Blivits! The Children's Story

Blivits! as a Children’s Story Once upon a time, on the high seas of the mediterranean. There lived a sailor who loved the ship he called his home, but he could only stay on the ship for a short while because the Captain of the ship knew that sailing was a young person’s life. One day it happened that the sailor’s time aboard the ship came to an end and he had to leave. So some years after the sailor left his ship, the ship got too old to do its job, as the captain said “sailing is a young person’s life” and the ship was retired. Without its crew, and noone to remember the ship, it just faded away. Until one day, the son of the sailor had the idea to collect all the stories of all the sailors that loved the ship as much as his father did, but the sailors were growing very old and there wasn’t much time to collect all their memories. So they sailor and his son drove around the country, from town to town, looking in all the places the crew used to be, but alas they were missing. They too were fading away without someone to care for their memory. But meanwhile, the more hearty of the sailors had already taken it upon themselves to remember each other, and they gathered every year to drink and revel in the memory of their younger days. Well, the sailor and his son were overjoyed to all the memories of the ship right there in one pace. And the son began to talk with the sailors and write down the memories, and just like that...suddenly, the ship seemed real again, only not exactly as it was before. It had become something different. No one could figure out what was different because everything was exactly as they remembered it. When surprisingly the sailor’s son learned that sometimes people tell stories as the like to remember things rather than like they actually were. So it turned out that not all of the stories were true as they were told! But it also turned out that memories are both more and less accurate than whatever the truth may be, because after all the ship was right there in front of them, and who’s to say which boat was the realest version of the boat the sailor spent his youth on? And for ever after, even though many of the sailors only lived for a short time after telling the sailor’s son their stories,it must have nice for them to know that they weren’t going to be never forgotten. Broken down into two separate stories. Father Story Once upon a time, on the high seas of the mediterranean. There lived a sailor who loved the ship he called his home, but he could only stay on the ship for a short while because the Captain of the ship knew that sailing was a young person’s life. One day it happened that sailor’s time aboard the ship came to an end and he had to leave. So some years after the sailor left his ship, the ship got too old to do its job, as the captain said “sailing is a young person’s life” and the ship was retired. Without its crew, and noone to remember the ship, it just faded away. The sailor went on with his life and eventually married and raised a family. But eventually life caught up to the sailor and he started to grow old. And when the sailor wanted to pass on the stories of his time aboard the ship, he discovered that they had grown as fuzzy. He wished he could remember things more clearly, but it wasn’t until his son suggested they visit some of the places in his stories that sailor felt like he would ever get them back. The sailor and his son traveled around the country, but couldn’t find any of the places or people from the stories. Meanwhile unbeknownst to the sailor and his son, some of the other people that used to live on the ship were feeling same way. So they started to gather and share their stories with each other. When the sailor and his son discovered the other sailors, they were so relieved. The stories weren’t forgotten, everyone had taken a little piece of the memory with them when they left the ship, and when all the pieces were put together the sailor remembered everything just as it was. Son’s Story Once upon a time there was a young man that came from a family of sailors. One day the young man’s father got very sick, and his memories started to fade away. The young man, feared that all the stories he had grown up with might not be remembered after his father forgot them. Until one day, the young man had the idea to write down some of his father’s stories. The father started to talk, and he told the young man about a magic time from the father’s youth, when he sailed around the world with all of his closest friends. The young man asked the father if he would like to go visit the boat that he had sailed on, but the father told the young man that it would be impossible, because the boat had disappeared when it was forgotten. So the young man decided to help the father find the boat. The sailor and his son drove around the country, from town to town, looking in all the places the crew used to be, but alas they were missing. They too were fading away without someone to care for their memory. But meanwhile, some of the more hearty of the sailors had already taken it upon themselves to remember each other, and they gathered every year to drink and revel in the memory of their younger days. Well, the sailor and his son were overjoyed to all the memories of the ship right there in one pace. And the son began to talk with the sailors and write down all of their memories, and just like that...suddenly, the ship seemed real again, only not exactly as it was before. It had become something different. No one could figure out what was different because everything was exactly as they remembered it. When surprisingly the sailor’s son learned that sometimes people tell stories as the like to remember things not like they actually were. So it turned out that not all of the stories were true as they were told! But it also turned out that memories are both more and less accurate than whatever the truth may be, because after all the ship was right there in front of them, and who’s to say which boat was the realest version of the boat the sailor spent his youth on? And for ever after, even though many of the sailors that spent time aboard the ship, only lived for a short time after telling the sailor’s son their stories, no matter how much people wanted to remember them, it must have nice for them to know that they weren’t going to be never forgotten.

