Son of a Seahorse

Two New Seahorse Reviews

2011-03-17T09:07:00.000-07:00

A long time ago, Matt Barry, writing over at Rogue Cinema, had some nice words to say about our film:

I was intrigued by the Russells’ decision to let several scenes play out in one long, uninterrupted take, which is well-suited to dialogue-driven character comedy such as this. ...

Son of a Seahorse works as a quirky, off-beat indie comedy, sometimes raunchy but often good-natured.

And while we're keeping the phrase "quirky, off-beat indie comedy" as far away from the DVD cover as possible, we did appreciate his review.

Simon Abrams-- who, as he discloses at the top of his consideration, is a friend of ours (though we've never met)-- also had some kind words to say about the film, over at Extended Cut, claiming to be

impressed by the way that writing/directing duo Tom and Mary Russell used such a broad style of acting to make a movie filled with jokes consistently uncomfortable. David Schonscheck plays up Nick Kilpatrick's mercurial attitude by constantly over-acting. In any other context, this would be grating but the longer the film goes on, the more apparent it becomes that the Russells are trying to alienate you. If anyone needed proof that a character study doesn't need to follow a sympathetic character in order to be ingratiating or even just satisfying, this is the film. A worthy descendant of King of Comedy.

What I think emerges from these two reviews, and the three (two negative, one positive) that have preceded it, is that the film is one that can be looked at in different ways. A. A. Dowd said that

The Russells are [not] cut from any shape or variety of traditional Hollywood cloth. These two are loud and proud indie guerillas. They favor marathon takes and lengthy digressions, long shots and longer conversations. It's tempting to lump them into the mumblecore camp, except their sense of humor is somehow both drier and broader, with an affinity for garish caricatures and bizarro non-sequitors. ...

Son of a Seahorse is all over the map. It sets up Nick as a kind of perpetual straight man, and then subjects him to the judgments, scolds, rants and taunts of various weirdos and walk-ins. Schonscheck has a certain hangdog charisma, but he's also inconsistent. His performance seems to fluctuate in proportion to his co-stars, who range from accomplished improvisers to transparent amateurs. The first scene, for example, works like gangbusters, mostly because Schonscheck is evenly matched by Swanberg. A later encounter with a raving lunatic (Tom Russell himself, moonlighting as an authentically unhinged cameo player) establishes the lead as a skilled comic foil. He's undone, alas, by some faulty support– from lisping cartoon bit actors to deer-in-headlights non-professionals. (I definitely could have done without the tired There Will Be Blood parody, too.) ...

If Son of a Seahorse often seems like a different movie scene to scene, its saving grace is its uniting principle: that marriage is the most rewarding pain in the ass you'll ever willfully subject yourself to. It's hard not to have a certain affection for any film that deals with married life in a way that's neither cloying nor rigorously cynical. The Russells, husband and wife filmmakers with a word or two to share on the subject, invest their hit-or-miss comic enterprise with an endearing breadth of genuine feeling.

Nick Rombes (author of Cinema in the Digital Age) gave the film its shortest but possibly most complimentary public review, over on twitter, where he called it "a hilarious, terrifying film."

And then there's the Filmrogue (not to be confused with the above-linked Rogue Cinema) podcast review, which basically accuses us not only of incompetence but, I guess somewhat amusingly, fraud. (The link that pops up in a google search is, perhaps thankfully, broken.)

Like I said: diverse opinions. Hopefully this will translate into more interest in the film when the DVD is re-released in the next few months.

A.A. Dowd Reviews SON OF A SEAHORSE

2010-06-15T07:36:00.000-07:00

A.A. Dowd, a critic we respect as much for his biting prose as his discerning taste, wrote a review of Son of a Seahorse. And, to be sure, it ain't a rave; the notice is mixed with a definite lean towards the negative. And while of course we have a different opinion about the film's success or worth, we still really dug the review because he gets us, he understands where we're coming from, and it does give a prospective viewer a pretty good idea of what the film is like and whether or not they think they're going to dig it.

The Russells are [not] cut from any shape or variety of traditional Hollywood cloth. These two are loud and proud indie guerillas. They favor marathon takes and lengthy digressions, long shots and longer conversations. It's tempting to lump them into the mumblecore camp, except their sense of humor is somehow both drier and broader, with an affinity for garish caricatures and bizarro non-sequitors.

...

If Son of a Seahorse often seems like a different movie scene to scene, its saving grace is its uniting principle: that marriage is the most rewarding pain in the ass you'll ever willfully subject yourself to. It's hard not to have a certain affection for any film that deals with married life in a way that's neither cloying nor rigorously cynical. The Russells, husband and wife filmmakers with a word or two to share on the subject, invest their hit-or-miss comic enterprise with an endearing breadth of genuine feeling.

FINAL TRAILER.

2010-04-11T13:15:00.001-07:00

New Poster, and Snake Oil.

2010-03-25T15:36:00.000-07:00

SON OF A SEAHORSE is a dispatch from a personal hell with punchlines. It's the story of Nick: angry for good reasons and no reasons, self-destructive, self-loathing, slippery, brought to larger-than-life by DAVID SCHONSCHECK.

He's aided and abetted by a collection of stylized performances that run the gamut from gleefully over-the-top to deliciously deadpan, all marshaled by directors MARY & TOM RUSSELL in service of a SHARP and DEFIANT THROAT-PUNCH of DIY COMEDY.

SOASH GOING OUT OF PRINT!

2010-01-07T22:47:00.001-08:00

With some considerable new tools at our disposal, Tom and Mary Russell are proud to announce new-and-improved but every-bit-as-scrappy DVD releases of our films The Man Who Loved (2007) and Son of a Seahorse (2008), coming in 2010. Not only will each disc be given a spiffy packaging redesign, but each film is getting a new sound mix and a host of bonus features, including, yes, that holiest of holies, Directors' Commentary Tracks.

More details (sneak peaks of the new packaging, lists of bonus features, and release dates) will become available in the next few months. But as a consequence of this shift, the previous DVD editions will no longer be available for purchase as of January 30, 2010.

Now, if you want to wait and buy the new ultra-spiffy editions later in the year, that's cool and the gang. But if you can't wait to get your hands on some ultra-indie self-distributed goodness and want to buy the cheaper and (comparatively) bare bonesier editions we put out last year, now is the time to do it.

Each of these old editions retail for $15 and are eligible for Amazon's Free Super-Saver Shipping. But remember, these editions of The Man Who Loved and Son of a Seahorse will no longer be available as of January 30.

(Non)-Rejected Poster for Son of a Seahorse

2009-12-14T20:55:00.001-08:00

Rejected Poster for Son of a Seahorse

2009-12-13T09:03:00.001-08:00

Son of a Seahorse Got on a Best of the Decade List!

2009-12-03T22:47:00.000-08:00

... well, it's my list, but still.

Hasn't been much happening since the last post-- we've sent several screeners out, received a lot of private feedback, not much public as of yet-- just one extremely negative review and one extremely positive tweet. The film seems to be very divisive-- slightly more than half the audience loves it passionately and the rest despise it, with no middle ground, no shades-of-gray. So either we're on to something. Or we're not.

Either way, we'll keep you posted, and as more reviews come in (i.e., as soon as we get some positive public feedback to balance out the negative public feedback), we'll be sure to link to them in this space.

10 REASONS TO BUY SON OF A SEAHORSE on DVD

2009-07-18T17:35:00.000-07:00

David Schonscheck telling God that He has an anger problem.
Robot that dispels steam from its ears, created by Steampunk Legend Jake Hildebrandt.
Joe Swanberg remains clothed for his entire performance.
Samurai duel at sunset.
Porn starring Daniel Taintview and his son, B.J. Taintview. What does he eat? Hint: it ain't your milkshake.
Bonus features include: three episodes of Ned and Sunshine (the zombie sitcom) including one no longer available online; a children's film about a suicidal snail; and a discussion of the film with the cast and crew.
Nothing happens in the last twenty minutes.
The film provides a probing examination of self-hatred, anger, and masculinity that informs the way the film is structured.
Every time you spend $15, we get $3.30. Support real independent film!
It's a god-damn masterpiece.

Son of a Seahorse-- Now on DVD!

2009-07-18T17:32:00.001-07:00

BUY IT NOW ON AMAZON!

Our film Son of a Seahorse is at long last available on DVD.

From an audacious opening scene that runs over 22 minutes (before the credits!) to an ending that is as quiet as it is disquieting, SON OF A SEAHORSE is an unusual (and unusually satisfying) comedy from the Russells. It's a very funny film about a very angry man. That conflicted and explosive man is played by David Schonscheck in a star-making performance that is contrasted and complimented by Adrienne Patterson's smart and stylish performance as his no-nonsense, sharp-edged wife.

The film features creature effects by Steampunk Legend Jake Hildebrandt, a supporting performance by filmmaker Joe Swanberg, and awesomeness, as always, by the Russells. It's DIY filmmaking at its boldest, brassiest, and funniest in a disc that's jam-packed with extras.

BONUS FEATURES: Three episodes of the zombie sitcom Ned and Sunshine; the full version of suicidal children's story Bernard the Lonely Snail; "Indoor Voices", a discussion of the film with Mary Russell, Tom Russell, David Schonscheck, and Adrienne Patterson.

It's only $15 dollars-- a bargain, to be sure. We're not saying that you have to buy it-- we're just saying if you don't we might not be friends anymore. BUY IT NOW ON AMAZON!

New Finalish DVD Slip Cover

2009-05-12T22:42:00.000-07:00

As we finalize the details/contents for our self-distributed DVD of Son of a Seahorse, we gave the cover another once-over and spiffed it up a bit.

Trailer # 3

2009-05-06T19:17:00.001-07:00

Son of a Seahorse DVD Cover Design

2009-05-05T17:28:00.000-07:00

For many low-budget filmmakers, marketing is a word that leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Marketing is about selling, not about art; about targeting an audience, not engaging them. And then there's those filmmakers and studios that are all about the marketing, all about selling the tickets and not about, you know, making a good film, making something that lasts.

In fact, so much was Tom's dislike of marketing that the first film the two of us made together, Milos, did not have a website, as was the trend. It was Mary, perhaps the more realistically minded of the two of us, who insisted on having a page for The Man Who Loved and Son of a Seahorse.

But now that we're self-distributing our films via Amazon (starting with The Man Who Loved), we can no longer ignore that marketing aspect. DVDs require DVD slip-case covers, and self-distribution requires some degree of self-promotion.

And actually and honestly? Mr. "I Hate Marketing" finds that he kind of enjoys the process of finding & creating images that might (1) communicate what the film is about and (2) persuade someone to purchase it, of deciding on and then arranging different elements, of creating "logo families" and tag-lines. It has absolutely almost nothing to do with filmmaking, but it is a sort of bastard art in its own right. (And even Mr. "I Hate Marketing" can admit that he has some serious love for some of the old posters, especially those that came out of Eastern Europe: so striking, so lovely, so kinetic.)

Anyway, with that preamble out of the way, we thought we'd take you through some of the various forms the marketing (such as it is) for Son of a Seahorse.

To begin with, there was this poster:

Three things here that you'll note: the blue font (Aardvark Bold, which was actually used in the film), this particular shot of David screaming, and the salmon-coloured suit that he's wearing. These three things remain pretty constant through-out the various itinerations that follow, mostly because they're distinctive and, we hope, memorable.

Our second poster is really just the first with the full cast; a miniature version of this was sent to festivals along with the screener. Were we doing this to try and capitalize on the presence of Joe Swanberg in our cast? You bet your ass we were. Did it work? Not in the slightest.

