Evie - Mark Harris

Ugh, going to try to update better on sunday. Tomorrow I am hauling my tired ass down to Jerz to help Chris Messinio with his shoot. But cast set, first shoot dates set, costumes set. Will try to post some more details Sunday.
 
Gonna need a grip!

Gonna need a grip!

Wed Feb 11
Thurs Feb 12

Need a grip. Hoping not even full days each day.

Daytime hours.

PM me if you want to come play!
 
thanks Shawn. Honestly the RED decision was Aram's. He and I talked about working together, but he's the one who decided to roll with that.

But just playing with test footage in post, I'm beginning to see the real benefit it brings. Not the 4K, but the ability to have so much control over your footage, in terms of CC. That's kind of blown my mind.

But we'll see. I am still a little afraid of it, and in the back of my mind, I feel like it's going to become self-aware on set one day, revolt, and kill us all...
 
Updates Feb 2nd - Auditions & Casting

Updates Feb 2nd - Auditions & Casting

CAST:

leahrudick-300x199.jpg

"EVIE" Leah Rudick

sdnogi-300x261.jpg

"THOMAS" Scott David Nogi

We cast the last main role. I had auditions last week, and came away with the larges number of good candidates I'd ever had. Meaning, the choice was harder than ever before. It's always seemed that if I came away with one great option, it was a good day. But this time, just about everyone who read could have done the part, and it came down to nuance. And look. I'll say a little more about look in a bit.

This audition consisted of an improvisation with Leah, based on beats I outlined from the actual scene. I had given the candidates the outline about a week before. And all came in with various levels of preparedness and all performed well in the improv.

Now to nuance. I'll just talk about three of them as examples.

1. There was one actor in the group who was easily the most experienced. His resume included the many prominent TV shows. And he was good. Really good. He came in the most prepared too. He had made the most specific choices and came in prepared to work with them. He made adjustments as I asked for them without missing a beat. He would be a dream actor to work with on just about any project. But his excessive experience and skill were also a hindrance, to a degree. He was so good at acting, that I had a hard time seeing him really let go and lose control of himself. Now I don't mean hauling off and hurting actors and breaking things, but there comes a point when watching an actor when he really starts to fly, and you can tell that they genuinely have no idea what is going to come out of his mouth next. These moments are golden and should be captured on camera at all costs. They are also very rare. Maybe Actor A would have gone there just fine. But it seemed to me that it's not where he goes.

2. There was another actor whose resume included a Uwe Boll film. But I didn't hold that against him. He came in prepared, but was more willing to let himself actually go. He had less experience than Actor A for sure. And he was my second choice. Which brings us to look and Actor C.

3. Actor C is Scott, the actor I cast. When I weighed everything, Scott had the best blend of what I was looking for. Skill to pursue and objective and stay in the moment. Trust enough to let himself go in the scene and really just be there without knowing what will happen next, and lastly, the thing that put him over Actor B was his look. And for this part, if you understand that the character is a virgin, who has never even been alone with a woman in any romantic capacity whatsoever, if you lay all of that on Scott's look, all of those things are amplified. Because the other actor looked like he could have been early 20s. So if he has never had sex, well, okay, we all have met someone who hasn't has sex until college. But Scott looks clearly in his 30s, and could read into early 40s. And anyone who has never had sex up to that age range, we really wonder about. And I wanted the audience to really wonder about this guy.

I think this is a point that I disagree with Zak on. I've seen him say he casts for the actor and re-works the role based on that. And that is one way to work. But in my mind, movies are photographs. So I don't think it's unreasonable for a director to want to conform the photograph to what's in his mind, in terms of design, color, light, and actors. Also, I think you can get a lot of mileage playing on peoples' pre-conceptions with the images you show them, as with the character above.

Or, for another example, when working with Leah on this part, this part is very much NOT her. The part calls for her to be very sexual. And she's a big floppy goof-ball.

Exhibit A:

leah_goofball.jpg


I am keeping some her goof-ball in the role, but also, the thing I've been telling her about being "sexy" is that she is already young, beautiful, thin, and tall. Just by showing up, she is 80% the way to being a sexual being in our minds. So she doesn't have to do much more at all in her performance.