Casablanca C.O.P.

CASABLANCA'S C.O.P. "Neutrality leads to conflict."

seeing the vision

1. The best central organizing principle that I can come up with is still "Nostalgia becomes reality". 2. The idea of doing a documentary about something historical is blinding to the point where it destroys any objectivity a film-maker might have. We will never approach the truth of the matter, and in point of fact may only hope to achieve a consensus of opinion about in event in question. My father and I find ourselves in a world, where it is impossible to know the truth of his experiences through anything other than the words of his friends. Their nostalgia becomes the only reality I know, making it a version of the truth in some way. Similarly, for my dad the only truth can be what he remembers, as the physical places are no longer a burden of proof or his memories. 3. My characters do make their own decisions, but the very real dilemma of my story is that the human brain is a fragile thing. My father's memories are becoming increasingly fleeting, since he had brain surgery ten years ago. This is couple with the fact that there are signs of Alzheimer's disease or micro-strokes from the coiling they inserted into his brain during his last procedure. 4. Its a doc, so I probably won't know for sure until its done being edited, but yes, I believe this is what the movie I will make is about.

PERMA

While I whole-heartedly agree with the arguments made by the proponents of PERMA, this ideology assumes that the film-makers are aspiring to at least manipulate the audience into an altered mood. And while that is often the case as the desired outcome of a film going experience, there are exceptions to that rule. This where a microbudgeted movie has the room to be different that its big budgeted cousins. Since the amount of money spent on small scaled movies is so much easier to return to investors there is a freedom to strive for a goal other than escapism or emotional manipulation. This does not apply to all films though and the question I am concerned with is whether microbudget filmmakers should be concerned with Lindsay Doran's advice about following the PERMA model. The answer to this is of course the should be. Any and every rule of screenwriting or principle of artistic design should be studied and and thoroughly understood by aspiring filmmaker. Many rules will be abandoned by the filmmaker, but those departures should be intentional and working towards a larger goal. The commercialization of a movie's ending or even the whole story as Doran's model seems to provide a rough blue print for, should at least in a microbudget paradigm not be the filmmaker's primary intent. In a world of opportunity, it seems silly to handcuff the dramatic decisions of a writer, and the characters in their screenplay by only allowing for stories that arrive at positive (or positive adjacent) outcome. Ultimately, its only the "P" that causes me to shy away from more strongly endorsing PERMA for every movie. I think all movies have a responsibility to engage their audience. I think drama centers around meaningful relationships whether they are positive or negative. All art should aspire to have meaning. Movies shouldn't leave you exactly where they found you, like the expression about never being able to cross the same river twice. However, "For us to experience well-being, we need positive emotion in our lives. Any positive emotion like peace, gratitude, satisfaction, pleasure, inspiration, hope, curiosity, or love falls into this category – and the message is that it's really important to enjoy yourself in the here and now, just as long as the other elements of PERMA are in place." This is where the wheels come off the wagon for me. Firstly, plenty of people revel in other people's misfortune. Secondly, many of the best characters in movie history wouldn't fit that rubric. Orson Welles's Charles Foster Kane in "Citizen Kane" would not. Neither would Robert Deniro's Jake Lamotta in "Raging Bull" or Travis Bickle in "Taxi Driver". Nor would Jean-Paul Belmondo's Michael Poiccard in "Breathless". On the other hand, most of Frank Capra's heros would, similarly as would Steven Spielberg's. Possibly unfairly, this why I shy away from a more universal acceptance of PERMA it narrows the constraints of acceptable character behavior to a point of over-simplification. The most abundant criticism of Capra and Spielberg focus on their limited perspective about the human condition. Movies aren't lithium.

