture (i.e.: Star Trek), found the psychology of the fanatic quite fascinating. As a screenwriter, I often utilize the fan literature for show bibles and series trivia. The fan literature is definitely more detailed and accurate within the realms of information that is shared by the common media. Often the fan literature can offer history and connections between minor storylines and backstory, which could not be located in the legitimate media. The brevity of this information contributes to the guise, that this information is indeed superior to that of the original producers and authors of the text. Admittedly, this information is superior to that of the legitimate media in regards to what information has actually been presented to the audience. However, this information cannot account for existing backstory that has yet to be shared, or will ever be shared with the common audience. Therefore, in spite of the meticulous reporting of the fanatic literature, the aficionados could never actually provide a 100% accurate assessment of the contextual meanings of the characters, plots, and themes of the texts in question. True, the legitimate critics also operate under this handicap, however, generally speaking, the legitimate critics do not make quantum leaps in their assessments of the contextual meanings, proclaim critical superiority, nor try to refute the directions taken by the original producers and authors of the text. Only the original producers and authors of the text, privy to the complete unadulterated backstories, possess 100% knowledge and understanding of the contextual meanings of the characters, plots, and themes of a text. Anyone who proclaims to have superior insight to that of the original producers and authors of a text is, in fact, textually poaching.
“Nobody knows nothing.” - William Goldman
In all fairness, often the producers and writers of a text change, thereby the original creators, are no longer available for access or to protect the integrity and consistency of a text, henceforth, a text can become skewed or inconsistent with the original contextual meaning. Fanatics, keepers of what they believe as the true essence of the contextual meanings of a text, can often spot a derivation in what they deem to be the original vision. Keeping in mind that the fanatics have never been privy to the original show bible, nor are the fanatics privy to how often the producers and writers of a text may change, once again the fans cannot be sure that their perceived contextual meanings are 100% accurate. Furthermore, it is likely that the contextual meanings that the fanatics formed from the common media about their text are in fact based upon numerous deviations from the intended contextual meanings of the original producers and writers of the text. Although the original vision of a text can become skewed, to proclaim that one contextual meaning is more accurate than another without having full access to the intended contextual meanings of the original producers and writers of a text, is, in fact, textual poaching.
In Summation
Only the original producers and writers of a text can know a text’s true contextual meaning. Arguably, legitimate critics and aficionados alike can pose the contextual meaning of a text in the past and present as it is relevant to society and the common media for the text. However, only the original producers and writers of a text can predict the textual meanings to come and what a text will mean as a whole in the future.
— Christopher C. Odom

Citizen Kane & The Magnificent Ambersons

Sun, 5 Oct 2008 00:20:12 -0500

Stylistically, CITIZEN KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS are similar, but not the same. The majority of the scenes in each film utilize group shots, showing every character in the scene in the frame at the same time emphasizing community. Both films also utilize depth of field, where characters are filmed in large rooms or at great distances apart. In Citizen Kane, the depth of field is more widely used, especially in the group shots. The kicker scene for that is when Charles and Susan are arguing in Xanadu from the two separate ends of the room. Charles seems to be a hundred yards away. This is very spooky because it’s supposed to be their home. Later when they have a picnic, Charles tells Susan to stop shouting at him because they are in a tent and not at home, so he can hear her just fine. That scene, like all the other scene,s are a microcosm of the whole film. CITIZEN KANE is about not really knowing who a person really is. Once you figure that out, it’s enjoyable to watch the film over and over again, because each scene, each line of dialog, and each frame constantly rings true of this.
In THE AMBERSONS, the only scenes that last in my memory in terms of depth of field are when George is walking through the mansion at his coming home party with Lucy and when George and his aunt are shouting at each other from different floors on the stairwell while his mother is just getting the news that George would not let Eugene call upon her.
Both films utilizes shadows, but often the shadows in THE AMBERSONS are so dark and last for so long, it seems more like a mistake rather than an artistic choice. There was a scene where I believe George was talking to Jack. When they arrived to the illuminating moment in their dialog, there faces where illuminated by light. However, the complete darkness lasted so long, it lost it’s effect. In several scenes in CITIZEN KANE the lighting is masterfully executed from an obvious plan that took a lot of thought and time. When Charles watches Susan sing at the opera for the first time, she’s horrible, and his face is illuminated in sort of a reverse mask. This is very provocative because on the surface where he tries to wear a white hat and help Susan become a star, underneath is a villain because he’s just trying to make her love him.
The music is very similar in the two films, but the music of CITIZEN KANE seems to resound more in my memory. This is probably because of the very dramatic opening with a picture of Xanadu as a haunted house through a fence. This same music is used at the end. Although I can’t recall from memory if it was ever used again, it’s ominous theme still rings out from those two scenes alone because of how well it was married to the visuals. I remember the music sounding similar to CITIZEN KANE in THE AMBERSONS, but I rarely remember music being used or which scene(s) reminded me of CITIZEN KANE.
CITIZEN KANE greatly utilized angles, especially low ones. That was big back then because fake sets didn’t have ceilings. Even today low angles are rarely utilized and the camera is usually place at eye-level. One of the more popular scenes is when Charles and Leland meet after Charles loses the election for governor. The camera is so low to the ground, they appear like giants. Most of the shots in THE AMBERSONS were at eye level.
THE AMBERSONS seemed to be about getting your “come upins.” The most memorable scene in the movie for me is when George tells Eugene in front of his daughter and all of George’s family that automobiles are a nuisance. This in the antithesis of George’s idiocy by insulting the father of the girl he wants to marry. But the true brilliance of the scene is when Eugene gives a speech about automobiles and how they will change the world but who knows if it’s for the better or better for George. Later, when George is hit by a car, it rings true. I imagine that in Welles’ version of THE AMBERSONS, George died when he was hit by that car. That would ring true for the story. George, a character without redeeming value would not have changed, and Eugene would have been granted revenge by the universe when the invention he created destroyed the man who insulted it.
THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS has fared so poorly to CITIZEN KANE, because is layman’s terms, in regards to CITIZEN KANE, Orson Welles “worked it.” Once you finally grasp what’s going on it CITIZEN KANE, it’s like going to a musical, there’s something new to see every time you watch. It’s obvious the a lot of time and thought went into the story and the composition of CITZENE KANE. Every scene rings true. However, THE AMBERSON’S, although it’s an interesting film, does not appear to have as much thought placed into it. It’s not a thoughtless film, it’s just not as much put into it as CITIZEN KANE. The ambiguity in CITZEN KANE makes Charles likable. He’s not all bad or good—he’s human. In THE AMBERSON’S the audience is never really able to like, identify, or care about George. He seems to have no redeeming qualities. It is very interesting in the end how he loses all his many, but your glad it happens and don’t feel sorry for him. From that point on about taking care of his aunt and Eugene speech at the end, I imagine that is what the new director reshot. It did not ring true to the story. THE AMBERSON’ is also cut in standard linear format and is not as interesting. CITIZEN KANE is actually very linear, but with a twist. The story is linear from the reporter’s perspective, and each story that someone tells the reporter takes off where the last story left off.
— Christopher C. Odom