Our next poster concept was a little more daring:

Notice that the three motifs we mentioned before are present: the blue Aardvark, the screaming David (in the form of the line drawing), the salmon-suit. In this case, the suit is suggested by negative space, the colour filling up the poster. The shot of David walking also had a nice "lonely man" motif-- something that we felt reflected well on the film.

I think it's a really neat concept for a poster. Unfortunately, we couldn't quite execute it to our satisfaction. The major problem was the drawing: if you look back at the first two posters, David's facing left. We drew it that way, and then flipped it; flipped, it just doesn't feel "right". At the same time, the head facing inwards (towards the walking David) didn't feel right either. We tried it without the drawing--

-- but it's not striking enough, doesn't communicate enough about the film. When we started working on the DVD cover, we abandoned this concept and went back to our original for the front. We tried the drawn version of that same image, now facing left once more, for the back.

We added as text one of the best lines from the film:

Unfortunately, that line is Adrienne's. Putting it next to the David head makes it look like it's his line. And then it doesn't make any sense: is the angry guy yelling at himself to stop yelling? We decided we had better go for a more traditional back-of-the-box text, in all its ego-stoking glory. Gone went the head.

Also note that instead of a solid orangey-pink-salmon back we added a blue box and separated them with a bar of black/stills. This put a greater deal of stress on the use of blue for the text, making blue and salmon our film's two marketing colours. But that "Jam-Packed With Extras!" blue is a little lost in the bottom box, and so we made one more change:

And, by the way, it is going to be jam-packed with extras. In addition to a mini-commentary like the one we provided on The Man Who Loved, you'll find the complete short film Bernard the Lonely Snail, and three episodes of Ned and Sunshine, the zombie sitcom, including one no longer available online. And, heck, we might even throw in a trailer or two:

(Really, seriously, click on that HQ button; the "standard" edition lags and chops all to hell.)

Unless we get a sudden offer from a distribution company (which, being poor, we'd be more than happy to accept), you can expect Son of a Seahorse to be available this June for fifteen measly dollars. Heck, buy it with The Man Who Loved to qualify for that free super-saver shipping. Or wait until later in the summer, when our long unseen original cut of Milos will be made available for the very first time, also with various fine and sundry supplements.

The marketing of that one, of course, will be a whole 'nother discussion...

DVD guarantee

2009-04-27T14:54:00.001-07:00

There are two "burnable" DVD formats: DVD-R and DVD+R. DVD-R are compatible with 90 to 95 percent of players, while DVD+R are compatible with about 87.6 percent of players. (The players that can't read -R's can read +R's and vice-versa.)

The copies of our films available through amazon.com are burned onto DVD-R discs. Our own DVD burner burns DVD+R discs; our player, like most newer players, plays both formats just fine.

If, for any reason, your player cannot play the DVD-R disc, we will be happy to replace it with a DVD+R copy. Our e-mail address is on the back of each DVD slip-case.

Son of a Seahorse should be coming out in early June.

Tom and Mary Russell Interview at The Counter Project

2009-04-19T20:17:00.001-07:00

The Dearborn-centered culture and entertainment site "The Counter Project" recently asked us a few questions about our films and our decision to distribute our films ourselves, starting with The Man Who Loved. You can read the entire interview here.

This is the first time we've ever been interviewed, and so as you can imagine we're pretty psyched about it. Go ahead and give it a look!

New Trailer!

2009-04-06T19:43:00.000-07:00

Hey, everybody! It's a new trailer for Son of a Seahorse!

We'll probably be releasing a dvd of SOASH (as all the cool kids call it) sometime before the summer. In the mean-time, you can take a gander at our film from 2007, The Man Who Loved, now available for purchase via amazon.com and CreateSpace.

Bookmark Turtleneck Films

2009-03-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since we posted over at Turtleneck, and as more than one friend has remarked, we have so many blogs that it's hard to keep track of it all.

The New Turtleneck Films makes it a lot easier. Everything posted on our other sites-- for example, Son of a Seahorse and The Man Who Loved-- will be cross-posted here. And there will be new news on both sites (and, by extension, this one) very, very soon as we have some rather exciting things in the works.

You'll also get some movie and game reviews. All in all, we should be posting more frequently. So stay tuned and check back often.

Five Years

2009-02-08T22:27:00.000-08:00

Today is our fifth wedding anniversary.

Cast Showing

2008-11-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Late Tuesday night, we finished the film. It is exactly 96 minutes and 28 seconds long, and we sent it off on Thursday to a certain film festival with our fingers crossed.

On Friday, we had a cast showing. Present were our leads, David Schonscheck and Adrienne Patterson, David's wife Stephanie (who has a small but memorable role) and the always-entertaining Peter Jurich and Mariya O'Rourke. Mariya had to leave about two-thirds of the way through the film due to some family matters, and while we're not sure if this film, like the last one, is exactly to her taste, she did seem to enjoy herself at least up until that point.

There was a lot of laughter through-out the film. Tom's sides were aching, but in that good way. Our last film had a number of comical moments, and was certainly (we think) entertaining and thought-provoking, but Son of a Seahorse is more of an overt comedy and it showed.

Afterwards, we asked what they thought of it. Everyone still present said that they enjoyed it, that it was good, and that the other actors were good in it. Peter and Stephanie expressed concerns about the pacing of the picture and the opening scene, which now clocks in at over twenty-two minutes.

Peter said that scene moved along really well, that it kept his interest and attention, that it built a certain momentum. He was not advocating cutting the scene or cutting it down but instead actually made a very serious suggestion as to how to make the scene longer. He just felt that the rest of the film doesn't build the same momentum as our opening set piece.

David disagreed with him on that point; he felt that the momentum was fine. Everyone agreed that the film slows down during its last twenty minutes or so, which is really a matter of structural design. Peter mentioned that around that point, he had time to think more deeply about David's character, Nick, and what his motivations may be, which is one reason why we did that.

Adrienne said that while she didn't notice any lagging while watching the film, now that we were talking about it she wasn't so certain. She also expressed some concerns about the final scene.

"Even when we were shooting and rehearsing it," she said, "I didn't know quite how it fit or was going to play."

"If there's something like that in the next one," said Tom, "please, tell us. Don't be afraid to challenge us. We're all making this film together, not just me and Mary, but all of us, and we need your input. We can work together to make it better or figure out what the problem is."

"I did say something at the time," said Adrienne.

Tom didn't remember that; Mary, diplomatic as always, was silent.

Peter, getting tired of all the questions, finally turned it around and asked us what we thought of it.

Said Tom: "Well, I can't really answer that question right now, because I'm still totally in love with this movie. I'm too close to it. After a few months or a year, the love starts to wear off and I can be more objective. But at the moment, I look at it, and I see, wow, this works and this is funny and what about this character moment here and I like the way this does this. So I can't really answer."

Mary: "I'm satisfied with it. I have some issues with some of the sound recording, but you can hear just about everything and there's no spikes. I think it's better than the last one, and the next one will be even better than that. So I'm happy with it."

Another trailer and poster are coming soon, and, of course, we'll be keeping you updated so make sure you check back regularly.

EDIT: P.S. Modesty dictates that we do not direct your attention to this blog's sidebar, especially not the GAMES BY TOM RUSSELL section which features a super-cool action-packed shooter about alien flowers.

Swanberg!

2008-11-10T17:44:00.000-08:00

Our mysterious super-secret special mystery guest star (of mystery) is no longer so mysterious. Today, we recieved a disc containing what will be one of the most memorable performances in the film-- that of Joe Swanberg, the director of such fine films as LOL, Hannah Takes the Stairs, and Nights and Weekends.

To paraphrase Ben Affleck, Joe Swanberg is a gentleman and a prince.

He set aside some time in an already hectic schedule to commit this terrific, funny, and laudatory performance to video for us. And now that we have that, all the pieces are in place; all that's left to do is place the music and the end credits.

And just in time, too; the deadline for our festival of choice is this Saturday. The plan is to finish the hell out of it tomorrow and get it in the mail; on Friday, we'll have a cast showing.

Expect another trailer and poster sometime in the next week as well.

Huzzah!

Fix List

2008-09-23T21:41:00.000-07:00

Our mysterious super-secret special mystery guest star (of mystery)-- that's OMSSSMGS(OM) for those of you playing at home-- will be back in the States next month, at which point we are to pester him relentlessly until he sends us his footage-- which, we're confident, will be absolutely golden-- a great way to kick off the film (as his part takes place about five minutes in and is an integral part of the film's now-legendary eighteen-minute opening scene).

To better adapt his performance to the tone and feel of the film, OMSSSMGS(OM) has asked us to send him a copy of the rest of the film, with his spot left blank so he can see where-all it fits in. We are, of course, more than happy to oblige, and after a bit of puttering around, we tonight burned a DVD with said film-in-progress and gave it a look on our telly.

We were pleasantly surprised to discover that the film looks absolutely gorgeous on our television set; we had gotten so used to looking at it on our computer, with its dismal colours and splotchy blacks. Whereas on the TV, it looks much the way (if not better) than it did on the camera. Which is wonderful.

We were not so pleasantly surprised-- indeed, we weren't really surprised-- when we came across a few places where the audio needs a little nip and tuck. When we mix our sound for our movies, we do it right on our computer, right in Adobe Premiere, using our computer speakers to judge when something needs to be raised and something needs to be lowered. Often, we miss little things with our imprecise equipment, and watching a rough cut on TV results in a long list of things to fix-- or, a Fix List.

This Fix List, however, was not actually that bad; there are ten spots to be fiddled with. Four of them are "spikes"-- when the decibel level is so high that an unpleasant distortion is present-- and there are three quiet scenes in which the mix itself is a bit lower than we would like, and so those must go up.

All-in-all, though, everything looks nice and everything is more-or-less audible; there is one small snippet of a scene where ~~David decided to mutter, despite us telling him again and again to be louder,~~ we told David to mutter, making it a "quiet moment" between the two characters in which only they know what is said-- like the bit at the end of Lost in Translation but less "emo"-- but ~~we'll live with it~~ it was intentional.

We would, though, like to get a better mike for our next project-- and one with a longer cord. Maybe even an actual boom operator with a sound mixer.

We'll see what happens when the time comes; we've already started taking a few stabs at the characters (with the help of our able-minded actors) and storyline of the next project, though nothing concrete will come out of it for at least a couple months yet.

Trailer! (# 1)

2008-09-05T20:00:00.000-07:00

Our first trailer plays up the comedy side of the equation.

It also generally adheres to the peculiar rhythm employed by many of today's trailers-- short, almost modular sequences of ideas, each unit running roughly ten to twenty seconds, punctuated by a moment or two of black video in between. It's a popular format precisely because it is effective-- if the purpose of a trailer is to make people want to see a film, it does that fairly well-- and we decided to employ it for this trailer precisely for that reason. (And also because we wanted our first trailer to be out-and-about fairly quickly.)

Our next trailer for this film will probably be a very different animal indeed, both in terms of style and substance-- not necessarily pushing the comedy aside in favour of dramaturgical sturm und drang, but putting more emphasis on the anger as a problem, where it comes from, et cetera.

Not that-- let's be clear here-- the anger is a "conflict" that must be "resolved" by the end of the third act. That's exactly the sort of bull-puckey we're seeking to avoid. In fact, we're not even sure if the film can be divided into three acts. Five "movements", perhaps-- more like music than McKee.

