A co-worker of mine with whom I discuss movies blogged about his thoughts about the Oscar-nominated The Hurt Locker. Now Bradford is much, MUCH more critical of movies than I am. And while I don’t always agree with his assessments, I do appreciate the criticism he offers. If you don’t want to read the post, he complains the films overuse of war movie conventions cliches. What struck me were his comments regarding the protagonist Sgt. James played by Jeremy Renner.

He claims there wasn’t much character growth – at least not enough to sympathize with the character as he encounters physical and emotional obstacles throughout the story. It occurred to me that there are parallels with Sgt. James and Ryan Bingham, the protagonist in another Oscar-nominated film, Up in the Air.

Here are some excerpts from his blog post and the ensuing comments:

[AS PER USUAL, THERE ARE SPOILERS]

From Bradford’s post:

I would have loved to see Sgt. James CHANGE throughout the course of the movie. Maybe see him get more and more addicted to his job, have him start his tour with all the hope in the world, only to lose it bit by bit. Or have him start his tour completely brainwashed, but find something more important within himself outside the confines of the battlefield. ANYTHING would have been more intriguing. But instead, we got a bunch of losers who stay losers in the course of two hours. How pathetic!

I replied with this:

You say you wanted Sgt. James to CHANGE more, but I actually wanted him to change less. I felt that while it is important to have your protagonist discover something to fight for, his character just wasn’t built for that. And because of this, I never really bought the transformation that was hinted to at the end of the 2nd and into the 3rd act.

You suggest that there really isn’t an arc, but I think there is. You see him react to his surroundings and his subsequent choices go against how the character was set up. He just comes to the realization that this “new” Sgt. James isn’t for him. He makes a bad call, learns from it.

I kind of want to compare him to Ryan Bingham from Up in the Air. You see Ryan in his comfort zone and is forced to scrutinize his entire existence – what he really wants out of his life – because of a change in company policy. He goes through the motions and suddenly, he makes noble, yet characteristically unsound decisions. He gets burned and in the end you’re wondering has he REALLY changed?

Now perhaps this is where The Hurt Locker misses its opportunity. I never felt that connection with Sgt. James like I did with Ryan Bingham. Sure, the whole war thing is a bit less accessible than life in the corporate world, but if you put Ryan Bingham’s experience into Sgt. James, would you have liked it better?

Then Bradford’s reply:

I wasn’t even aware there was a hint of “transformation.” When Sgt. James wandered off to find the boy’s parents, I thought it was a foolish script twist instead of an attempt at developing his character.

I did not even see a beat where he realizes anything. The only thing that matters to him is his mission, and the outcomes seemed to have no bearing on his character. Yes, he makes a bad call and learns accordingly, but just because a kid learns to not fall off his bike, it does not exactly change or develop who he/she is.

Why do we empathize with Ryan Bingham? Maybe we don’t. I felt like Up in the Air was equally a visual punishment as it was a moral tale. Bingham is lonely, yes, and we have all felt lonely before. But Bingham chooses to be disconnected from people, like how Sgt. James chooses to go to war.

The difference? Bingham actually realizes something essential and proactively TRIES to improve his life. Has he really changed? I think so. Just a hint. Sure, he goes back on the road because his one attempt failed, but he is wiser for the ware. I can appreciate that.

Sgt. James, on the other hand, stays an arrogant loser. I don’t think he proactively tries to do anything. If nothing else, he learns that war is where he belongs. How pitiful. There is nothing hopeful, interesting, enlightening, or likable about that. It isn’t even a “dark” or “badass” revelation, since from the start, he already enjoys defusing bombs.

And me again:

“Bingham actually realizes something essential and proactively TRIES to improve his life.”

That’s it right there. With Up in the Air, the audience can see the value of not living solitary life. You can understand the value of relationships – mainly because Reitman hits you over the head with all the interview footage. With The Hurt Locker, you never really care WHY it’s important that Sgt. James goes to look for the kid’s family – important to the character.

And Bradford’s final comment:

Exactly.

