Wednesday 23 January 2008 - "Director" Means You Have To /Direct/

I want to share the story of a good friend of mine, the one that got me into amateur filmmaking, to be exact.

My friend decided to make his second short film since his first one went successfully, so for crew he went to Craigslist and put out a bulletin looking for people to help.  As luck would have it, he got three responses from people who'd actually made films before, and had extensive technical knowledge.  He was in the clear!  He arranged his location, got his cast together, and settled in for a one day shoot of his short film.

When he turned the footage in to his editor, none of it was useable.  He'd have to reshoot the whole film.

What happened?  He had an experienced crew; everybody seemed to know what they were doing; no one questioned my film at the shoot.  How could everything turn out so badly?

Simple: if you are the director, you have to direct.

I decided when I was a teenager that I did not want to direct.  Why?  Because I saw what directing was, and realized that it was no fun, and not something I wanted to do.  It's highly technical, boring, and most importantly, requires you to do a /lot/. 

See, my friend was under the assumption that if you have an experienced crew, they will know what to do.  Experienced means "experienced at taking direction."  When you make a film, the assumption is that the director knows what s/he wants.  Even if it intuitively seems wrong to the crew, they won't speak up unless the director asks them to.  In fact, when the editor got the footage, he didn't say anything because he thought that perhaps the obviously fake costumes, the people and props in the backgrounds of takes, and the inaudible sound were part of the director's sense of humor.  They looked crappy to him, but he assumed that maybe he didn't "get" it. 

Bottom line, the director has to know how to make the film by him/herself - the only reason s/he even has a crew is because s/he's only one man (or woman).  

On an amateur short, this is twice as important, because nine times out of ten, your crew is /not/ experienced.  They either have never done this before, or are students, and haven't done it much.  If you want to get what you want, you have to know what you're looking for.

And for GOD'S sake, look into the camera! 

Another common mistake is to assume that watching the actors perform is filmmaking.  I liken filmmaking to shooting a Playboy centerfold, believe it or not.  If you watch an interview with any Playboy model, she will invariably explain that during the shoot the photographer contorts her into weird, unnatural, even painful positions to shoot pictures.  But when you look at them afterwards, they're beautiful.  Directing is like that.  It's not natural, fun, or entertaining, even.  All that stuff comes after the film is done.  But the process itself is highly technical, and your #1 concern is what you're getting on film or tape.  What happens in real life doesn't matter - what gets recorded does. 

Bottom line, in filmmaking, the director is God.  The screenwriter doesn't matter.  The cast don't matter.  The crew don't matter.  A film is the director's vision, and his / her job is to manipulate inanimate or barely animate objects in reality to recreate that vision /on screen/.   How s/he chooses to do that only requires one thing: that the director knows what s/he wants, and comes up with a way to get that.  Everybody else is just helping out. 

Sunday 2 September 2007 - Order of Operations

 I'm having a slight problem that I don't know the answer to just yet.  As soon as I find it, I'll be sure to post it, but in the meantime, I thought I'd throw it out to see if anybody had any suggestions.

Basically, in producing a short, you need to know the order of operations.

In Mathematics, the order of operations refers to the order in which you do all of the parts of a complex problem.  If memory serves, first you multiply or divide, and /then/ you add or subtract.  But in producing a short, the question is, what do you get first?

Since you don't really have a budget (or a very big one anyway), the question is, what do you need first?  Do you need to lock the script?  (And I don't believe in locking scripts, btw.  I believe that you get enough fo a script that it makes a director want to direct it.  Once s/he comes on board, s/he may rewrite the whole damn thing, like Spielberg did on Jaws (1975).  All a director is looking for is enough of an idea that it inspires him / her.  And since I believe that the director is God, what s/he chooses to do with the idea is up to him / her.)  Do you try to get the equipment?  The crew?  The cast?  Locations?  What do you need to get first?  Or do you do all of the above simultaneously?  Won't that divide your focus?

