Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation. Being a writer/director really sets him apart from his contemporaries. His screenplays are a master class in the craft. We decided to put together an easy resource for screenwriters and filmmakers to be able to download Christopher Nolan Screenplays and study his unique storytelling methods.
Christopher Nolan MasterClass: How to Direct Your First Feature Film
Who isn’t familiar with the mastermind who resurrected Batman and made people watch Interstellar twice and thrice even just to find some new angle of the movie?
Being London-born, Christopher Nolan was born to an English father and an American mother, Brenden James Nolan who was an advertising executive while his mother Christina worked both as a flight attendant and English teacher. Having a childhood moving both in London and Chicago, Nolan has both American and British citizenship.
When Nolan was seven years old, he started making movies at the same age. It all began when his father took him to see the first release ofStar Wars (1977) and the theatrical re-release of “2001”. He borrowed his father’s Super 8 camera and started shooting short films with his action figures. Being a Star Wars fan since childhood, he made a stop motion animation tribute called Space Wars.
Christopher Nolan had an uncle who worked for NASA and used to build guiding systems for the Apollo rockets. He sent him some launch footage which he re-filmed off the screen and cut in. Since the age of 11, Nolan had hoped to be a professional filmmaker.
When his family relocated to Chicago, Christopher Nolan started making films with Roko and Adrien Belic and received credit for editorial assistance on the brothers’ Oscar-nominated documentary Genghis Blues (1999).
Nolan worked with Roko and future Pulitzer Prize winner, Jeffrey Gettleman for documenting a safari across four continents, organized by the late Dan Eldon in early 1990s.
Christopher Nolan attended an English boarding school Haileybury and Imperial Service College in the Hertford Heath. He studied English Literature at University College London. He chose UCL solely for film facilities which happened to include Steenbeck editing and 16 mm film cameras.
He and wife Emma Thomas started dating in their first year. They ran a film society and used to screen 35mm films to make money so that members were able to shoot 16mm film shorts.
In college years Nolan shot two short films Tarantella (1989), shown on an independent film and video showcase, Image Union. The second was named Larceny (1995), filmed over a weekend with limited equipment, cast, and crew.
It was funded by Nolan and shot using the society’s equipment and appeared at the Cambridge Film Festival in 1996 and is considered one of the best shorts of UCL.
After graduating from college, Christopher Nolan directed industrial films and corporate videos. He made another short Doodlebug (1997), which was about a guy chasing an insect around the apartment with a shoe only to find out after squashing it that it was his miniature
1998 brought Nolan’s first feature, Following which he funded himself and shot with friends. The plot depicts of a young writer (Jeremy Theobald) who follows strangers in London hoping to get material for his first novel but gets caught up in the criminal world when he failed to maintain distance.
It was based on Nolan’s own experience of living in London and getting his flat burgled.
Made on a modest budget of £3,000 it was shot only on weekends for a whole year. Nolan wrote, edited and photographed himself while Emma co-produced it with Theobald. In its festival run, Following won numerous awards and was well received by the critics as well. It was said to have echoed of Hitchcock classics.
Nolan made an incredible entry upon the film scene with Memento(2000). During a road trip to Los Angeles Nolan’s younger brother gave him the idea for Memento Moriwhich was about a man suffering from anterograde amnesia and uses notes and tattoos to hunt for the killer of his wife. This $4 million film delivered the crime thrillers feels but the twist was the way Nolan presented it.
The recurring memory of the hero was illustrated by a narratives pair. The twist was one was moving forward while the other narrated the story backward. It was premiered at the Venice International Film Festival in September of 2000 at and starred Guy Pearce and Carrie-Anne Moss earning critical acclaim.
Nolan has explored how conscious memories make up the identities in this film.
Being a huge success, it received Golden Globe and Academy Award nominations for the screenplay. Moreover, it bagged Independent Spirit Award for Best Director, Best Screenplay as well as Directors Guild of America Award nomination. It was considered to be one of the best films of 2000s by many critics.
Steven Soderbergh recruited Nolan after seeing his work on Momento, to direct a psychological thriller, Insomnia (2002) which starred the Academy Award winners Robin Williams, Al Pacino and Hilary Swank. Warner Bros. wanted someone more experienced but Soderbergh and his team fought for Nolan and as well for the cinematographer and editor of his choice.
A much conventional film being a remake of 1997 Norwegian film bearing the same name, the budget of the movie was $46 million. Upon asking Al Pacino during the shooting, he said that he could tell right away that he was going to be very proud to say that he starred in a Christopher Nolan movie.