Anyway-- tell us what you think of the trailer and please feel free to e-mail it, link to it, embed it and otherwise share it on your own websites, your Space that belongs to you and your Book of the Face.

Oops.

2008-09-02T15:38:00.000-07:00

So, we're going through the movie, looking for shots for our first trailer-- and we notice that approximately three minutes from the middle of Sequence E are missing.

Gah.

As near as we can figure, what happened was this: we had two different layers of video. Video-1 contained most of the shots, while Video-2 contained reaction shots. That second track must have been "locked"-- meaning that it could not be changed while other parts were being edited-- when we were shifting the scene one way or the other. So layer one moved and layer two stayed the same; we then must have noticed it and unlocked the track, shifting it back over to where it should have been. In doing so, we then must have accidentally selected the first track as well, which means that that first track then overwrote the shots earlier on that same track.

At least, that's what we've been able to piece together. We're not sure when it happened, and it doesn't sound like the kind of sloppiness we would usually be guilty of.

Either way, we've got to re-edit a complicated portion of a complicated scene-- something we're not particularly happy about. But we'll do it. (We knew things had been going too smoothly.)

We'll probably have those three minutes back in place sometime this week; we should have the first trailer up and ready for mass consumption around that time as well.

Happy Anniversary

2008-08-31T07:59:00.001-07:00

On a purely personal note, it was five years ago today that Tom and Mary started dating. It's been a hectic, stressful, and difficult five years-- but it's also been the best fives years of our life, and that's because, you guessed it, we've got each other, we've got love. The next five look to be even better-- hopefully less hectic, less stressful, less difficult, more peaceful, with more love.

Together, we'll keep making movies and keep moving through this life. And we just know, deep down, that some good things are coming our way. So you better stay tuned, because production is only part of a film's journey...

Poster # 1

2008-08-30T09:23:00.000-07:00

Last Day of Shooting*

2008-08-24T11:25:00.000-07:00

Production: 95 % complete.
Post-Production: 88 % complete.

Yesterday was our fourteenth and final* shoot, in which we tackled Sequence C-- the interview scene. We shot at an office building roughly .01 miles away from our house (also known as, "across the street"), with the kind permission of Mr. Gary Kuhlman, who is certainly getting a special thank you in our end credits.

Besides David, we worked with two other actors. One was immensely talented, and we'll get to her in just a moment.

The other, though, is The Worst Actor In The World.

That's him in the green shirt. To say he is a ham is an insult to Porcine-Americans everywhere. He has no sense of timing, of character, or of taste. We're not even going to do him the dignity of naming him. I don't know why we agreed to work with him, and now we're stuck with him, and I hope to God he doesn't ruin the entire movie with his gaping comedic black hole of a performance.

And, to top it off, he's lazy. Just look at him!

Yeesh!

Luckily, though, we got to spend most of the shoot working with the Amazing Mariya O'Rourke. For those of you unsure of how to pronounce her first name, the third syllable should be delivered as a loud karate yell, accompanied by a karate chop.

Neat Party Game
Here are some photos of Mariya O'Rourke and David Schonscheck. In order to win this game, you need to figure out which photos are of Mariya and which are of David. BONUS HINT: Mariya is female; David is not.

The thing that's great about Mariya, both as a person and as an actress, is that she has a very palpable force of personality-- it's a strange mix between cheerfulness and ass-kickery. She really brought that friendly toughness to the part of Penelope.

It's a difficult part, too. Many other actresses would have played the character as a bit of a ditz. But Mariya brought intelligence and aplomb aplenty-- which is exactly what we wanted and exactly why we wanted Mariya to play the part.

Extra Bonus Dash of Pretension
If you compare the screenshots from the two parts of the scene-- David and Mariya versus David and The Worst Actor In The World-- you'll note that, in addition to the fact that one scene features two good actors while the other features one good actor and The World's Worst-- the quality of the visual image is different as well. Not that one image is necessarily better than the other-- though the images from the David and Mariya scene, obviously, do not feature The Worst Actor In The World-- but that the colour temperatures are vastly different, lending a different "look" to each scene. This was intentional.

The scene with The Worst Actor In The World finds Nick, David's character, waiting to be called in for his interview. He's anxious about the interview, but also anxious about one of the potential end results of that interview-- i.e., moving up into a full-time job in an office environment. The dreariness of the room is meant to reflect on these anxieties in a subtle way.

The interview itself has a warmer feeling-- her red suit and his orange are more vibrant, there's more colour to the face, the walls are brighter. This is a reflection of her personality, and also on the ultimately confrontational nature of the scene.

Looking at the screenshots provided on this site, you'll note that each scene has a slightly different look. Sequence E, for example, features much brighter colours and far fewer shadows; Sequence F is much darker and grainier. That's not because we couldn't get equipment-- we own all our own lights and they're available to us at all times. It's because we had a very particular look and feel in mind for each scene.

We don't get too "arty" with it-- we don't switch into black-and-white, and we stay away from gross overexposure. But we do put a lot of thought and time into how the film looks.

And so, in this particular case, we thought it'd be nice to share some of that process with you. (You're welcome.)

*-- Well, it's the last regular day of shooting. We have one more tiny shot to pick up with David during the next week, and we're still waiting on some second unit stuff. But we're more-or-less done, mostly, sort of.

Lucky Number Thirteen

2008-08-16T15:57:00.000-07:00

Production: 90% complete

We got a late start, but we finished pretty quickly. It was pretty relaxed and felt as "ordinary" as a shoot ever does. It was the last scene to be shot between our two leads-- which means that it was also Adrienne's last shoot for this picture.

Next week, David and Mariya shoot a three page scene, and then-- we will be done with the regular shooting; just some second-unit stuff is needed to finish up the film.

This whole experience has been rather strange. It's moved a lot quicker, both in shooting and editing, than our previous films. There was less of a need to rewrite or reshoot, and less of a need to pull a MacGuyver by making a lot of film out of very limited resources. There was far less stress this time around.

Sure, there were some grumpy set days, and some tensions-- but far and away this is the most relaxed and genuinely fun experience we've had in making a film.

It's been a real pleasure to make, and we hope it will be a real pleasure for the audience to experience.

SOASH goes international!

2008-08-16T09:54:00.000-07:00

Contest! Contest! Contest!
One fact that many reading this site will not be privy to is that our film is actually in more than one language. Here, with subtitles, is a still from such a moment:

In what language is Mr. Schonscheck communicating? I leave it for you to decipher. The first correct guess will get some kind of prize-- what prize, I am not yet sure. But, hey!, it's still a prize, am I right?

You'll notice that we chose a frame in which his mouth is not open-- so as not to tip off any lip-readers in the audience. There is, however, a very vital clue located in one of the screenshots on this site. The very clever among you should pick up on it right away.

So, get cracking! When you think you've got it, post a comment on this entry.

And no, David and Adrienne, you are not eligible. :-|

Thank Goodness for Nice People

2008-08-12T07:25:00.000-07:00

Looks like we might have an office to shoot Sequence C in. We met with the property owner this morning and he was extremely nice and helpful. Still have to check with our actress when we have a chance to talk to her this Thursday, but we have our fingers crossed and it looks like this is going to be a go.

You can't understand what a relief this is, after running into so many closed doors. Thank goodness for nice people-- and for this nice person in particular, who will get a ginormous thank you in our credits.

More pictures; thoughts on E-K inclusive

2008-08-10T21:24:00.000-07:00

First up, we've got some new screen shots for you. These first two are from Sequence F:

And now, here's a couple from Saturday's shoot-- the film's final scene.

Well, it's nice to see that David wants to look his best.

We're celebrating a bit, as we've finally caught up on our editing, having spent most of our day slogging away at it. We've still got a lot of audio hiccoughs to clean up in Sequences E and F, but for the most part the editing on those sequences is completed. Which means that we got to watch Sequences E through K as one completed block of film, which runs roughly 37 minutes.

It's a good piece of work. Strong acting, strong writing, flowing seamlessly with an emphasis on a sense of time and place. It bodes well.

We did find, however, that we need to slip one more scene into these proceedings. We're working on that, and should present it to our actors on Thursday. If luck and time are with us, we'll shoot it on Saturday along with Sequence L.

Twelfth Night (of Shooting)

2008-08-09T18:33:00.000-07:00

Production: 75 % complete.

Bugger of a shoot tonight. It wasn't a particularly long shoot-- just an hour or two-- and the scene wasn't particularly exhausting. But it was warm and we shot upstairs-- the hottest and dustiest room in the house. No matter how many times we vaccuumed and fussed, we knew it was going to difficult for Adrienne and her allergies.

As always, she troopered through it. The scene itself was a bit uncomfortable for her because of some of the content of the scene as well; but she was, above all, professional, courteous, and dedicated to getting the job done.

And done it is.

We have one more big shoot with both of them-- that's next Saturday, God willing-- a final shoot with David and another actress and the footage from our super-secret guest star remaining. After that, production will be complete.

Post-production's moving along, perhaps a bit slower than usual. We had fallen into the habit of editing a scene in its entirety between shoots, meaning that production and post-production were moving at pretty much the same rate. But once we got to Sequence E, we fell behind-- it's a long and difficult scene wiht a lot of footage to reconcile. That scene itself is now edited, and we're still working on Sequence F.

This scene-- Sequence M-- should be a lot more straightforward, and we'll probably have it-- and, hopefully, F-- done before next week's shoot. And so, if everything works out okay, we're hoping to be doing the final mix and touch-ups in the two or three weeks following the end of production.

So far, the film is shaping up to be roughly 85 to 90 minutes long; not bad for a script that, after cutting Sequence D, runs 54 pages.

Things have been moving pretty painlessly so far; everyone cross their fingers and hope our luck holds.

Sequence F Screenie; Taking Stock

2008-08-07T14:48:00.000-07:00

First, here's a nice evocative screenshot from Sequence F.

That's a nice shot.

We're now in the home stretch. The most difficult scenes have been shot, and the schedule is currently as follows:

Forty minutes from now: Second-to-Last Rehearsal
Saturday: Shooting Sequence M (the last scene in the picture)
Next week Thursday: Final Rehearsal
That Saturday: Shooting Sequence L (the last scene that requires both leads)
The Following Saturday, August 23rd: Shooting Sequence C

For all intents and purposes, that'll be our final shoot; we're still having some trouble firming up the location, but we've got our fingers crossed. We should have most of the picture edited by that time, and so if we feel we need to reshoot or add anything, we'll be able to do that on the last Saturday in August; production will be basically complete before David gets married/honeymoons in September, which would make shooting with him much more difficult.

While there have been a few scheduling conflicts, on the whole the filmmaking has been a pleasant and fast-moving experience. We're all worked together before, so we know what to expect from one another and how to get it. There were also some longer takes and less close-ups than our previous picture, and that helped tremendously.

All we'll have left to wait on is some footage from our special secret guest star; assuming we get that before November, we should be able to submit this to a couple of really choice festivals that, in theory, tend to embrace low-budget non-genre films.

The Scary Face Contest! (or, screenies from Sequence E!)

2008-08-04T16:51:00.001-07:00

While we were filming the happy-go-lucky adventure that is Sequence E, David and Adrienne decided to challenge one another to a scary face contest.

David went first:

Adrienne upped the ante:

Round one is a tie. Time for round two. Look out, Adrienne!:

Ooh, that was a nice save. But what's this that David has up his sleeve? Looks like he's going to try to pull off a devastating three-hit combo attack!!!

Oh noes, he flubbed it with that last one. That wasn't a scary face at all-- it was a goofy face! Adrienne has an opening... this could be it, folks...