Hitch knew this about casting and of course most modern Hollywood films do as well. You cast Grace Kelly and already every guy in the audience is wondering what the hell Jimmy Stewart's problem is. I hesitate to call it a short hand, but rather let me say that images are loaded. And a filmmaker can work on that loadedness.

Rehearsals are set for tomorrow, Tues 3rd and Wed 4th.

Otherwise, Leah has been for her fittings and the costumer is now working on Scott. Aram and I have been hashing the look of various scenes back and forth. I have been storyboarding and shot-listing and taking care of the million and one details that come up. And I am now thanking God for the new Ikea we just got in Brooklyn, because I imagine it will come in handy for last minute prop runs.

More soon...

Prod Blog
 
One more exciting update: The legendary Herman Witkam has agreed to do both sound design and score!!! I sent Herman the script and his brain is already crackling with ideas about sound-scape.
 
Thats awesome news! I'm sure he will do an amazing job :)


Edited to add: I am really looking forward to this one Mark! As usual I expect this to be really good!
 
Update Feb 3rd - Rehearsal 1

Update Feb 3rd - Rehearsal 1

rehearsal_1-300x199.jpg
rehearsal_2-300x199.jpg
rehearsal_5-300x199.jpg

So tonight we had our first rehearsal. This one was two hours and included both Leah and Scott. Tomorrow night I will rehearse with Leah alone, to work on the sections of the film where she is alone.

The rehearsal went well, and it seemed like we basically got done what we needed to get done.

As I've stated before, some of this film is improvised, based on beats I'd outlined. This scene in particular was the most improvised of all.

So the rehearsal had two primary goals.

First Goal - Solidify Beats

Solidify the beats in the scene. I came into the scene with a number of beats written down, more than we would need to get from point A to point B. The first outline contains a lot of ideas just thrown out there and put on paper. So in this rehearsal, I wanted to give the actors the chance to play with those beats, so we could start to pick which ones worked and which we could throw away. Through this process, we were able to really hone the scene down to something specific, with shape and direction, and we were able to toss out anything extraneous to the scene. From this, I will write down what we came up with and that will basically be the scene. I will still not write all of the actual lines, so that when the actors get in the moment and are pursuing their goals, they can use whatever words come to them in that moment. And those might be different from take to take. As long as they are playing their objectives, I am willing to let them say whatver comes in the moment. Talk and Listen.

So basically we ironed out the scene.

Second Goal - Give Actors Time to Work

The second main purpose of the rehearsal for me, is to give the actors a time and place to work. As we worked through the beats, I try to make it clear that this does not have to be a performance, that they are to use the time to seek out and find the moments, find their objectives, find their connections to the characters and the moments they are playing.

This might entail having them feel their way through an important moment until they find out what makes that moment work. Sometimes, I have them slow down, or even pause the scene to live in that one moment, until they can reach into themselves and find their own personal connection to it. But the main point is that rehearsal is a place for actors to figure out how the scene works.

I often see filmmakers who believe in no rehearsal at all, in order to "keep it fresh." They somehow believe that the goal of rehearsal is the ossifying of a performance.

To me, rehearsal is for the actors to figure out what the scene is about, and how it works, so they know what their homework is. So they can take the work home, work out the objectives they need to play and the connections they need to have to the material.

The last thing I'll say is, I think rehearsal is ten times more important on low-budget productions. Not only does it give the director time to focus on the performances, when he/she is probably doing a million other things to get the production going, but it also gives the actors a dedicated time to focus on the performances.

If you're making a $100 million movie with Tom Hanks, Tom Hanks has the leisure to spend six months working on a role, doing cop training, etc. If you are working on no budget affair, the actors most likely have day jobs and other concerns. Of course, all of these actors will work on the roles on their own. But I think it really helps to give them that dedicated time to purely focus on the work.

PRODUCTION BLOG
 
the train is rolling... man you're going to rip right through production and then wonder why you were so worried in the first place. You're getting 80% of the work done before hand with all your planning anyway...
 