Decisions decisions.  For the two shorts I'm working on right now, that's what I'm thinking about a lot.  I'm working on the scripts as we speak, but I when I'm done with that, what then?  Here's my plan:

1) Break the script.  The idea is to figure out what exactly I will need money for.  I know i can get the equipment and crew for free (well, I'm pretty sure I can.  Not 100%, but it's been offered to me before, so...), so that leaves cast, makeup, and wardrobe, which are crucial to this film, because budgetary constraints have made it very simple, putting all of the emphasis on the acting and direction.  The locations I pretty much have, so that means I have to see if I can get people to act for free, and if I can get them to look like i need them to look.  Oh, and in my case, I also need a luxury car, but i sort of have a plan for that.

2) Get the actors, the luxury car, and one of the locations.  There is one person who I think can give me all three, but if he doesn't play along, one of these shorts is dead in the water.  There's another actress who inspired one of the shorts who I want to play the lead in that one, but I think she can play the lead in the other one too.  I don't have any contact info for her, but I worked with her on a friend's project.  That friend hasn't been in contact with me in a while, so that may be a challenge.

3) Get the crew and equipment.  This is coming from my school, so I just have to figure out how to ask.  I figure the direct route is best (GIVE ME CREW AND EQUIPMENT! ;)

And that's what I'm thinking about so far.  Will let you know what comes of it...  

Monday 20 August 2007 - Short Filmmaking Chemistry

One of the banes of my existence is that I wasn't passionate about Math or Science.  Why?  Because I was good at them, and could have been a lot richer if I loved them as much as I loved literature and the arts.  Alas, I was a bigger film and lit geek than I was anything else, so much like Kumar of HAROLD AND KUMAR fame, I forego the commercial appeal of medical school and decided to do this.  And all I got for it was this lousy blog.  Right choice?  Jury's still out on that one, but I am happy with the choice I settled on. 

Anyway, that intro has almost nothing to do with this entry, except that one of the positive side effects of my younger propensity for math and science is that I'm very good at analyzing things, and can see similarities between vastly different things, simplifying them for easier understanding and use.  And recently I've come to the realization that filmmaking is, in at least one way, like chemistry. 

They both have limiting reagents.

In chemistry, when you're doing a formula, the ingredient that gets used up first is your limiting reagent.  It determines the quantity of whatever you're going to make, because once you use it up, it doesn't matter how much of everything else you have, you're only going to get as much as you have of that limiting reagent.  Typically, as a result, the limiting reagent is usually the scarcest material, and as a result, when you set out to create something, you want to make sure you have that first.

My brilliant plan to use amateur short filmmaking to learn how to make a feature has thus far been a complete success.  Today my roommate suggested we enter an online horror short filmmaking contest, and whereas in the past I'd be struck with panic and reasons why I couldn't do it, once he said it, I said, "yeah, I feel like making a film, let's go."  It's so easy to me now that I don't have any doubt that I can do it, the question is, how quickly can I get my limiting reagents?

And what are the limiting reagents of film?

LOCATIONS

COSTUMES

MAKEUP

SETS

SOUND

The rest are easy to come by.

Locations are hard because if you're broke, you can't pay for them or build them.  So you have to find a place to shoot that you know you can shoot in.  A lot of people don't want a film crew to shoot in their killer location, so your best bet is finding either something nobody uses at all, or that nobody uses on a certain day (my job, for example, is closed on Sundays, and has only a handful of people there on Saturdays.  So it's a good location.) If your script calls for a location you ain't got, you either gotta change your story, or find a way to alter the location you do have to look like what it needs to be.  Two weekends ago, I shot in the lobby of Melnitz Hall at UCLA.  The scene? A hospital.