... and, yes, she did it! Adrienne won the Scary Face contest! (Not that her face is normally scary; she's just a very talented actress.)

Wait, David-- where are you going...?

Are you in the bathroom, crying like a little girl?

Only little girls cry, David. Make sure you wipe your eyes with the hem of your dress, so that you look pretty. Otherwise you'll never get a date to the box social.

Eleventh Shoot

2008-08-02T16:08:00.000-07:00

Production: 68% complete

Got Sequence F done today. Once it and its predecessor are completely edited, we'll have a huge block of the film done, running from Sequence E through K. We'll be shooting L and M (the end of the picture) at the next two shoots, then we'll pony back to shoot Sequence C. Still have the musical number ahead of us, though the more we look at it, the more it looks like it's going to get cut-- not because of time issues, but because of thematic reasons. As I explained before, Sequence D has been cut-- though we might put the script for that online in the next week or so-- and we've still got to get a small piece of Sequence A from our Super-Secret Guest Star.

Because we're not going to put his name out there until we're absolutely sure that he's good to go, we won't be releasing the full and animated opening credits on teh internets just yet-- though we finalized them this morning.

Things seem to be doing alright now, and we look forward to finishing the picture and getting it out there.

Pictures soon, from both E and F. I promise.

Two Title Images

2008-08-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

First, here's the corrected version of one of our opening title screens.

As for this other one...

Well, while I can promise that it is somehow relevant to Son of a Seahorse, I am not yet at liberty to discuss exactly how.

Big shoot today; actors should be here in 2.5 hours...

Oops

2008-07-31T18:55:00.000-07:00

That's Schonscheck.

Opening Credits sneak peak

2008-07-30T15:31:00.001-07:00

Tenth Shoot; Pictures from Saturday

2008-07-29T18:03:00.000-07:00

Had our tenth shoot today, featuring special guest star Jake Hildebrandt as the mysterious "Pete the Pirate".

The shoot went well enough; we had to keep restarting because David kept cracking everybody up. Not that I'd say that David is too funny; there's no such thing, I think, as someone who's too funny.

Speaking of shoots, here's some of those promised pictures from our mammoth ninth shoot. There'll be more where this came from as time progresses.

About that Ninth Shoot...

2008-07-27T11:58:00.000-07:00

Well, it turns out the mike was off the whole time. We have to redo the whole thing.

...

... just kidding.

The footage is beautiful and the acting spectacular and we'll be spending much of our free time this next week sorting through it all and cobbling it together.

Pictures tomorrow.

Ninth Shoot

2008-07-26T22:27:00.000-07:00

Production: 51% complete

Oh, Christ.

It's almost 1:30 in the morning here. We started just after 8 p.m. and we just finished. With the exception of dinner and one last rehearsal run-through, it's basically been five hours of four people cramped into one living room surrounded by two 500-watt lights without air conditioning on a hot and humid night. And-- genius that I am-- I decided that one of the characters should be wearing a sweater. A sweater! What the hell was I thinking?

(In my defense, I chose the costume on a non-hot and non-humid day. But still.)

It was a long shoot, and it was a hard one. The scene itself is emotionally draining, the scene itself is long, the scene itself had a lot of set-ups-- 14 basic set ups, not counting the occassional close-up and the like. And though she was benadrylled up the wazoo, Adrienne's allergies started acting up.

Like always, she troopered through it. She got a little bleary-eyed and puffy-cheeked towards the end, and we were all pretty worried about her. I don't think she's one that likes people making a fuss over her, and if she's reading this, I'm not sure if she'll exactly be happy with me mentioning all this. But I want to say that, while she couldn't exactly be her usual cheerful self, she was extremely professional the whole time through; none of it was reflected in her dynamite performance.

Next production, we'll try to shoot somewhere besides our lovely home. Now, don't get us wrong; we like our home. And it's very appealing to us to have a location over which we have complete control. There's never any worry about anyone throwing a party the night before, changing their mind, or blaming us for damage we didn't cause.

But we've shot in our home for two movies now, and, no matter how much we vaccuum and how much medicine she takes, the cat fur still gets to Adrienne. Adrienne is a very talented actress-- perhaps the most talented and responsive that we've ever worked with. She's someone we want to work with again and again until she gets sick of us. And so working with her in an allergen free environment would be highly desirable for all concerned.

And, more importantly, Adrienne's our friend-- and we don't want to put her through all this.

...Like I said, it was very hot, and so everybody was feeling a little grimy and there was a fair amount of stress. The end result, I think, will be worth all that bother.

At the same time, this whole "spend hot summer days/nights cramped in a little room with 500 watt halogen lights" thing has gotten old pretty quick. We still remember some of the less-than-ideal shooting days last summer, in our last production The Man Who Loved.

We're thinking that our next production, whatever it may be, we'll try to shoot this next winter or spring or, if it comes to it, that following autumn. (Autumn's Tom's favourite season; Mary doesn't have a favourite, but she "sure as hell" doesn't "like shooting in the summer".) Because these summer shoots are hell on everybody involved.

Anyway...

Shoot's over. It was long and it was arduous and it was warm. Tomorrow-- or, rather, later today-- we'll digitize all the footage to our hard drive and begin to piece it together. There'll probably be some pictures then.

Right now?

Right now I'm too tired to even finish this sen

Ninth Shoot Prep Work

2008-07-26T16:53:00.001-07:00

Today's the big day: Sequence E, which starts as an interview and ends... well, you'll just have to see. Suffice to say, we think it's going to be one of the strangest and most invigorating cinematic experiences you'll ever... experience... at the... cinema. Ahem.

The preparation for this shoot has been somewhat extensive; pretty much every rehearsal has devoted a substantial amount of time to this monster. And we think it's going to pay off, big time.

But we've also done some more subtle prep work-- creating the two documents which get the scene started. The chances of the audience glimpsing these documents in any kind of detail in the film are slim to none; all they really need to look like is a resume and a list of questions, respectively.

That said, we decided to have a little fun with it, rather than merely typing gibberish.

First up, here's the list of forty interview questions, only three or four of which will actually be asked in the film. Which ones are they? (Hint: it's not the one about Charlie Brown.)

A more subtle sense of humour is in evidence in Nick's resume, with only a few gags slipped in here and there.

Well, actors should be arriving any moment now. Fingers crossed!

Eighth Shoot

2008-07-24T20:29:00.001-07:00

Production: 34 % complete

Our rehearsal ritual is as follows: we eat, and then we rehearse. It's served us well, but today, we decided to change it up a little: we eat while shooting, and then we rehearse. We were afforded this luxury because the scene in question took place at the dinner table.

Here's a picture of David from that scene:

And because David's had twice as many photos posted on this site than Adrienne, here's a double-dose of Patterson-ness:

Boo-yah!

Next shoot's coming up this Saturday night, and that is a huge chunk of the script dished out in one ginormous and demanding scene. Will we conquer the now-legendary Sequence E, or will it conquer us? Stay tuned!

Seventh Shoot

2008-07-19T15:30:00.000-07:00

Probably the last of the short shoots today; next week we start getting back to bidness. Still, we shot a few takes of a very important scene with David.

We're having dinner now (David is threatening to eat my pizza by means of a clever ruse) and then we're going to start rehearsing the dance number.

And, just in case fans of P. Diddy Jurich are not yet satisfied with the glimpse of greatness in our previous post, here's another choice still from the mysterious duel.

Acting With One Hand

2008-07-13T14:10:00.000-07:00

It has come to our attention that the only still of the immortal Peter Jurich to grace this site has been of the duel at sunset. To remedy this situation, we provide another still below. (Peter's on the left, David's on the right.)

You'll note that this still has been masked (or "letterboxed") to the intended aspect ratio, making it an extra-special treat for Jurich fans everywhere.

And, for those of you wanting another look at the aforementioned sword duel, we present the following cryptic still from the film.

The First Scene is Over Eighteen Minutes Long

2008-07-12T22:23:00.001-07:00

We knew that the film's very first scene, which pits out hero against a rather large and unexpected charge on his utility bill, would be a bit of a set-piece, involving five different shoots-- four of which have been completed.

With most of the footage in the bag, we started putting it together, and we came to the realization that, as the title of this post says so succintly, the first scene is over eighteen minutes long. That benchmark was arrived at by reserving three minutes for the portions of the scene that will be shot on that mysterious fifth shoot (more details about that when it happens). That is, by the way, a very conservative estimate, that three minutes; it could very easily be five or six and, to be frank, probably will be. In which case we'd be looking at a scene that was over twenty minutes long-- all before the opening credits.

You're probably asking yourself, "Are these people crazy?" And, last I checked, we were not.

"Does anything happen in this scene?"

Yes! In fact, a lot happens in this scene. There might not be any explosions, but it moves quickly, in its way, starting small and gradually building up momentum like a boulder rolling down a hill.

And-- I'd like to think-- it's funny. What we're attempting here, and what (I dare say) we're accomplishing, is to take a very ordinary event and, step-by-step, pile one detail or complication on top of another. Each detail is credible on its own, and each step from one to the other is equally credible, but by the time you reach the scene's apex, the difference between the beginning and that climax is starkly ridiculous.

"Isn't eighteen minutes plus way too long?"

And the answer to that one depends on the scene. In the case of this particular scene, I think, the answer is "no". So much of the Funny here derives from reactions, timing, and hesitancies that to excise them would not only make the scene less funny (and thus the film as a whole) but would also damage our carefully constructed structure (and thus the film as a whole).

So, we're very proud of this "little" scene. At the same time, we're a little conflicted about the length. Yes, it is as long as it needs to be, but at the same time, an eighteen minute set piece revolving around a mysterious charge on a utility bill doesn't exactly command the attention of festival committees or potential distributors.

It also doesn't help to win over most audiences. We're not really "arthouse" people-- we're very populist in our taste and our approach. Populist, I suppose, but also admittedly somewhat peculiar. Which has also proven to be a problem in the past: not weird enough for the crazy festivals, not "respectable" or dumbed-down enough for the prestigious ones.

We've got a niche, I think, and I think that means that once you've seen one of our films, you won't soon forget it. And those that dig our films are going to dig them more than your ordinary run-of-the-mill movie, and those that don't won't with a vengeance.

And that's fine-- that's well and good.

The problem is, of course, before you can see the film and fall madly in love with it, we've got to get it out there.

Hopefully, however, the presence of the fifth actor in that first scene-- the part that hasn't been shot yet-- will at least get those festival judges to give us enough time to win them over. Who is this mystery guest star? Well, until we're sure it's on we're not going to try and jinx it by putting his name out there.

But our fingers, as always, are crossed.

Sixth Shoot

2008-07-12T14:15:00.001-07:00

Short shoot today-- easy, yet difficult. Easy because (1) it was short, (2) it didn't require a whole lot emotionally, and (3) with only one actress and natural lighting, it was pretty simple to coordinate.

It was difficult because of the way we shot though. We had a particular stylistic hiccough in mind when shooting, which transformed three short scenes into roughly eighteen even shorter ones. It's hard to get in character for a short scene, even harder when you've got eighteen of them, not a single one more than eight seconds long.

Adrienne rose to the challenge though, turning in a strong performance in what will be her character's introduction. So I guess it was an easy shoot after all. Given the circumstances, I say that's cause for applause.

Cut Cut Cutterooni

2008-07-10T22:20:00.000-07:00

Concerns about scheduling problems have had us looking very closely at our project, what we have left to shoot-- which is substantial-- the time we have to shoot it-- which is not-- and what we need to "tell the story", if a story this be.