The story is about two detectives from Los Angeles who are sent to Northern Alaskan town to investigate a teenager’s murder. It received positive reviews from critics. The director of the original film was satisfied and called it a well-crafted smart film whose director handling was really good. The film grossed $113 million worldwide and showed Warners that he could definitely handle the demands and pressure of a studio movie.
Intrigued by the character and story, Nolan approached Warner Bros. in 2003 with the idea to make a Batman film which reflected a classic drama than a comic book story. The biggest project he had undertaken, Batman Begins was a massive commercial and critical success which revived the franchise. It starred Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman.
It narrates the origin story of the character from bat fear, death of his parents, becoming Batman and fight against Ra’s al Ghul to save Gotham City. It was the 8th highest grossing film in US and 9th highest worldwide. It was nominated for three BAFTA awards and Academy Award for Best Cinematography.
Before Batman, Nolan produced, directed and co-wrote the Prestige (2006) which was Christopher Priest novel’s adaptation. The plot was about two rival magicians of the 19th century. Starring Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale in lead roles, it earned critical acclaim as well as Oscar nomination for Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography.
The sequel to Batman Beginswas announced in July 2006. Released to immense critical acclaim, The Dark Knightreleased in 2008 and cited as the best super-hero films ever.
It was nominated for eight Oscars at the 81st Academy Awards and won two: posthumous Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger) and Academy Award for Best Sound editing. Recognized by his peers, Nolan earned nominations from DGA, PGA and Writers Guild of America.
A huge commercial and critical success, Inception (2010) starred a large cast which was led by Leonardo Dicaprio. Inception was a proof that it is possible for art and blockbusters to be the same thing. Grossing over $820 million worldwide, Inception was nominated for eight Oscars and won four for Best Picture, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing an, Best Visual Effects.
Christopher Nolan was hugely appreciated and praised by being awarded a Writers Guild Award for the film and earning nominations for Golden Globe, DGA, PGA and BAFTA awards.
The third Batman film was released in 2012, The Dark Knight Rises. It was also a big success and won critical acclaim.
Nolan was to direct, write and produce a science-fiction film as announced in 2013 January, titled Interstellar. The first drafts were written by Nolan and it was to be directed by Steven Spielberg.
Based on the renowned theoretical physicist Kip Thorne’s scientific theories, the film was a journey to the farthest borders of scientific understanding. Starring Anne Hathaway, Matthew McConaughey, Bill Irwin and Jessica Chastain it was co-distributed and co-financed by Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures.
Interstellar was released to a strong box office response and positive reviews on 5th November 2015 and grossed $670 worldwide. It won the Best Visual Effects at the 87th Academy Awards and received nominations for Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Original Score and Best Production Design.
The filmmaking process of Christopher Nolan is a combination of geometry and intuition. He gives his actors as much takes they may need of a given scene. Nolan likes to shoot on natural settings and real locations. His style is deeply influenced by film noir. He prefers to shoot on film rather than digital and use of digital cinematography and digital intermediates are opposed by him. He favors deep and haunting shadows and prefers the documentary styled lighting. According to Christopher Nolan, he is inspired by M.C Escher, the Dutch graphic artist.
His style is deeply influenced by film noir. He prefers to shoot on film rather than digital and use of digital cinematography and digital intermediates are opposed by him. He favors deep and haunting shadows and prefers the documentary styled lighting. According to Christopher Nolan, he is inspired by M.C Escher, the Dutch graphic artist.
Christopher Nolan is by far one of the greatest directors of his generation. His ability to dance between an indie film mindset and major world-wide blockbuster is extremely rare these days. I have spoken to people who work with him on the backlot of Warner Brothers and it’s known that Christopher Nolan does not read email or even has a cell phone. He says:
“I’d rather spend my time working on my films.”
That shows you the man’s dedication to his craft.
If more Hollywood directors would worry more about how to make their film projects better and actually work on their craft it would be a very different cinematic landscape.
Cinema Verite is a French film movement, which took place back in the 1960s. This film movement forced the movie industry to pay more attention to incorporating natural actions and authentic dialogue into the movies, which showed people in day to day lives. Basically, the movement was about observing and capturing life as it was or finding truth in the moving images.
Before this movement, filmmakers recorded footage, interviews, and actual conversations separately. The camera was usually handheld. Then they would review the footage and cut them altogether. However, this technique did not have the ability to give life to realistic-looking movies.
Many different factors influenced the production of documentary movies in the 20th century. Post World War II, the neorealist movement, and the British independent documentaries hold a prominent place out of them. In fact, all these reasons contributed significantly to the rise of Cinema Verite during the 1960s. However, the film industry elites heavily criticized the Cinema Verite movement at that time.