I didn’t understand how or why Sgt. James went after the kid’s parents. That was the point where the movie lost me.

I thought, maybe Sgt. James was thinking about his own son? Nope. He showed no regard for his son or wife when he returned… it was pitiful.

In fact, if there was such an intended parallel between the two boys, we should have seen James with his family BEFOREHAND. THAT would have motivated the move entirely.

Oh well.

I enjoyed The Hurt Locker, but I wonder how that film would fare if it didn’t come out in the summer when the popcorn movies run circles around the more “serious, Oscar-bait” fare. Had the film been release in November or December would it have received as much praise as it is currently getting?

To expound a bit on my thoughts of Sgt. James, I too felt uncomfortable when he went to go find the kid. It is certainly interesting psychology for Sgt. James to feel more connected to an Iraqi kid than his own son, but something felt off about the development of that relationship. I suppose that’s what we want from our soldiers – we want to know that Capt. John Miller (Saving Private Ryan) was a schoolteacher. We want to see that Sgt. James isn’t just a badass who is really good at his job – that he secretly longs for an emotional connection in a war-time situation. But you either go all in or you don’t go at all.

If you keep Sgt. James as a cold, hard war machine, that’s fine. You have the opportunity to show how his persona affects the supporting characters, the other two guys in his company. The story arc would revolve around them and NOT Sgt. James – the way you see Natalie Keener’s (Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air) character evolve because of her experiences traveling all over the country with Ryan Bingham (George Clooney).

But then you have an entirely different movie.

SCRIPT/STRUCTURE
You’ll hear it described as Dances with Wolves in space. Or maybe even Fern Gully Redux. But it’s probably closer to Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai in space. There’s nothing original about this story. Everything you see is familiar and for every scene, you’ll probably be able to pick out 2-3 movies with similar imagery. Which necessarily isn’t a bad thing. I read an article (amidst the flurry of Avatar-related articles) over the past 2 weeks where James Cameron mentioned – and I’m paraphrasing – that technological advances in film production (the 3D and highly advanced character animation) are more palatable when you can place it in the context of very familiar stories.

The script is structurally sound – all major events happen when they’re supposed to and Jake Sully hits and overcomes every obstacle the way he should. Again, since it’s a familiar story, it’s predictable and you know what will should happen in the next scene. It’s almost 3 hours but never really felt that way. Scenes never felt like they dragged even if you knew what was coming next.

The dialogue was probably the weakest element of the script, but I knew what I was getting into and really didn’t expect much of it. The film does explore some timely themes – like terrorism, corporate greed, and environmentalism – and with a heavy hand at times.

CHARACTER
The characters are archetypal and they play the roles they’re supposed to play for this type of story. You may contend that they seemed pretty flat, but for a sci-fi/action/fantasy film, this deficiency easily overlooked when you’re caught up in the story. In a movie like this, you’re not so much concerned with how the character changes throughout the story, but how he reacts to the obstacles that present themselves in the plot.

I will commend the artists who animated the Na’vi. I was trying VERY hard to look for any flaws in the animation, especially during close-ups when you see their faces. I’m happy to say I couldn’t really find any. In the past, CGI facial animation always left something to be desired. It never seemed real enough. When one of the Na’vi was angry or sad or happy, it really looked that way. The realism in how emotions were captured and then displayed is one of the biggest reasons I was able to immerse myself in this movie.

DIRECTION
It’s clear that Cameron still understands how important storytelling is to the cinematic experience. Are you listening Michael Bay? If there’s one thing you get from James Cameron, it’s a good time. I look back at all his films and I’ve enjoyed watching every one of them – even Titanic. As much as that film is the butt of jokes these days, I remember being completely engrossed with what was on screen. It was a spectacle, and so is Avatar. Cameron just knows how to “wow” the audience – despite the cheesy Simba and Nala-esque love scene, stilted dialogue, AND corny theme song.