Character Traits

Charles Sutter Physiology 1. Male 2. 31 3. 6'2" 200lbs 4. Brown Hair, Blue eyes, caucasian. 5. Bad posture. 6. usually unkempt. 7. none 8. Italian and Polish Sociology 1. lower middle class 2. academic/artsy 3. post graduate work in progress at public universities. Strong with communication class, terrible with sciences. 4. retired parents, married, no kids 5. agnostic 6. white American 7. in a community for sure. 8. Die-hard Democrat. 9. watches too many movies, doesn't read too much. Psychology 1. Married (insert joke here), strong morals 2. Highly ambitious 3. not having done more with himself yet. 4. alittle too easy going 5. resigned 6. afraid of onions (seriously) 7. extrovert 8. took a couple years of Latin, but that's about it 9. sound judgement, fairly poised in the face of adversity. 10. Smarter than he lets on. Edward Sutter Physiology 1. Male 2. 67 3. 5'10" 225lbs 4. Greying Hair, Blue-green eyes, caucasian 5. Broad shoulders. 6. unusually good spirits 7. too many to list, but most notably a pronounced limp and memory loss. Sociology 1. Working class 2. policeman 3. took five years to get his associates degree in criminal justice. 4. both parents are no longer alive. 5. lapsed something. 6. white American 7. well known and respected amongst neighbors 8. Reagan Republican 9. read all of the Joseph Wambaugh books Psychology 1. See above 2. to enjoy retirement 3. not having been able to follow through on some of his policework. 4. very optimistic 5. not sure 6. hypochondriac. 7. extreme extrovert 8. very persuasive 9. 10. Smarter than he lets on.

vision, scope and financing post 1

Pascal's wager attempts to cuts past through a superficial issue in order to get a more practical one. To an atheist, God's existence is a wholly unknowable proposition. Whether or not that atheist is right or not does not matter because there is no amount of proof that will meet their standard, but Judeo-Christian (as well as every other religion's) beliefs have value removed from what they see as their ultimate reward for their faith. Living a pious life, a truly pious life, would be a rewarding one as you would "treat other's as you wish to be treated yourself" or more bluntly "depart from evil, and do good; seek peace and pursue it." The outcome of such a life (in terms of heaven or hell as an eternal resting spot) is secondary to the acts that such a life would left in its wake, those of charity and kindness.
What this means in terms of using a central organizing principle to defend and explain my film is that the ability to boil down the movie to a single line is only as important as the process of figuring out what movie it is I intend to make. The correctness of my central organizing principle as an explanation of my movie matters less than my having spent a significant amount of time thinking about what the I need to say.
In this way, Pascal can not be wrong. Either their is a God and you should act accordingly, and if not acting like there is a God is more preferable than someone not acting like there is a God. Even if someone were not to believe in the validity of the central organizing principle as the most important tool in a film-maker's bag of tricks, they would still benefit from analyzing their story in a high minded way.

COP: Nostalgia becomes reality.

Subversion, Anger and Learning

I frequently find myself angry at the movies. The number one reason for this is when movies are dumbed down for the audience. Audiences are more and more sophisticated, but they are coddled by today’s movies. My twelve year old cousin just made a movie on his Ipod Touch, not because he was so interested in movies, just because it was an option for him. He is not unique. More and more people are aware of the things that go into a movie, but rather than accepting that, film-makers explain their stories to death and refuse to try new things. A movie like Inception, regardless of whether or not I liked it was a huge box office success while challenging its audience to understand it, as opposed to The Green Lantern, which pretended there had never been a superhero movie to come before it. So many things about almost every movie that comes out during the summer are predictable and expected that it is hard to justify spending the money to see them.
I am always trying to subvert the way that people think about things. Whether its attempting to better explain what the word “hero” means, or its trying to make ironic rap videos, I always attempt to subvert at least some part of the given morals of an issue. I do not believe that I have a monopoly on the truth about these things, but I do believe that unless someone raises the question no one will ever know what their own personal truth is. I don’t ever want to let my audience off the hook. If I have their attention, I fully intend to keep it by challenging their assertions but also treating them with the respect they deserve.
As far as learning from my mistakes. I don’t know if this is me specific or something all artists go through, but I don’t view anything I’ve done as entirely successful. Every time I make a movie, there is something that catches me by surprise. I learn from that surprise, and then the next time I make a completely different mistake.
The biggest lesson I’ve ever learned, is from the worst thing I’ve ever made. At Valencia Community College, you take fundamentals of motion picture production in two parts. In the first part, I made some of the better movies in the class but that was because I knew that I wanted to do this professionally before I even went to school. So I went into the second part with unwarranted expectations about my maturity and ability as a film-maker. I wanted to make a silly little movie about a cop with a tooth ache, but another student in my class “had a great script.” I hated the idea, but allowed myself to be talked into making a movie that I didn’t believe in. It shows in the final project. The movie lacks focus and clarity. So the lesson I’ve learned is that, I have to be fully invested in something for it to be any good. This was also the most miserable I’ve ever been while making a movie. I’ve heard some people can do things for money or any other number of things, but I don’t have that ability.