Costumes are hard if you're doing something special, because they will make or break your production.  If you're doing a period piece, you need period costumes.  If you're doing science fiction, you need spacy or futuristic stuff.  If you're doing a monster movie, you need monster stuff (rubber suits).  This is probably why most people set their early films in the "real world," so the cast can wear whatever they already own.  The thing is, that in and of itself limits the kinds of stories you can tell, and the advantage of doing something more fantastic (besides the fact that it''s more fun) is that you can break more filmmaking rules and call it an effect.  Realistic stuff has to look real, and realism can be boring if done poorly.  If you're going for realism, your actors have to be tight.  Your dialogue has to be tighter.  And so many people assume they're good at this, but don't realize how hard these things really are.  Most amateur films I've seen are written by people who thought they were far more clever than they actually are, or worse, are written above the talent level of the cast they were able to get to work for free, so we'll never know either way.  It's maddening.

Make-up is similar to costumes, but it has a set of problems all its own - you have to buy it, somebody good has to apply it, and it's unpleasant for the actors.  Unlike wardrobe, which you may be able to find in grandma's attic, you pretty much have to buy makeup, even if it's the cheap Halloween kind.  So it's a fixed cost of filmmaking.  Then, once you've got it, somebody good has to apply it - it's not something just anybody can do.  And worse, it takes a while to do, so if you're limited on how long you can use your location, the time you spend during makeup changes is eating into your shoot time.  And worst of all, if you've got a cast working for free, you want to minimize their hassle.  Feed them.  Get them out of there quickly.  And caking makeup on them may not make you friends for the next time you need actors.

If you either can't find locations, or have to alter your existing locations, you need to build sets.  The problem with this should be obvious: it's tough and time consuming.  If you've got a location for every shot, consider yourself lucky.  But if you have to alter the few locations you have, you need to spend money for materials to do that, know how to do that, and be able to do it quickly.  And God forbid you lose a location, because now you have to reinvent the wheel - which might happen to you while /in/ production.

And the most important limiting reagent is sound.  Want to make your film look amateur?  Skimp on the sound.  And when I say "skimp," I mean don't use a real boom, or at least shotgun mic.  That scratchy, tunnely noise you'll get in post production will officially tell anybody who knows how to make a film that you don't.  Congratulations.

Sounds pretty bleak, no?  Well, you have to look at the big picture.  The good news is that these are literally your /limiting/ reagents - they're not the whole puzzle. In fact,. there's only five of them, and you can eliminate costumes, makeup, and sets if, again, you go realistic (in which case, and I can't stress this enough, you /have/ to make up the difference with writing and casting.  It's sort of like in sports where the team with bad coaching better have all of the talent and vice versa).  Basically, if you can lock down those five things (and concentrate all of your efforts on securing them first), you can get everything else from elsewhere.  In the digital age, almost everybody has a camera.  You then just need enough light and know how to light things.  Computer software cuts, and software can be stolen (what?  I'm just keeping it real.  Do /you/ buy /all/  of your software?  Mac has a free editing software, for God's sake!) There are so many people desperate to act in this town that you can find cast - even pro agents and managers will lend out their "developmental" clients to teach them.  All you have to do is be very diligent in casting them.  And if you have access to a school, you can get most other equipment cheap, or from pubilc access, or the cable company, or any number of places. 

So I guess the moral of this story is that making a film is far from impossible, as long as you take care of your limiting reagents first.  And what's even better is that features go by the same rules, you just have more of everything.  Master how to make the low budget short, and you can pretty much make anything.

Now get to it!

Saturday 18 August 2007 - How To Learn

I've stumbled upon a new way to learn filmmaking: the world wide web.  I started helping these guys (http://www.dipscorp.com) while waiting to get one of my short film projects underway, and realized that web-based movies are a great way to learn.  They don't pay anything, so they're desperate for help, and there is nothing better than actual experience to teach you anything.  Again, to me, that's the value in making a short: better to learn on some short that people may or may not see so that, when somebody actually gives you money to make something, you're not clueless.  With the worldwide web, you can get it out there whether it has an audience or not, so you never have to feel like a total waste of time.  And let me tell you, from experience, that no matter how much education you have, and how much you've studied, there's nothing like being onset to really learn what filmmaking is all about.  Even with a web show like this, bottom line is that a production is a production - if done well (or even not so well), you have everything you're going to have on a big production, except in minature.  And today, there's one more thing I can add to that:

It's useful to do a project like this with somebody who knows what they're doing.