STYLE
There’s really not much I can say about the actual cinematic elements of the film. Perhaps I was too engrossed with the storytelling that I missed some things. I do know that the film employed the Firefly/BSG-esque CGI verite shots – in which a “camera” would zoom in or out on a subject. I guess this makes sense since that style is kind of hip these days. It didn’t seem distracting in any way, but then again, my eye is already used to that technique.

The 3D was cool, but a few weeks removed from my viewing, I wouldn’t say it’s “game-changing.” It was cool seeing the imagery pop out from the screen a little bit, but it never felt like it was a gimmick – like having various objects fly at your face or whatever. After a while, you forgot the movie was 3D and it just looked normal.

THOUGHTS/GRIPES
Avatar won’t change the way you see the world, but it’s definitely a spectacle to experience. As someone who probably looks at movies a bit TOO critically sometimes, it’s refreshing get fully immersed in a story. When people talk about movies that take you away to that special place and if you stare to long, you’d probably break down and cry to another world for a few hours, this is it. The criticisms I have don’t prevent me from recommending it. But I’m sure with all the publicity for this film, your mind is already made up.

I do wonder how well the film would hold up in multiple viewings though. I’ve always loved the films that offer a little more during the second viewing – Fight Club, Memento, and Brick come to mind. Will the script’s flaws be more prevalent the second time around? What would I think of it after a 2D viewing, or even on Blu-ray? Doesn’t matter. James Cameron has my money and I’m happy it was money well spent.

I subscribe to several screenwriting blogs and every now and again, they will mention some overused movie cliches conventions that you would see that either advances the plot or informs character development. Recently, Scott from GITS mentions a “running through the streets of NYC” montage and The Bitter Scrip Reader discusses the newscasters as an expository device.

As a kid who grew up on 80’s action movies, it would be those training/preparation montages along the lines of this classic:

…or like when Arnold gears up for the big rescue of his daughter (played by Alyssa Milano) in Commando. Sorry, I couldn’t find a YouTube clip of it, but it’s various shots of Arnold sliding a big survival knife in his boot, painting his face with tiger stripes, slamming a magazine into his machine gun, and hanging some grenades on a vest he zipped up a few cuts prior. There’s usually some dramatic horns with a snare drum in the back and throw in a few snap zooms for emphasis.

Now I was watching Defiance last night and realized there’s one that’s very commonplace in action/war flicks – the explosion next to a character who becomes temporarily dazed. It usually takes a moment to come to – usually due to another character screaming his name to get his attention. This device is pretty effective because it uses sound design and post-production to get its point across.

I’m sure this has been done prior to this film, but I really took notice during the Omaha Beach landing of Saving Private Ryan. It happens at around the 4:40 mark on the video below:

This sequence is cut in such a way that the audience becomes Capt. John Miller. They see what he sees and hears (or doesn’t) what hears (or doesn’t) all in a heightened state of consciousness. The sound goes in and out and you hear that eerie high-pitched tone after your ears get pounded by high decibel levels. You see another soldier trying to get his attention, looking straight at the camera to give you Capt. Miller’s point of view. Miller comes to and the sound is now back to what you would expect to hear in the middle of a fierce gun battle.

[NOTE: I should say that I've never been nearby when an explosion goes off, so the way this event is portrayed could actually be accurate. The closest I ever came was when a pretty large firecracker named an onion went off in a big steel drum next to me during a New Year's Eve celebration in the Philippines. I was probably about 5-6 when this happened so this memory isn't vivid, but I do remember that strange hum. No slow-mo, though.]

This is all great, except it’s becoming more and more common. Several years later, you would see a similar sequence in Ridley Scott’s Blackhawk Down and just last night, I saw the same sequence in Edward Zwick’s Defiance when the refugee camp was bombed by German plans. Same explosion nearby. Same close-up of the disoriented character (in this case it was Daniel Craig). Same other character getting his attention.

In fact, I’m curious if there was a similar sequnce in The Last Samurai. I can’t remember off-hand, though.

Don’t get me wrong – these sequences do a good job of breaking that wall between the audience and the character on the screen. The audience is supposed to experience what the character experiences. Put that on the list of cliches conventions you will likely see over and over again…until someone comes up with a fresh way to do it.