And we've decided to cut a pretty huge chunk out of the film-- it runs about twelve pages-- not only because it would necessitate at least four different shoots at multiple locations (thus eating up four different shooting days), but also because of a number of other reasons. To wit:

1. Our first choice to play the part is unavailable, leaving Tom (the understudy for every part) to fill it. And it's not that Tom couldn't play it, or that he doesn't like acting-- he does-- but it would be less special than our first choice had been.

2. We've had trouble finding a place for it in the film. It had a place initially, and then we started shuffling things around, seeing what things work better in what spots, and we found that while it has some fairly deep thematic links to the rest of the picture, in terms of more tangible links it is tenuously related at best; it really just stands on its own. It could work, we reason, as a "breather"-- something to separate two larger chunks of the film-- but it's not really necessary to it the same way those larger chunks are.

3. In shuffling the other scenes, we've found new meanings imbedded in the material; behaviours and tendencies that are more noticeable and telling without this sequence. That is, the sequence that we're cutting contradicts a meaning that we weren't aware of at first, and having found it, it becomes easier to sacrafice what we thought, at the writing stage, was going to be one of the highlights of the film.

And so, there you have it-- the script is now twelve pages lighter and our shooting schedule, while still close, is four days shorter. (Which, when you're shooting weekends, is a helluva lot of time.)

We should be having a (short) shoot on Saturday with just one actor, followed by a rehearsal with both leads next Thursday. That Saturday, while our actress is at a concert, we'll try to work with David on his last bit of solo shooting, as well as starting to work, choreography-wise, on the musical number.

As we get back into production, there should be more frequent updates, as well as pictures galore.

In the words of a very wise man, "grrr."

2008-07-08T18:24:00.000-07:00

In observance of the Fourth of July holiday (and, to be more precise, the Fourth of July holiday plans of members of our cast), we took a break from shooting with the intention to tackle that unmitigated tyrant of a scene we know and dread as "Sequence E" this coming Saturday.

Unfortunately, Blanche is in town that very evening, and so one of our cast members opted to bow out to see said concert. Undeterred, we decided to grab a few important shots with the other cast member that Saturday, with the next Saturday cordoned off for "Sequence E".

But, as often is the case with the best-laid plans of rodents and homo sapiens, we discovered that on that following Saturday, that other cast member is going to a concert, which means that shooting "proper"-- that is, shooting the big long scenes that make up the bulk of the film-- is put off until at least the 26th of July-- the end of the month.

This caused quite a scramble, and so we've spent the last spot of time going over the remaining material, trying to figure out if it can be shot before David's wedding and subsequent honeymoon.

The answer? Yes, but only if we double-up on a couple weekends and do a couple of week night shoots. Which is certainly doable, though I'm not sure how happy the cast will be about it.

And even with that schedule, we haven't quite set aside the time we need for the musical number.

"Musical number?" you say.

Yes, musical number. We introduced David to his song today. He's a bit trepeditious...

... but so are the rest of this at this point. I got the sinking feeling that something's going to be cut...

... and I hope to God it's not the song.

Podcast # 1

2008-07-07T17:22:00.000-07:00

Our first podcast for Son of a Seahorse gives an extremely brief introduction to the film for the uninitiated. Expect more depth as production continues.

Fifth Shoot: My Favourite Actress

2008-06-29T15:00:00.000-07:00

No offense to the other actresses we've worked with, past and present, whom have all been fantastic, but today we got to work with my favourite actress in the entire world.

Diane Schmidt is sweet, funny, and down-to-earth, with none of the phony actressy tricks employed by far too many these days-- everything about her, and ever performance she gives, is uncannily and completely real. She's a wonderful human being, too-- friendly, compassionate, and a fighter when she needs to be. She raised three children more-or-less on her own, and has continued to play an extremely active parts in the lives of all her grandchildren (and great grandchildren).

(Full disclosure: Tom is one of them.)

Fourth Shoot

2008-06-28T19:19:00.000-07:00

Exactly what it looks like.

Third Shoot: Creature Effects by Jacob Hildebrandt

2008-06-28T08:31:00.000-07:00

Jacob Hildebrandt-- infamous through-out the internets for his mechanical wonderments, one of the two Jakes attempting to assert steampunk supremacy, a friend, an actor, and one heck of a nice guy-- created one of our most unusual cast members for this film. Here's a picture of the lovely lady:

We have to be careful with her, though. Sometimes she gets a little angry, and has to blow off a little steam.

Who is this mystery lady, and what role does she play in the Episode of the Utility Bill? You'll have to wait and see, my friends. Wait and see.

2008-06-24T20:10:00.000-07:00

The utility bill that starts the entire film. While it's never seen in this detail on screen, we took some time with this not only to amuse ourselves and our lead actor, but also to help him keep all those pesky numbers straight.

David Shonsheck as Nick, politely explaining what he thinks of his bill.

Second Shoot

2008-06-23T07:22:00.000-07:00

Sunday's shoot was fairly awesome. We had only part of one scene to shoot-- David's side of a three-way phone conversation. And while some of the material was tripping us up, we got through it and ended up with some very, very funny stuff.

There should be some stills coming soon, as well as some behind-the-scenes type stuff-- prop design and background television video-- for your perusal and enjoyment.

Stillsapalooza!

2008-06-15T23:05:00.000-07:00

Adrienne Patterson as Madison.

David Shonsheck as Nick.

David and Adrienne demonstrate the busting of many grooves, simultaneously.

First Shoot

2008-06-14T13:19:00.000-07:00

Had our first shoot today. Just some small scenes, but important ones. (Of course, every scene is an important one.) Things went very smoothly, and our actors were on top of their game, despite Adrienne having a tremendously bad allergy attack. We were very worried about her, but she troopered through it and I dare say none of the footage betrays the tough time she was having.

Afterwards, we did some rehearsing with both of them. For some reason, we all got the giggle-fits-- every one of us laughing at every line, even and especially at those lines that weren't in any way, shape, or form amusing. But it wasn't a bad rehearsal-- far from it. It was a lot of fun, and very refreshing. We all agreed, tongue somewhat in cheek, that we got a lot done rehearsal-wise in addition to the shooting.

Adrienne bowed out shortly thereafter in order that she might recover from her allergies. David stuck around and we ran through the material for next Saturday a couple of times. Before he left, he tried his hand at Tom's new video game, Block and White, and Tom also introduced him to one of his favourite games that he had nothing to do with, the immortal classic Shotgun Ninja.

It was, all-in-all, a good start to a good film.

Stay tuned the next couple of days; to paraphrase Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Pictures.

Fifth Rehearsal

2008-06-12T18:37:00.000-07:00

In the words of a very wise man: Wowza.

Today, David and Adrienne knocked our socks clear off. They were firing on all cylinders, hitting all the right notes, pulling incredible surprises and meanings seemingly out of thin air, astounding us at every corner-- and other cliches that all simply add up to that one compact and extremely powerful word: Wowza!

We've been looking forward to our first shoot, which is two days hence, with both optimism and confidence to spare. Things haven't been perfect, but we've been getting there, working ever-closer, building the performances and the characters step-by-step. We planned on starting small with our first shoot to get our feet wet, to get us started but also to give us more time to find the characters.

But tonight, they were found. It wasn't David anymore, but Nick; it wasn't Adrienne, but Madison. If we were confident before, we're ten times as confident now.

Saturday's going to be wonderful, and all the shoots are going to be wonderful, and they're going to be wonderful, and this movie is going to rock-- or, to put it another way--------

Wowza.

The Peter Jurich Rehearsal

2008-06-10T18:22:00.000-07:00

Peter Jurich, who so brilliantly brought to life the character of Pete the Pirate in our last film, The Man Who Loved, was over today for a one-on-one character-building session and rehearsal for his character in Son of a Seahorse, Eddie. Things got off to a shaky start, something we attributed to the fact that it was, indeed, the beginning.

But as we pressed on, it became clear that something wasn't quite working. Peter's natural speaking voice, and very Peter-like inflections, were clashing with the character's very particular voice. All seemed lost.

We had a talk about the character, going over his self-perception and its shortcomings, his opinions of the other characters in the scene, his predeliction for certain words and phrases. And Peter listened, thought about it, and started again-- and he was firing on all cylinders.

Tom started laughing. A lot. A whole lot. He was laughing so hard, if he had been sitting in a chair, he would have fallen out of it. He was laughing so hard, he clapped his hands with glee and flailed his limbs about all higgily-piggily. He laughed so hard that while doing this he just about threw his arm out.

He laughed so hard that he frightened three little pussycats, and they have not yet forgiven him.

Peter found a voice for the character-- and I mean that literally, not in the figurative "finding your voice" sense but in the sense that he found an external tone of voice and manner of speaking which opened up the inner life of the character. It was, in its way, very Method-- starting with behaviour to suggest the psychology and feelings beneath that surface.

It reminds me of a story about Laurence Olivier. The great actor was having trouble getting into character for a film-- I think it was the original Sleuth. Try as he might, he always came off flat, like he was phoning it in. The crew and the cast (which, if it was Sleuth, was just Michael Caine) wondered if they needed to get a replacement.

Then something miraculous happened: Olivier put on a little fake moustache, and suddenly, there was the character. He was right on his game again. Now, you might ask, what does the moustache have to do with acting? How could that really change his performance?

But, it did, and it does. Sometimes you just have to find that one little detail-- or, in the case of Peter's voice for Eddie, a slightly more obvious one-- that will unlock the entire character for you, give you a frame of reference, and thus bring the script and the film to life.

Fourth Rehearsal

2008-06-06T19:52:00.001-07:00

Got a fair amount of work done today, despite the ungodly heat. Our two leads are pretty much off-book on a big chunk of the script. We should be rehearsing again next Thursday, going over not only the material we went over today, but also the scenes we need for our shoot on that Saturday.

Rehearsal 3.5

2008-06-03T20:28:00.001-07:00

David was sick today, so it was just us and Adrienne. We went over Sequence E-- it's a big scene in more ways than one-- and over a monologue that Adrienne's having a little trouble with. Not her fault; it's much too wordy, as most monologues are. We're starting to whittle it down to its essentials, and we'll see what's what on Friday, when we should have both of our leads-- alive, healthy, and well-- to go over the material.

Tomorrow, another one-on-one rehearsal, though, with Peter Jurich, who's playing the small but vital part of Eddie. We'll be shooting with him probably the last Saturday of this month-- shooting with the other two should start not this Saturday, but the next one. We're going to shoot it more or less in order, which gives us more time to go over the demanding material in the second half of the film.

Third Rehearsal

2008-05-29T20:24:00.000-07:00

Went over the big scene again today-- the dreaded "Sequence E"-- and it's continuing to come along nicely. Did a fair amount of blocking-- unusual for us. Actors should be off-bookish by our next rehearsal (Tuesday) and that will greatly improve the flow of the rehearsal process.

Shooting should start the second Saturday of June, which gives us a slightly longer rehearsal process than we anticipated. (Not that we're complaining.) Shooting should wrap before the end of August, if we stick to a once-a-week schedule. If we can kick it up a notch with a couple of week-night shoots, and if we avoid the need for reshoots, we might finish earlier. Post-production should occur concurrently with shooting, and the film should be completely done by the middle or end of September.

Fingers crossed.

Rehearsal 2.5

2008-05-25T21:48:00.001-07:00

David couldn't make it today, so we had a rehearsal just with Adrienne, our lead actress. We spent the bulk of the time on a very difficult scene, and the progress we made was surprisingly rapid.