My best friend knows how to direct (he's helming the project I'm trying to get off the ground).  So while I've been working with these guys for weeks, I've been caught up in the characters and story of what they're doing - I know nothing of style or tecnique (well, I know how to criticize it, I just don't know how to create it, hence my wanting to be a producer and not a director).  But on set, my friend pointed out several things I never even considered.  Here are the highlights:

1) Lighting.  A common fallacy is that you don't have to light video as well as film.  BS.  The truth is that if you don't have proper lighting on any production, you have a lot of funky shadows.  And if you have funky shadows, when you edit this thing together, the shadows won't match.  A friend of mine made a funny little short that had mismatched shadows /within the same scene/.  All the white balancing in the world isn't going to fix that.  You're going to either be doing hours of color correction later on, or your thing will just look amateur.

2) Sound.  Another surefire way to look amateur is if you don't have proper sound.  Get a boom mic.  A regular microphone hooked up to your camera isn't going to cut it.  It's going to be better than the mic mounted on your camera, but it's still going to sound like crap in the end.  Spend the money to get either a shotgun or a proper boom mic.

3) Matching.  Look, bottom line, if you don'lt have one designated cameraman with one style, you're going to have a film that looks like a filmed play sometimes, but then in close up, suddenly becomes cinema verite, and then in wide shot looks all Michael Bay crazy.  A DP who likes lots of camera movement shouldn't cut his footage together with somebody who just knows how to keep things in frame.  Either maintain one consistent style via directing, where you strictly tell the cameraman what and how to shoot, or keep one person whose style will be consistent throughout.

4) Script supervision.  Scrit supervision is an indispensible aspect of filmmaking, I hate to tell you.  Bottom line, somebody /has/ to keep track of where you are, and remember what previous shots looked like, what you shot previously, and when, and keep lots of notes on that so if you reshoot and / or forget to get something and then try to pick it up some other time, you know what you're matching it too.  Otherwise you get that same inconsistency I spoke of in #3.

5) LOOK INTO THE CAMERA.  I don't care how good you are at directing actors.  Directing is not watching the performers play out the scene.  Directing is looking into the camera and making sure you're getting what you want. 

And this is just a handful of the realizations I had when I had my friend, who actually knows how to direct, tag along.  Bottom line, directing is not only not an easy job, it's the hardest job on a film.  I myself knew I didn't want to direct from when I was a teenager, because I saw what a director actually does and has to know.  You can be a half-assed director and get work in this town, but you'll never hear yours truly excusing mediocrity.  You learn all of the above by doing, and you do how and whenever you can.  So if you're not making shorts, or films, or whatever, stay active by helping others.  Now that we have the miracle of the web, the opportunities are everywhere...

Tuesday 10 July 2007 - Back In The Saddle

You know, the entertainment biz is a funny thing.

(Actually it's not.  George Burns was closer to right when he said that show business was a hideous bitch goddess, but go with me here.)

There's a movie I saw by accident once called The BIg Picture.  It starred Kevin Bacon, and Teri Hatcher is in it too, playing one of her "ho" roles that she did prior to... okay, she's still doing them, but is now respected for it somehow (toldja that entertainment was funny).  It stuck with me because it's basically every filmmaker's fantasy: young, idealistic kid makes something in his great flyover hometown, which gets him out to LA to make films, only to be shit on by the system.  Then, when he's disillusioned and sick of it, he quits, makes a music video for a friend, and the next thing he knows, he's back in the saddle once again. 