Can anyone else remember other movies that incorporated a similar sequence?

Yesterday marked a year since Tess and I moved out of New York. I’ve expressed how much I loved my time in New York in this venue many times in the past, but now a year later, on the opposite side of the country, I can appreciate the role it’s played in my personal and professional growth.

“These streets will make you feel brand new. Big lights will inspire you”

Empire State of Mind – Jay-Z feat. Alicia Keys

Boy did they ever. New York was a fountain of youth. It fun and exciting to paint on a blank slate. I forced myself to get lost and just wander about the town. I started working in an entirely new industry at the age of 29 with no contacts or experience. It was a fountain of youth. And at the end of it all, I’ve got credits, stories, and most importantly, friends.

Is the grass really greener?

Working on movies can be pretty damn fun, especially as a grip. Yeah, you have to lift heavy stuff through doorways, narrow hallways, and up multiple flights of stairs, but we do get to do some pretty cool stuff. It’s like playing with Tinker-Toys or Legos except in the middle of New York streets (but usually in cramped-ass apartment buildings). But let’s face it, gripping is a young man’s game. Sure, I’ve met some old dogs – very skilled technicians who have decades of experience. These are the guys who can command that ever-elusive full-rate (600/10hrs). As a 31-year old griptrician with only 3 years of experience, I could easily be competing against a 21-year old griptrician with the same experience for a job that paid a fraction of that rate. Do the math and it’s clear time isn’t on my side. And while I’m not in the best shape of my life, I can usually hump just as many sandbags, mombo combos, and Fisher 10 dollies as cats younger than me. But I’m just one set accident away from getting a career-threatening knee or back injury. In fact, I’m surprised I stayed pretty injury-free save for a burn on my forearm from a stupid inkie (the smallest tungsten head on our truck for that show)! 31 year old bodies don’t heal as fast as 21-year old bodies.

And besides, I don’t want to be a grip for the rest of my life. I want to write stuff and direct it.

But passion is overrated.

I’ve had some discussions with some really good friends about what it means to pursue your passion. It’s rewarding to do things you are passionate about (in my case, writing and directing), but Emory asked a profound question: “do you have to do it as a careeer?”

I don’t think I do. Let’s get serious here. Becoming a Hollywood director seems less and less likely the longer I stay here in LA.* And even becoming a regular director – one who does small commercials and industrials – can’t be that fun. I’ve worked commercials and industrials where the director is really just a puppet for the client. The director directs the actors, but always looks over his shoulder to make sure the client is happy with it. Where’s the fun in that? I do understand that there are projects that pay bills and projects that satiate the creative hunger. So really, what’s wrong with having a day job to pay bills and then doing the passion projects on the side?

Nothing. And guess what I was doing right before I moved to NY. I re-read some of my old posts – the ones from the Bindlestiff and Revival Arts productions I was involved in. I remembered how much fun and fulfilling it was. Imagine what I may be able to accomplish now the knowledge and experience I’ve gained in the last three years. Of course the whole job-that-pays-the-bills part needs to be sorted out.

Smells like a cop-out, right? “He just couldn’t hack it in LA and was too lazy to put in the work to achieve his goals.”

It’s a fair argument – maybe I can’t. If I was 6 years younger, I think I’d stick it out and see where things would take me. But in the past 3 years, there’s been probably close to 10 weddings and about 7 kids within my circle of friends. There really isn’t any pressure on me to hit those milestones just yet, but continuing the pursuit towards a filmmaking career will likely push that all back. And I’m not sure I want to do that.

Earning a living making films would probably make me happy, but it’s not the only thing that would**. There are other things in my life that will always be more important than a career – family (current and future) and friends. Being able to make films – whether for love or money – is a bonus. And I think I’m at peace with that now.

The conclusions I’ve drawn have everything to do with how the cards fell when I first moved here. I do wonder what it would’ve been like if circumstances were different. What if the handful of contacts I had coming into town called me for a job which led to another job which led to more jobs? Perhaps I would’ve gotten lucky and somehow made it onto a studio lot as a grip. Maybe I got a different day job – one that recognized my skills and experience and challenged me.