The thing about Adrienne that's spectacular is that she really and truly listens and understands. We've worked with other actresses in the past who were very difficult to work with: they'd do a scene a particular way, and we'd offer a suggestion, and then they'd do the scene over the exact same way. Or, no matter how the other persons in the scene acted and reacted and changed their performance, they'd give their same performance in response. We often had to phrase and rephrase a direction eleven different ways to get people to give a different performance, and sometimes even then it'd still be the same.

But not so with Adrienne: we give her a suggestion and she follows it through; she also knows how to play off the people around her. It's a special sort of gift that's actually much rarer than you'd expect in an actress.

She's also done a lot of thinking about the character and her back-story, and more importantly than that, she's done smart thinking about pertinent aspects of the character and her back-story-- those things that will actually make a difference in her performance, and not idiotic minutae like "what did my character have for breakfast" or "who did she vote for on American Idol"?

More to come as it happens.

Second Rehearsal

2008-05-24T09:53:00.001-07:00

Second went better than the first. We got a late start, and the energy was pretty low this time around, but we covered more ground and made more progress. We talked a little about how David, our lead actor, should approach his character, Nick.

Nick's a very angry man, and he gets to do a fair amount of shouting and hand-flailing and teeth-gnashing; all that fun stuff, and David pretty much pulls this off when his energy is up and he'll be really kicking ass with it when he gets those lines down-pat. (Glares at David.)

What we have to work on is the emotional valleys-- those sections where he's not yelling, shouting, and being generally ridiculous. We want to strike a balance between two or three somewhat mutually exclusive things:

One, we want a distinct enough difference between Angry Nick and Not Angry Nick, beyond merely the fact that Angry Nick is loud and Not Angry Nick is not so loud. We want to work on some body language and vocal inflections that allow the audience, and the other characters, to appreciate the differences.

Two, we want Nick to be funny/amusing/watchable in the Not Angry sections of the film, though of course probably not as funny/amusing/watchable as he is when he's fuming and growling.

Third, we don't actually want a difference between Angry Nick and Not Angry Nick; Nick is angry all the time. Sometimes, he's holding the anger inside him, and sometimes he lets it out. This anger enters all his contact with other people, and, to a degree, poisons it.

So, while the audience should be amused both in the valleys and the hills, and while the audience (and the other characters) should be taken aback when he gets mean and nasty, at the same time, there has to be something there that makes it all fit, that makes the characterization congeal instead of being schizoid, that makes the other characters say, "I should have seen that coming after all."

So that, in those "valley" sections of the film, Nick is still interesting to watch. He still holds our attention. We can still see the anger inside him, and we can see him struggling to control it and/or deny it exists.

That's our goal. We consider ourselves to be cultivators of fine, fresh ambivalences-- delicious and nutritious!-- but we also realize that if you tell an actor to do two things at once, especially if those two things are exact opposites, you're not going to get anything but a frustrated actor.

And so, all of us-- directors and actor alike-- will be working on this problem. And I think we've made some progress, and, like I said, I think we'll make some more progress once our actors have learned their lines. (Glare.)

It's not so much, I must add, that we're Syllable-Nazis-- that every single comma must be pronounced in exact order. While I dare say that this film is more verbal than its predecessor, The Man Who Loved, and so a higher devotion to the words on the page are necessary, we've never wanted in any case for our lines to be followed so slavishly that they shackle the actors and kill the film.

We want the film to be alive, and moving, and breathing; we want to ensure it has a pulse, and that the actors mean what they say even if they don't say everything we jotted down for them. But once they have learned their lines (ahem: glare), then they'll have a framework. Then we'll be able to discover things about the characters and find ways-- verbal and non-verbal, through inflection and body language and movement-- that express what needs expressing.

I think we're coming along fairly well, and after we've gotten further along in the process, we'll record some of the rehearsals and provide them here for your audio-visual enjoyment.

First Rehearsal

2008-05-20T21:49:00.000-07:00

First rehearsal went well enough. We've got quite a few rough spots to smooth out, but I've got a feeling they'll smooth out quickly. A lot of this film will be dependent upon body language and movement within a scene, and so once we have the actors somewhat off-book it'll be much easier to accurately gauge how we're doing.

We've worked with both of these actors before. Our male lead, David, has a tendency to forget/misplace his scripts, and so, about fifteen minutes before the rehearsal, I called to remind him to bring it. He did bring a script-- but he brought the wrong one: the script from last year's production. We all found this fairly amusing.

We have another rehearsal set for this Friday. We'll see how we're coming along at that time; we plan on starting to shoot in about two or three weeks, if everything's up to snuff.

2008-05-17T09:31:00.000-07:00

Two major cast members signed on last night, with tentative confirmations for three of the five remaining parts. First rehearsal for the leads will be Tuesday.

Script Completed

2008-05-08T21:51:00.000-07:00

After four months, the script for our new film is completed. This will serve as our defacto website, in which we track the casting, rehearsals, production, and beyond.

Swanberg Essay

2008-02-09T23:20:00.000-08:00

I. Bias

Like Glenn, I'll begin with full disclosure. As this story goes back a few years, and as it is somewhat intertwined with my own life as a filmmaker, it's going to digress a bit and it's going to take a while. So be forewarned.

I started work on my first feature film in 2000; it was my senior year of high school and I had just lost my father to lung cancer (he was thirty-eight). That film, which I finished in early 2001, was intended to deal with that death. It wasn't very good-- the wounds were too fresh and I really didn't have anything more insightful to say then "it's hard to deal with death" and "live for the moment" and some-such.

My father had worked in insurance and so his life insurance policy left us with a substantial amount, roughly a quarter of a million dollars. My mother spent it in less than a year, at one point buying three new cars in as many months. She started to use drugs heavily, and when my father's insurance money ran out she emptied out my savings account. I moved out of my mother's house just a couple of months before my high school graduation; I never went to college.

Instead, I worked. I paid rent and I made my own meals. I tried to educate myself the best that I could. And I made two films, one with borrowed equipment and one with my own. I sent them to festivals and I got rejected from every single one.

Along the way, I met Mary, who became my wife five years ago this Monday. And then we made a film together, and let me be unequivocal here: that film was good. While I see some problems with it now, looking back at it from a distance of five years, I'm still proud of it and I still remember the joy and the sense of accomplishment I had felt at its completion. This was the film, I said; this is the film that's going to take off.

We sent it to festivals. Oh, so many festivals. And DVD distributors. And we got rejected from and ignored by every single one. (Hold onto this thought, as we'll be coming back to it.)

Shortly after we had finished that film, Mary had introduced me to Roger Avary's film "Killing Zoe". Wanting to know more about the man, I stumbled across his website and began lurking. One of the thoughtful commentators on Avary's sight was Joe Swanberg, who was, at the time, just finishing or had just finished his first feature. As I recall, Avary held digital video in great disdain and so he gave Swanberg a lot of crap. Swanberg seemed to defend digital video fairly ardently and intelligently, and since I was also a digital partisan I decided to drop him a line, asking in my awkward way if we could chat about film from time to time. He agreed.

We didn't actually correspond all that much; I remember talking with him about solving video's contrast ratio problem, and asking him why Avary had suddenly shut down his site (he had no idea either). Nothing really happened until he was making "LOL" and started asking people for the noise head videos. I submitted one, though I didn't make the final cut; I think the video's magnetic information got damaged in the mail. My name is in the end credits, though, underneath a blur that vaguely resembles me.

After that first film that Mary and I had made together, we went through a pretty bleak period together. We had bought a house and our mortgage company was, to put it lightly, less than scrupulous. We both had our share of medical bills without health insurance. Mary would find a job or a temp assignment and then lose it. I managed to find a job working with autistic people and, a year later, I managed to lose it. All this time, we were submitting the film to festivals, occasionally recutting it, and getting rejected. We spent more money on the festival fees than on the film itself.

This bad period reached an apex when I decided to run for political office, mostly as a lark. What I did not know when I made that decision was that my part-time employer would put me on a mandatory six week leave of absence; with my name already on the ballot, there was really no going back.

I was unemployed, which made me feel like a failure as a man; I was a failure as a politician, as a husband, as a filmmaker, as a human being. And in-between applying for jobs online, I was poking around the web and I found out that Joe Swanberg had a Wikipedia page, that "Kissing on the Mouth" was on DVD, that he had done all these interviews, even gotten a review for LOL in the New York Times, the Gray Motherfucking Lady. Here he was succeeding, and I was a failure, a dismal suicidal failure. I envied him. And I wrote him and said as such, if not in so many words.

And Joe said, "You know, I haven't made a dime from filmmaking." (At that time, he hadn't.) "I have negative income and debt" (just like me). "We all get discouraged sometimes. I don't make films because I want money or fame, I make films because I want to make films, because I like making films."

His words, which of course I'm paraphrasing, had a tremendous impact on me. In perhaps the lowest point of my life, Joe Swanberg put things in perspective and reminded me why I was making films in the first place. Around that same time, Andrew Bujalski, who I had also been conversing with over the course of that bad period, saw that film Mary and I had made together and had some tremendously nice things to say about it.

The two of them, taken together, not only inspired me to make films again, but I can say without a hint of melodrama that they saved my life. I will always be grateful to both of them for that. After the election, I returned to my part-time job; Mary and I started working on our next film, "The Man Who Loved", which we dedicated to Bujalski and to Swanberg.

Joe was kind enough to appear in the film we finished last year, "Son of a Seahorse", in a part we had written specifically with him in mind. Because of his schedule, we had written the part so that he could shoot his portion and send it to us by mail. Not my ideal way of working with an actor, but we gave him some detailed notes on the script and the end result was exactly what we were looking for and so much more.

I was looking forward to finally meeting Joe and Andrew in person at this year's SXSW, but alas we were once again rejected. For ten years now I've been making films and submitting them to festivals, and I've never gotten into a single one. But I'm optimistic, excited, and about to start work on my seventh feature. And I've got Joe Swanberg to thank for that.

Now, all this probably opens me up to the charge that I'm biased, that I can't possibly comment on Swanberg's work objectively. The same charge was leveled against Mr. Kenny; I think the balance of his essay proves that charge to be false and I hope the balance of mine does the same. While we might have wildly different takes on and experiences with Joe Swanberg the person, there are a few points about Swanberg the artist on which Mr. Kenny and I agree.

On the larger point of "Is Joe Swanberg the filmmaker worth my time and attention?", my answer is "yes"; Joe's a filmmaker who I respect and admire. Now, that doesn't mean that I can't have some reservations and qualms about his work. Film taste and criticism is not a zero-sum game. I think quite possibly the greatest film critic who ever lived is Charles Thomas Samuels, who in interviewing a filmmaker he admired greatly would not hesitate to call them to task. I still can't quite believe he had the balls to tell Bresson that he should have held a particular shot in "Balthazar" a few seconds longer and that the scene in question didn't really work as a result. (Incidentally: whatever happened to Charles Thomas Samuels?)

II. Parameters

Glenn and Craig have me at a distinct disadvantage, because not only is my prose and my arguments not as precise as theirs, but they indeed have seen more Swanberg films than I have. I've not seen "Kissing on the Mouth", and I'll admit freely that that's largely because I don't have a great and burning desire to see Joe's wiener more than I already have in "Young American Bodies". Yes, we all have genitals and most of us have some form of a sex life, and, yes, this brings us around to that question, Why are people so hung up on sex?, which is probably Joe's point. But if the adult film stars I've met at the Detroit Comicon are any indication, I think I'd have a great deal of difficultly meeting and talking with Joe in person without getting the mental image of his nuts-and-berries flashing before my eyes. (Which, again, might lead us to that question: Why are people so hung up on sex?)