I didn't like this movie when I saw it because it's too ideal.  I'm a painful realist, and instinctively distrust anything that feels too good to be true.  So I was pretty sure nothing like that would ever happen to me, and yet... here I am.

Well not quite.  Lightstorm Entertainment hasn't exactly called me back yet.  But I'm now producing my buddy John Siscel's new short, after telling him explicitly that I didn't want to do it, and I'm enjoying it.  Who knew?

I guess it's kind of fitting.  John wasn't going to make this movie himself, a sequal to his original short film, MMA (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1288026510), but then a rumor started that he was making a sequal.  And whlie we were having dinner one evening, we came up with a sequal, a goof on sequals themselves.  It was cute, but not brilliant, so I didn't want to have anything to do with it.  Then another mutual friend told John not to do it.  So naturally, he went full steam ahead, and kept telling me about it, and the problems he was having procuring a location. 

One of my best and worst traits is that I cannot leave problems unsolved.  Believe it or not, this can make you very unpopular (you sound like a know-it-all), but the upside is that you can't be stopped.  I learned in the hospital that there isn't a problem you cannot solve given time - what kills most people is that they go into panic mode and try to solve their problems too quickly. 

Naturally, I came up with a solution to John's problem.  And he promised me a producer credit for that.  So here I am.

And you know what?  I'm glad.

Seriously.  The thing I've realized, as I talk about this project and think about the next one, is that for whatever reason, I like physical production.  I like vibing off of the other people involved, I like coming up with ideas, I like the feeling of accomplishment you get when you do it.  And as I said before, /that/'s the reason to do anything.  Not because you think it will make you rich and / or famous ("wars not make one great'), but because it's fun to do.  And to me, it really is fun, stress and difficulty and all.

So with this I've got some momentum, my best friend / future director / editor of MMA and MMP is excited about doing his own thing, and it's on once again.  I'm the Michael Corleone of entertainment. 

And like I said, I'm glad.  Nothing beats the rush of this.  Nothing.

And that's why I do it.

Wednesday 21 February 2007 - Why A Short?

I was at my hemotologist's office yesterday, and while waiting for their lab to open, I picked up an old copy of _Newsweek_, from October 30, 2006.  (I'm not making any of this up.  This is a total coincidence.) Here are some exerpts from the article on the new crop of ultra-violent horror directors:

"[Leigh] Whannell was a Melbourne, Australia TV host who thought he had a brain tumor... 'I would have done anything to be healthy again,' says Whannell, now 29, who, it turned out, was actually just suffering from stress headaches.  When he felt better, he wrote the script for SAW , in which a terminally ill cancer patient, Jigsaw... forces people to consider what they're prepared to do to stay alive.  Using $7000 of Whannell's savings, the pair shot a shocking 10-minute film in which Whannell played one of Jigsaw's victims who has to dig a key from the digestive tract of a paralyzed cellmate before Whannell's character's jaw is split open by a reverse bear trap.  On the strength of that short, Los Angeles-based Evolution Entertainment ponied up $1.2 million to make a feature." 

I think it should be fairly obvious why that meant so much to me, but just in case you missed it, I've spent the last two months in and out of the hospital, and am currently on dialysis.  But on February 13th, 2007, in the hospital, I had a life-changing conversation with my sister, and ever since, everything has been clear.  It's been that clarity that's been the motivation behind this mission to make these two films, and that's inspired this blog, as well as the inspiration for the "one short, one feature" formula for getting into film.  I had no idea that this plan had actually been carried out, /exactly/, in the creation iof SAW.  All I knew about that film was that it was a watershed of balls in independent filmmaking, as the company that made it took out a second mortgage on their building to get it done, and it paid off BIG.   But hearing how that film actually even started on the short level confirms to me that "one short, one feature" is can't miss.