But things didn’t happen this way. It’s humbling and even embarrassing to be slumming it at an entry-level position. But it’s just as humbling and embarrassing being a 29 year old who left a cush job only to work for free on a student film as an Art PA. Such is life, after all.

* I get the sense that you do things/go places in this town with the hope of meeting a person who can introduce you to someone who can actually make a decision that can impact your career in the movie business. I’ve grown up to be too bitter and jaded to have the patience to deal with that kind of BS. In this biz, luck plays as big a role as talent in defining someone’s success. But I don’t have the luxury of waiting for that lucky hand.

** On the list of things that would make me happy is a PS3, a Vestax VCI-300 with Serato Itch (all the turntable loyalists are groaning, but really – who has the space these days?), and a vacation back to NYC.

Shoots are few and far between these days. I think in the past 1.5 months, I’ve worked 2 sets. The first was a commercial (or promo?) for Arby’s with Stun Creative. This was easy-peasy. Al brought me on as his gaffer. It was a regular 12-hr day, but could’ve easily finished in 6 if it weren’t for a the director. At first, I appreciated his manner on set. He was pretty soft-spoken, not the overbearing and overly self-involved vocal types you usually get on gigs like these. Turns out he had never really directed before and he was just being quiet because he didn’t want the entire crew to know he was mad green. The rumor was this cat was one of the motion graphics guys who the bigwings wanted to give a shot to. He was a nice enough guy, I guess. But man, when you’re shooting 6 hours of footage for just 20 seconds of usable material, you’re really just pissing off the crew. I also secretly hoped we’d get all-you-can-eat Beef N’ Cheddars for lunch. It was vetoed by everyone over the age of 19…which was everyone.

The second was a short film called The Greatest Adventure which appeared to be (I didn’t have/read the script) about some kids on their first day of kindergarten. The schtick, though, was all the kids were played by adults. Every time Albert calls me for a freebie, I always try to convince him to either A) get some cool toys to play with and/or B) do some cool things with the toys that we do play with.

On Pincushion, we did this pretty cool dolly shot in which we set up some curved dolly track around a rotating chair on which an actor would sit. I then rigged two long arms from the dolly to the seat so that when the dolly would move from one part of the track to the other, the seat would rotate at the same rate. So when the actor is seated facing the camera, he would always be facing the camera no matter where on the track the dolly moved. This creates the effect that the background is moving. If it’s still unclear, here’s a quick sketch that might help you visualize. (a clip will come later)

The shot turned out pretty damn cool since we were able strong arm a tweenie from a lollipop on a combo stand. This gave slick hard light directly from above the subject. It was Robert Richardson-esque.

Anyway, on The Greatest Adventure, we shot in a room with a pretty low ceiling. Al and I decided to rig 2 4ft. x 4-bank Kinos. Nothing too crazy, right? Well, because of poor location scouting (the inability to determine if the ceiling was strong enough to support grip hardware and 2 lighting units – which can get pretty heavy) I decided the best way to get them up there is to remove the bulbs from the fixtures themselves and then ziptie them to pieces of white foamcore.

I was essentially making a much lighter casing for the Kinos that could easily be screwed into the drywall ceiling. You can kind of see it in this pic. At least I thought it was drywall at the tech scout. Turns out it was actually wood planks that were covered w/ the pocorny stuff on most home ceilings.

[NOTE: If there was a ladder at the tech scout, I would’ve been able to determine that it was indeed wood up there and rigging Kinos up there would’ve been textbook: baby plates, gobo heads, kinos – easy peasy.

All in all, it was a pretty fun shoot. I mean, as long as there’s an Ed Estrada, good times are guaranteed. Got to meet a few more of Al’s CSULB peeps and I’m confident I’ll be working with some of these cats again – even if it’ll be way down the road. I’m linking to set pics from the director Gabe Yeh’s blog – Day 1 and Day 2.