I've also never seen "Nights and Weekends", as it has not yet been released on DVD and I do not have access to any video on demand. I can only form my opinion based on the work I have seen: "LOL", "Hannah Takes the Stairs", "Young American Bodies", "Butterknife", and "The Stagg Party". Which is still, I think, a large enough body of work to argue from.

In addition to establishing what I'll be arguing from, I should establish also what it is, exactly, that I'm arguing. So let me be clear and let me be unequivocal: I think Joe Swanberg is a good and interesting filmmaker. He's not a master filmmaker and none of his films are "masterworks". He's not Ozu, Scorsese, Cassavetes, Truffaut, Godard, or Laughlin. I will not be arguing for his inclusion amongst those greatest of the greats, but neither am I going to say that his films exist in some special class where they can't be held up against their standards.

I wouldn't say, as Craig Keller does, that the performances are "magnificent", but I do find the performances on a whole to be "good"; I won't say that Swanberg's films are "incredibly beautiful" but I do find within them an element of beauty.

I enjoy Swanberg's films; I'm going to try and explain why. I have my problems with them; I'm going to examine those. I'm going to set forth as best as I am able why I think he's a filmmaker who is worth your time and interest. Perhaps not, at this stage in the game, an essential or epochal one, but one who is nonetheless worthy and interesting.

III. Sex and Art

Two themes that I see cropping up a lot in Joe's work are sex and art. His films and web-series generally seem to center around "creative types"-- web designers, musicians, writers, and, apparently, a video game designer-- in various modes of undress. In fact, his recent web series "The Stagg Party", a documentary about pornographer/erotic art photographer Ellen Stagg, puts these two themes squarely at the forefront of the work.

Let me say something that's going to cause a bit of head-scratching, given the filmmaker under discussion: as both a viewer and a filmmaker myself I'm not particularly interested in either of these themes.

Works of art about art, artists, making art, the creative process, et al, almost always rub me the wrong way. With a few exceptions (Truffaut, W. Anderson, Rivette) they always seem too self-referential, a bit too meta. Instead of being art about love-hate-death-pain-joy-life it's only about itself. I think the problem is that I've seen too many films from first-time filmmakers about first-time filmmakers making their first film. Also novels about novelists writing a novel (Wonder Boys: happy exception).

As for the other thing-- sex-- it's not so much that I'm not interested in it, per se; I am, after all, a human being and male at that. Neither am I uncomfortable about seeing sexuality on the screen: erotic, disturbing, ordinary, ridiculous: it's all fine by me. But, with puberty now several years behind me, I'm unlikely to seek out a film because of its sexual content. When I hear that so-and-so has made a Daring And Important Film that explores the extremes of human sexuality, the best I can offer up is a "meh". This apathy, of course, has never stopped me from writing or seeking out dirty stories about Amish lesbians.

But maybe this all just proves Swanberg's point. In an interview, he once said something along the lines of he was trying to reclaim sex from pornography, to make sex ordinary instead of sensational and fake and sleazy; that sex is just something that his characters do. And here I am, salivating over "and then her bonnet fell into the butter churn" and shrugging at films that try to elevate depictions of sex beyond mere spank material. Maybe I'm one of those Americans experiencing anxiety "over a perceived disparity in levels of commitment to the diegesis on the part of the filmmaker", but I can't be certain as I'm not exactly sure what all that means.

In any case, I've seldom found the sex scenes in "Young American Bodies" to be particularly sexy (exceptions: the standing-up-while-receiving-cunninglingus scene in season one, the boob massage in season... two? three?). They have, on occasion, struck me as funny and honest (trying and failing to construct an Alex Mack sex fantasy in season three). But mostly, it's just something his characters do. Like talking about dreams, rolling one's eyes at unwanted guests/roommates, proposing to a girlfriend, meeting new people.

From what I've seen, the sex in Joe's work is pretty ordinary and it frankly doesn't interest me as much as those scenes in which the characters communicate verbally. That said, again, I haven't seen "Kissing on the Mouth" or its notorious masturbation scene.

As Glenn Kenny describes it, the scene features Swanberg's character masturbating to completion while thinking about two different women to whom he feels different levels of attraction. It's the only time, Kenny notes, that the film becomes subjective, taking us into the character's mind as he fantasizes about each woman. This, he says, adds nothing to the film-- we already know that the character is attracted to both women. While he acknowledges that Swanberg is asking what Keller calls the implicit question of what the cinema can or should show with regards to sex, he sees it as a "literally balls-out assertion of male privilege".

And, I dunno, all this can be true. Like I said, I haven't seen it. But, this being the internet, I am therefore perfectly qualified to comment on it.

Back in my crazy bachelor days, I had sex several times a week. Granted, my only partners were the palm of my hand and my imagination. Seldom was I able to complete the deed thinking about the same woman or scenario. No; I often had to summon a veritable harem of women in bonnets and plain hook dresses succumbing to the considerable charms of a swarthy Englisher. I think this is common. Well, not so much the Amish thing, but the whole thinking-about-lots-of-different-people-to-whom-one-feels-a-physical-attraction-while-masturbating thing, I think that is a common phenomenon for human beings in general but for men in particular.

Here's the thing: you don't see that phenomenon often presented in film. First of all, you don't often see masturbation in the first place. Secondly, when characters do follow the advice of former Surgeon General Elders on the screen, it's usually played for laughs (cf. "There's Something About Mary"). Whether it's taken seriously or not, the scene usually centers on one fantasy (perhaps presented in a subjective dream sequence) and one person, usually presented in some kind of chronological order. The human mind, as far as I'm aware, very seldom works in such an orderly and focused fashion, and that goes double for when someone's got themselves worked up about something.

From the way Glenn describes it, it sounds like Swanberg's presenting a masturbation scene that's much closer to the way the human mind works, "alternating" fantasies. Perhaps Swanberg just thought, "Hey, I've never seen that in a film, it's something that rings true, so maybe I'll put it in."

I am reminded of a scene from Paul Thomas Anderson's charming "Punch-Drunk Love", in which Sandler's character Barry Egan, when asked about his work, says "Business is very food". People make those sort of Freudian slips all the time, but they seldom show up in film; when they do, it's almost always heightened and Full of Psychological Significance. It was nice to see a bit of ordinary reality reflected back at me from the screen. Indeed, Mary and I have tried to do stuff like that in our own work; in our film "The Man Who Loved", there's a scene in which one of the characters attempts to change the bedsheets while her two cats crawl all over the bed, bat at the sheets, and generally get in the way, as cats do. It was something that we didn't recall seeing in other films, and as it was a sometimes irritating part of our day-to-day experience, we put it in our film:

Perhaps I'm right and the thinking behind that scene in "Kissing on the Mouth" is that we seldom see a realistic masturbation scene in the mainstream cinema; that still doesn't make me want to actually watch it. Which is, come to think of it, probably why such scenes are so seldom in the first place.

Sure, people masturbate and people trim their pubic hair. Hey, people get diarrhea too. I've yet to see a film that graphically and realistically depicts an act of human defecation, and I frankly don't want to. Yes, all that happens and all that is honest; I just don't find it particularly interesting.

I'm more interested in seeing emotional and psychological places that filmmakers so seldomly traverse-- in graphic and realistic depictions of mental nudity, of self-exposure. Lucky for me, the films of Swanberg have that, too. And that's what I find *really* interesting.

IV. A Director of Moments

As Kenny reports, I said in an earlier comments thread that I thought the "best moment" in all of Swanberg's work comes in "Hannah Takes the Stairs" in a scene between Gerwig and Kent Osborne. In describing it from memory I perhaps put too much emphasis on Osborne's discussion of his depression medication; it wasn't really Osborne's moment that struck me as being particularly special.

The moment that I'm talking about is all Gerwig and it starts: "It sounds really stupid, because it sounds like what I'm saying is, 'Now that I know you're depressed and you have these things, I can no longer treat you with carelessness'. But that's actually what I'm thinking. I tend to leave destruction in my wake."

Over the next few bits of verbal placeholders, Gerwig's Hannah gradually starts to break down and cry. Osborne grabs a tissue and, sputtering, she works her way to this: "No, you're Good, and I'm using you to cover things up and, gee, I don't know, you deserve more than that, and that's the shittiest first thing to tell a person, because they know that they deserve more than whatever's the person giving them... I don't know, I feel like I was just trying to use you to make me feel good, and it's like, 'No, this is a person, and it's a person with problems.' Not that you only have problems, but it's like---- I don't want to use you."

It's that moment that moved me, that moment where I recognized some emotional honesty on the screen. I described it in my earlier comments as acute self-consciousness, but perhaps it would be more accurate to flip the two: that moment features an acute consciousness of self. In that moment, she acknowledges her narcissism, a narcissism that objectifies other people. She did not, prior to her suitor's confession, think of him as a person with a life that extends beyond her own. She's completely aware of this, or at any rate in this moment becomes completely aware of it, and hates herself, castigates herself for it. And still, of course, the scene is still in the end about _her_ and how _she_ reacts, and perhaps she's only thinking of him in relation to how he makes her think about herself. She is a full-blown narcissist who is also full of self-loathing.

That moment rang true for me. Not the crying so much but those couple of lines-- "this is a person" and "I don't want to use you". It was a moment that had some teeth, a moment that has (to my mind) some emotional complexity. And while there are other moments in "Hannah" and "LOL" and the web stuff that feel "real" and highlight something about the characters, I don't think any of those moments approach that one in "Hannah"; that's why I single it out as the best in Swanberg's work.

Now, the question is raised: how much of that is Swanberg and how much is Gerwig? As we all know, Swanberg often doesn't use a script. His actors improvise their dialogue and perhaps even the situations. One could argue, then, that the moment is really Gerwig's: it's Gerwig's emotions, Gerwig's words, and, who knows, perhaps even Gerwig's personality. (Having never met Ms. Gerwig, and being generally unwilling to assign character flaws to actors and actresses I've never met based solely on the character flaws of roles they've performed, I will not be speculating along those lines.)

Assuming a ginormous chunk of that moment is due to Gerwig, let me put forth the following: an actor cannot create a moment like that in a vacuum. An environment must be created and a mood fostered that allows an actor to dig deeper and to reveal more. Unless you've got an onion handy, no one's going to cry on camera unless they're able to let down their emotional shields. No one's going to go into uncomfortable territory, either emotionally or physically, unless the director has made them comfortable enough to do so.

Directing is: shot composition, cutting, scoring, blocking, dressing-- certainly. But directing is also casting and it's also creating an atmosphere that allows the actors to do their thing. There is no such thing as "an actor's picture" without an actor's director. There could be no moments like this one in "Hannah" unless Swanberg created the circumstances that allowed it to take place.

Watching that scene again so that I could get the dialogue jotted down, I realized that for the duration of that moment, the camera never leaves Gerwig's face. Osborne is off-camera, he's still talking, he occasionally moves into the frame-- but the shot, the moment, is Gerwig's. The camera stares without flinching as she lacerates herself. And, I have to say, in that moment she looks gorgeous: the white light on the side of her face, the pimples on her right cheek, the way she rubs her nose with her index finger. That's where our attention should be and that's where he keeps the camera: he focuses our attention on her: directing.

Now, I know what you're going to say: "But he always keeps his camera on people's faces!" Glenn spoke of Swanberg's "claustrophobic world of close-ups and medium close-ups... his almost infantile refusal to ever use the camera to evoke a sense of space beyond the immediate proximity of his characters."