Look, this movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwg7LZ2Iu0k

...was made for /no money/.  I kid you not.  I know because I helped make it.  The only money the writer / producer / director / worst actor in the film spent on it was $300 at the end to burn it onto DVD's.  Everything else was donated.  And he's since gotten interest from monied people in letting him make another film.  While it's true that the same process you use to make a short can be applied to making a low-budget feature, shorts are good to start with because they're cheaper.  I constantly hear people complain that they can't make a film because they can't raise the money.  Watch that short, and remember what I told you: /everything/ on that film was donated.  People off of Craigslist just brought their own equipment.  Oh, wait, I think I had to spend like $40 to buy a thing of cold cuts from Costco as our "craft services."  No, actually, that wasn't my money.  I think the director had gotten paid that week and just remembered that as an afterthought.

Get the picture?  If you can physically make a short film with /no money/, while you're working on your high quality feature script, the formula works.  In the age of the Internet, you make a short, and just get it seen, however you can.  You post links from your MySpace to it on YouTube.  You tell everybody you know to check it out.  But even if nobody actually sees it, when you go to raise money to make your feature, you can now direct potential investors to that so they can decide if you're any good.  Pitch them right and if they like you, they'll write you a cheque.  Or, if your short is really good, has won some contests or whatever, it's possible a production company will come to you and ask what you've got.  The point again, is that if you make a short, you've made a film, and if it's a short, you can make it for next to money.  A low budget feature will run you at least $10 grand.  You can make a short on nothing.

Sunday 18 February 2007 - Short Filmmaking Is How You Break In

Okay everybody, now that we've gotten my emotional "invocation to the muse" out of the way, I can properly introduce myself and start talking to you about short filmmaking, beginning with why it's a "must do" if you're trying to break into film:

Every aspiring Hollywood type must make a short film, and have a feature script at the ready. 

MUST.

Because that's how you break in. 

But let's back up to who I am and how I might know that.

My name is Aslum Khan.  Let me give you my whole life in entertainment (bear with me, even though I'm thirty, it's needlessly long).  When I was in Second Grade, I was the lead in a play.  Was one of the leads again in Fourth Grade, then the lead again in Fifth Grade.  However, in High School Drama and Acting Classes, I realized I didn't want to be an actor.

Lucky for me, my uncle is Aziz Quaisi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1532756/), so I come from a family of writers.  So naturally in 1994, the year I graduated High School, I won like a bunch of writing awards, including a trip to Washington DC for this one: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/becites/cfb/95039994.html, and a play-writing contest for an autobiographical play called "When Dad Remarried."  I've always been passionate about film, and at that point in my life, I started taking it seriously, so I attempted to turn that play into a short.  The problem is, it dealt with my father abusing my mother (who died of breast cancer when I was 13), and I didn't tell him I was going to make it.  He shut it down right in the middle of production, we fought, but that turned out to be a blessing, because even then and there, I realized that I didn't want to direct, either.

So in 1999 or so, I wrote this http://www.mycomicpile.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2571&sid=a3e7363de633f9d9439b07313c919997 (I'll scan the cover and post a jpeg if anybody is interested - just hit me up), and tried to parlay it into a comic book writing career (I used to be /obsessed/ with comics, and I know a /lot/ about them).  That didn't work either.  Then in about 1992, _Hustler's Busty Beauties_ hired me to write a couple of dirty stories for them (they pay really well, and I'm a big old perv), which got me to writing for the magazine today.  I'm finishing up an article for them now.  And in between all of that, I got my Bachelor's Degree in English from the University of Illinois, and most importantly, my MS in Media Management from Syracuse University's famous SI Newhouse School of Public Communications.  And it was the best thing I could have done, because I finally found my calling: producing. I then networked my way onto the show "Dark Angel" in 2001, (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1149434/), got blacklisted from that ('nother long story), went through a 'bout with illness (I've had a very serious strain of Lupus since 1989; am currently on dialysis), unemployment  and a bad relationship that turned out good (but ended), and now I'm on dialysis, but back in the hunt.  And the mission for this year is to make two short films.