With no money, planning is all you got, man. If you ever come on set with me, you'll know I don't like surprises unless they come out of actors. :)

My storyboards and shot lists have everything from lens choice to Frame rate written down for every shot.
 
Now THAT is true planning. I do a similar thing myself with my shotlists, but I know a lot of us go out there on the fly and miss so many shots because of a lack of planning. For structured stories like the ones you tell it definitely serves to take a page out of your book.

may have to extend the same planning to my own rudimentary storyboards, although I've been leaning more towards storyboarding with a digital camera.
 
Mark Harris said:
I think this is a point that I disagree with Zak on. I've seen him say he casts for the actor and re-works the role based on that. And that is one way to work. But in my mind, movies are photographs. So I don't think it's unreasonable for a director to want to conform the photograph to what's in his mind, in terms of design, color, light, and actors. Also, I think you can get a lot of mileage playing on peoples' pre-conceptions with the images you show them, as with the character above.
Click to expand...

i've been thinking about this and want to flesh out what I mean when i say I don't try to cast according to the visual image I have in my mind of what the character looks like. A quick example is that as written, the main character of Heart of Now was written was a young filipina-american living south of the 10 Freeway in los angeles. but I was so moved by Marion Kerr's audition and callback that we adjusted the character and backstory to suit her.

It's true that when Sabi sets out to make a film (and begins the casting process) we’re ultimately not looking to mold an actor to the character that already resides in our head (if we were satisfied with the depiction in our head, why make a movie?). we're looking for the people we want to watch for two hours. people who are naturally compelling and skilled at dramatic improv. but above all at this stage, sabi’s casting process tries to find the actor that can teach us more about the character we’re creating… real, human details and insights into fears, emotions, and hidden qualities that we couldn’t have otherwise known. does that make sense? those new things we learn during rehearsal, then go into the rewrite of the script.
 
Zak Forsman said:
i've been thinking about this and want to flesh out what I mean when i say I don't try to cast according to the visual image I have in my mind of what the character looks like. A quick example is that as written, the main character of Heart of Now was written was a young filipina-american living south of the 10 Freeway in los angeles. but I was so moved by Marion Kerr's audition and callback that we adjusted the character and backstory to suit her.

It's true that when Sabi sets out to make a film (and begins the casting process) we’re ultimately not looking to mold an actor to the character that already resides in our head (if we were satisfied with the depiction in our head, why make a movie?). we're looking for the people we want to watch for two hours. people who are naturally compelling and skilled at dramatic improv. but above all at this stage, sabi’s casting process tries to find the actor that can teach us more about the character we’re creating… real, human details and insights into fears, emotions, and hidden qualities that we couldn’t have otherwise known. does that make sense? those new things we learn during rehearsal, then go into the rewrite of the script.
Click to expand...

Absolutely makes sense, and I'm looking for all of that too. In fact, on this casting, the actor I wound up with did NOT match the initial description I had, but upon reflection, the traits he did bring, as described above, turned out to have the same effect as the traits I was looking for.

Also, thanks for mulling this over. I hope by now, it's clear that my respect for you is sky high, so I used you as an example, not to criticize, but have a conversation about the subject.

And as I said, I think the only point I was making was I don't necessarily think it's invalid to mold to a vision in the head. As to your point of "why make the movie" if it's already in your head, the reason is to share a vision with other people. That's why it becomes art and not just a thought. You give it form to physical share with other people.
 
no, i know. feel the same about you.

"why make the movie" is overstating it. just an (overblown) expression of my desire to keep exploring and reworking the material on camera. I have to admit to a low threshold for... i don't know what to call it, but I get off on rediscovering the movie as we are shooting and again as we are editing it. the actors can speak to this. sometimes, I see an actor doing a bit of business between set-ups and I'll have them incorporate it into the scene. I definitely want to share a vision. i think my vision just keeps evolving as we make it. i don't mean to say i get bored recreating what i've already dreamed in my head, but I'm excited by the spontaneity and the risk inherent in the way i work. it definitely necessitates shooting as close to chronologically as possible and some late nights after the cast and crew have gone to bed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top