From what I've seen, Glenn's right in that Swanberg's work seldom creates a palpable sense of space, of place, of time. Everything's focused on this moment and these people and more specifically these faces. Partially, I think this is the result of his working methods/aims: if he seeks to capture moments-- not construct them but to create a place where they can happen and snatch them up as they fleet on by-- then of course his camera is going to be fixated on where those moments happen. But partially I think it's also simply a matter of preference: I think Joe Swanberg is just madly in love with the human face. Male, female, they all look gorgeous and yet are all stripped of their glamour. He lights for faces and shoots for faces and edits for them.

Is this to his detriment? Honestly, I can't say. I *would* like to get a better sense not just of physical space but of practical non-emotional reality (more on that in just a bit). At the same time, I do like those moments.

Glenn grants that those moments do exist. He says that they're often awkward and stumbled across. And, yes, I can't say I disagree with that; even that moment I cherish from "Hannah" feels like it's been stumbled across, perhaps a bit clumsily. It did not, however, take me out of the movie the way that Gerwig-looking-away-from-camera did. It felt like I just witnessed something real, unexpected, unplanned-- and I can't help but wonder if that's because its creators were groping for that hidden truth and happened to snatch it up.

Clumsy or not, Glenn states that there aren't enough of those moments to "make Swanberg worth my time and faith". And while I've never gone and counted up those moments, for me there have been enough to keep me wanting more. But I can certainly see where Glenn's coming from, and the problem with making a film as a way of bottling up moments like emotional lightning is that, well, you can't always succeed.

While I think that moment from "Hannah" is the best I've seen in Swanberg's work so far, I will allow that I think there were more moments in "LOL". "LOL" is, I think, a better film as a whole. And this might be because of the circumstances of its making. From what I understand, "LOL" was shot over the course of some eight months, whereas "Hannah" was shot during two or three weeks. Eight months gives you a lot more time to shoot and reshoot, think and rethink; eight months allows you to discard more material and you're going to end up with a lot more great material.

V. The Tragic Smirk

I think Swanberg's films also concern themselves with genuineness, though not in that silly film school "what is the meaning of reality and representation" way. Some of his characters can be narcissistic twits, but they're not oblivious about it: they know they're being twits but they do it anyway. Two examples:

In "LOL": Tim asks his horny girlfriend for twenty more minutes with his computer; he knows she's going to say no and he knows he might catch hell for asking but still he asks.

In "Young American Bodies": Swanberg's character and his older former paramour are studying. He knows that there's to be no more fooling around between them. But still he brings it up. He does so with, well, a smirk: I know this is ridiculous but I'm going to do it anyway.

His characters live in a constant state of self-awareness. It's almost crippling; they can't be sincere because they're always conscious of how silly, stupid, and immature they are. So, how can they "be who they are" if everything is finger-quotes? I am reminded of a Tom Tomorrow cartoon in which a couple breaks up because, so used to living in an age of wit and irony, they can't say "I love you" without the other suspecting them of sarcasm.

I don't think I'm reaching in detecting this theme, though I doubt it's one that Joe has developed consciously. That is, I think it's something more intuitive which is why it has never come to the fore in the same way Sex and Art have. I would certainly like to see him develop more along these lines, though, and I hope he does so in the future.

VI. Teeth

I'm sure anyone who is familiar with this Mumble-Thing has at least a passing familiarity with Boston University's Ray Carney. He's a big booster of Bujalski, Swanberg, Katz, Audley, Bronstein, et cetera. But anyone who knows Ray knows that he's not one to just grab a couple of pom-poms and rah, rah, rah about how great someone is.

Recently, he took a look at this whole generation of young American independent filmmakers and decried the niceness of it all. Every character is polite and considerate of others. No one starts any fights or wants to argue. They're all accommodating and sweet.

True, I haven't seen much by way of yelling and screaming in Swanberg's films, but his characters are not afraid to pick at each other passive-aggressively.

The best example I can think of is one that Glenn cited as an example of unreality in Swanberg's series "Butterknife". I'm talking about the scene in which Mary Bronstein's character gets stuck under the bed and asks her husband for help; said husband instead fetches a camera and photographs her before pulling her out from under the bed by her feet. Glenn pointed out that Mr. Bronstein could easily have lifted up the bed and chalked it up as an attempt at an "I Love Lucy" homage.

But-- maybe this is just me-- I didn't see it that way at all. It didn't come across as "antics"; it came across as "disturbing". Rather than help her, he prolongs her predicament. He's having fun at her expense. I don't think he's doing it to be "cute"; I think he's doing it to get back at her for something. Heck, maybe it's nothing in particular-- behaviour that's common even in healthy marriages.

Then there's the eponymous scene in the Butterknife episode "Bedroom Bully", in which Mary is attempting to get to sleep and her husband chews loudly to get on her nerves, calls her a bedroom bully, and even sings her a song about her bulliness. They're just little things, but again here we have a character who is pushing, needling, and irritating the other. There's a tension in that relationship, and I often detect such tensions under the surface in other Swanberg characters.

There's a scene in "LOL" in which Swanberg's own character, Tim, refuses to get angry at his girlfriend for trying to make him angry thus making her more angry. He takes the audience through this process as he explains it to a friend over his cell phone. Of course, what he doesn't mention is that this in and of itself is an act of anger.

In "LOL" and "Young American Bodies", both of Swanberg's characters deliberately get on people's nerves. It was this quality that I tried to capitalize on in my own film, "Son of a Seahorse", in which Swanberg plays a particularly unhelpful customer service rep working for a utility company.

VII. Practical Reality

I mentioned earlier that in addition to a sense of physical space, I wish Swanberg's films also had a sense of non-emotional reality. What I mean by this is that why I find the performances, emotions, and certain moments of Swanberg films to be exceptionally realistic, I don't think he does nearly as good of a job conjuring up or defining the practical physical details of everyday life.

Glenn cites a few examples of this in his essay: for example, the chair situated in front of a door in an office. Don Lewis pointed out that they worked for an advertising firm and they arranged the chairs thusly for a brainstorming session. Me? I didn't know they worked for an advertising firm.

I know they were writing for something, and that Bujalski's character was apparently a blogger of renown. What he blogged about, I had no idea. What they wrote for, I wasn't quite sure. Apparently it was advertising.

I think Swanberg pays a lot of attention to his actors, to their characters, to the moments they create together; I'm not sure if he pays quite so much attention to anything outside of that. And more-so than the lack of a sense of physical space, I do think that is a detriment.

During the "Glenn Kenny Glenn Ross" affair, which I remember watching from the sidelines, I believe Joe brushed off the criticism about the lack of research into detective work for "Butterknife" because the job itself wasn't relevant to the series (I am paraphrasing and I can't seem to find the relevant page online). It was just a fun sort of job for him to have.

I kind of accepted that logic at the time, even if the detective portions weren't nearly as interesting, fresh, or entertaining for me as the husband-and-wife sections. But it is emblematic of the Swanberg work that I've seen thus far ("The Stagg Party", of course, being an exception). With the exception of the girls working in the doughnut shop in "Young American Bodies", no one seems to have a real job; that is, a non-artist job that resembles reality as working people know it. Yet everyone seems, if not exactly affluent, certainly unworried about the cost of living.

The work space in "Hannah" doesn't resemble any office I know of, but rather just seemed to be another place for the characters to hang out and entertain one another. The characters may have been co-workers but they were really just another gaggle of friends; the office might as well have been someone's apartment. For me, those scenes at that office space work less well then the rest of the picture.

It's always dangerous to be ascribing motives to other people, but I honestly think this sort of stuff isn't as important to Joe as capturing those moments and exploring his characters. And, since that's what (I think) he's good at and since that's really what his pictures are about, I can't fault him completely for that.

But at the same time, such things can get in the way of someone enjoying a film; there is a sort of disconnect between the emotional realism and the lack of practical realism. I see one of two possible solutions.

One, most obviously, is that he finds ways to ground his pictures in practical things. Part of this, yes, is creating a sense of space but part of this is creating believable jobs, responsibilities, and biographies for his characters. This should not damage his improvisational style any but rather deepen it by creating a framework for his actors to use.

The other solution is to go completely in the other direction: to give his characters jobs and the like that are so absurd and ridiculous on their face that no one will stop to question whether they feel "real". Recall Antoine Doinel's job in "Bed and Board", which involved driving toy boats around a lake. Though that film still pales next to "Stolen Kisses" (which, incidentally, *does* feature researched and accurate detective work), the silliness of the job does not detract from the very real emotions that the film is dealing with. By making those sort of practical details deliberately unreal, Joe could put the focus even more squarely on the things that matter to him.

VIII. Like, you know, um, like yeah.

For the record, some of the dialogue in all these Mumble-Grumble films drive me absolutely nuts. Yes, people in real life do at times use verbal placeholders and usually aren't slinging bon-mots like they're in a God-damn Kevin Smith film. But when those verbal placeholders and banalities metastasize into tics, it does damage the aim of realism. Plus, it makes me twitchy.

IX. Contingency?

So, let's come around to the big question at last: is the cinema of Joe Swanberg the cinema of contingency? By his own admission, Joe doesn't really plan or storyboard. In an early interview, he expressed a disdain of "plot" and said he was more interested in characters, in people. He gives his actors a lot of freedom in bringing those people to life and draws on their ideas and personalities. He uses what's there, and I guess that would make it a cinema of contingency.

But what is "Salesman" but a collection of captured moments? Indeed, what is "Gimme Shelter" but one incredible moment examined and explored in endless variations?

Yes, these films are documentaries, some of the finest ever made. And no, I'm *not* putting Joe Swanberg on the same level as the Maysles brothers. But the classic documentary cinema must also be called a cinema of contingency. The Maysles, as far as I'm aware, did not "dress" their "sets" (of course, they also didn't put a chair in front of a door...). They too drew on their "actors".

But they are no less directors for it. In the editing, they shaped footage into film, reality into art. And during the shooting process, they created an environment in which their subjects were comfortable enough to reveal themselves.

And that's what Swanberg does. So, I have no problem, in theory, with the cinema of contingency.

Now, the Maysles had a distinct advantage over Swanberg, in that they were really actually and truly capturing Life. There are no holes in their films, no areas that feel unrealistic, because it is all actually real. No one's going to complain that the details of bible salesmanship are awry because we're actually watching bible salesmanship going on before our eyes.

And, however much he might eschew traditional narrative, Swanberg is working in a narrative and not a documentary form. If a character looks into or looks away from a camera in a documentary, it is real as can be; in a narrative or fictional film, it can shatter the illusion and often does.

I think, however, it is wholly possible for the cinema of contingency to produce great narrative art without resorting to the mockumentary (shudder). And I think it's wholly possible that Joe Swanberg will do that. Has he done it yet? Not as far as I'm aware. Not for an entire feature, anyway.

But there have been moments. For me, there have been enough moments to keep watching. Enough moments to hope that he continues to grow as an artist, that he's able to smooth out some of the ruffles in his films without closing off his ability to stumble upon and recognize something true and beautiful.

Now, mind: this isn't me saying that he can't be held to the same standard as other artists because he's still growing and developing. If one wants to reject his work so far, they are by all means entitled to do so. My piece is not intended to "win" anyone over to my "side". I present my piece in the same spirit that Glenn presented his: to give a fuller accounting for and understand of my opinion as objectively as I am able.

I do hope some of the above makes sense, as I know I'm not nearly as articulate as I'd like to be.