Here's why: If you make a short film, you can honestly say you know how to make a film, and somebody can hire you to do so if they like your work.  Period.  If Hollywood was like the rest of the world, and people put ads in the paper looking for, say, "qualified directors," s/he who has made a short film can answer the ad, show the film, and get hired based on that.  In real life, what actually happens is one of two things: you make the short, it does well in a festival or something, and people offer you deals to direct features.  That's best case scenario.  Worst case scenario, you have your script for your feature ready, as well as your short, and you start soliciting people for money.  Your example of what you can do is your film, so it helps to argue your case.  Argue it effectively and somebody writes you a cheque, you make your feature, and you're rich and famous.

So again, every aspiring creator needs to have made a short film, and be attached to a quality feature script if they want to break in.

So how do you do that?  Next time around, I'll tell you my step one.

Saturday 3 February 2007 - I Don't Want To Start Any Blasphemous Rumours But I Think That God Has a Sick Sense of Humor

2007 /has/ to be the year.

We thought we could do it in '01 - heck, we thought we were poised to do it in '99, but now it's 2007, and we have no choice.

We /have/ to make a short film this year.  In fact, the plan is to make two.

For the past several years, we've gotten into this thing called short filmmaking, although we came out here saying it wasn't something "we" would ever do (ego is too big).

I mean, really, it made no sense: who was going to see it, besides our friends?  If it never got into a short film festival, would it ever even see the light of day?  And do short film festivals really lead to anything?  Really?  Name one major filmmaker you know from his or her acclaimed short film in the last ten years, let alone producer, which (remember?) was the "career goal" that ostensibly brought you out to Los Angeles.

And yet we saw something in these "crappy" shorts that our "loser" friends and acquaintainces were making.

These guys were /making films/.

REPEAT: These guys were /making films/.

Not /criticizing/, as we all know you're so good at doing (Mr. http://rottentomatoes.com/vine/j/akhan41)

Actually /making films/.  Being on set, yelling "action," raising money, telling people how to deliver lines, arranging props, getting wardrobe, craftservices - the whole nine.

The difference between them and you?  You watched; they /did/ it.  Ask you if you want to produce a film, you'd say "absolutely."  Somebody says, "okay, I'll write you a cheque.  What's ths first thing you'd do with the money?"

Have to think about the answer?  That's because you haven't actually done it.  So why give anything to you?

Not true of your "loser friends."  They know exactly what they'd do, because they've done it before, and they already know what YOU need first.

If somebody gave them money to produce a film, they'd know exactly what to do with it, because they've done it before.

Like Shelli Ryan.

Remember her?

The assistant who replaced you.  She had just made her short - you still have the DVD in your room somewhere.  The one whose value, again, you questioned at the time, as did that other casting assistant you worked for (you saw her credit on TV the other day - funny thing, she's still a casting assistant.  For the same boss, no less). 

Yeah, Shelli.  What was the name of her feature, that you watched, in a theatre, a few weeks back?

http://www.jakesclosetmovie.com/

THAT Shelli Ryan.

Who made THAT short, whose value you questioned.

Still not convinced?

Think about that while you're doing your dialysis treatment this week.  While you sit there for four hours, hooked to a machine, in a room full of old people who have to ask permission to go to the bathroom, assuming that they're able to do so at all anymore.  Think about that while you're nauseous, knowing that you'll be back to do this again in two days, and that when you leave, your food won't taste as good, and you won't be able to eat a lot of if anyway.  Think about the fact that you went from the kid with the plush job on a network TV show (whose star is now an a list celebrity), as the right hand to an Emmy-Award Winning producer to a near invalid for twelve hours a week, tied to a blood pressure cuff and pumps, cleaning your blood so you won't have to piss. 

Why make a short film?

What else have you got going on?