That’s because it focused more in reportage instead of showing the expressions of the artist. However, the primary objective of the Cinema Veritemovement was to direct movie industry into greater realism. The method made it possible to create a tremendous impact on the documentary filmmaking, which can even be seen today.
History of Cinema Verite
Cinema Verite was able to give life to some of the outstanding productions in the history of French Cinema. Chris Marker’s Le Joli Mai and Jean Rouch’s Chronique d’un ete, which were released during the early 1960s, are perfect examples to prove the above-mentioned fact.
A movement that is similar to Cinema Verité was originated in the United States as well. It was powered by the introduction of 16mm equipment, which had the ability to record audio and video content in a synchronous manner. This equipment was portable and relatively inexpensive when compared to the other devices that were being used in the movie industry at that time.
The movement that took place in the United States was also known as Cinema Verite, but it became popular as Direct Cinema, because of the obvious language barrier. The primary objective of this movement was to capture the movements and expressions of a person in a realistic manner. This movement was against the rearrangement of the camera.
The pioneers of this movement include the Maysles brothers, Donn Pennebaker, Frederick Wiseman, and Ricky Leacock. The immense contributions they did to the Cinema Verite movement in the United States delivers positive results even up to date.
What Ever Happens, Happens!
As mentioned earlier, Cinema Verite was able to create a significant impact on the global film industry. Those influences can even be seen today. Therefore, it is important to compare Cinema Verité with the modern documentary style and get to know about the noticeable differences that exist in between these two.
The popularity of modern documentary has significantly increased throughout the past couple of years. However, the roots of it go back to the 1960s, where Maysles brothers came into the industry. It was changed along with the generations, but the primary influences remained unchanged.
First of all, it is important to have a clear understanding of the meaning behind real documentaries. Even though movies that were based on actual stories were released back in history, the raw essence of people was not incorporated into them. In other words, real places, real events, or the interests of real people were not taken into account as a whole when creating the documentaries.
Even though the exact meaning behind true documentary has changed along with time, it is based on some fact or truth. The films that fit into it can be divided into two broad categories as Cinema Verité and modern documentary.
Check out the amazing HBO film Cinema Verité, starringDiane Lane, Tim Robbins, and James Gandolfini.
The first documentary was created back in 1922 by Robert J. Flaherty. The film’s name was Nanook of the North. This silent documentary was filmed in the frozen wilds of Canada. No historical evidence about a feature-length documentary is found before this film, and it can be considered as the first-ever documentary as a result of it. The government of the United States knew the importance of this documentary.
This is the main reason why the government selected this documentary into the first 25 films to be preserved. The Library of Congress plays a significant role in these preservation activities.
Now it is important to take a look at Cinema Verité, which took place during the 1960s. Cinema Verité movement was originated along with the French New Wave movement.
The increasing popularity of portable audio and camera equipment contributed a lot towards the origins of it. In other words, Cinema Verité gave life to a studio type style of production. Cinema Verité promoted the production of movies that captured a raw style with the help of on location, audio, video and lighting.
David Maysles, Albert Maysles, and Robert Drew were prominent figures behind Cinema Verité. They took necessary measures to introduce new advancements into this conceptual style along with the help of direct cinema. These new additions emphasized direct relationships between the subjects and the film crew. As a result, they were able to give life to more realistic looking productions at the end of the day.
Before the Cinema Verité, there was a narrator in all the documentaries, who explained things to the audience. Cinema Verité eliminated the role of the narrator, and it gave life to a new revolution. In fact, it delivered more freedom to the editor. That’s because the editor got the freedom to tell the story with freedom and in an obscure manner.
The modern documentary style has some differences when compared to the Cinema Verité style. The main difference that you can find in between these two styles is the presence of a narrator. On the other hand, a lot of time, as well as effort, are being put into the post-production stage of modern documentaries. Also, the cinematography is a lot more sophisticated than the documentaries which came out as a result of Cinema Verité.
The post-production stage is associated with a variety of activities that include sound design, music design, graphic effects, and other forms of editing. More directorial control came out as a result of Cinema Verité. They looked more like the documentaries that were created by Michael Moore. Roger and Me is a perfect example to prove the fact mentioned above.
Facts about Cinema Verite
Cinema Verite is also known as observational cinema. If you pay close attention to this style, you will figure it out as more of pure direct cinema. That’s because it does not incorporate the voice-over of a narrator.
You will also be able to figure out a couple of subtle, but important changes. Cinema Verite was associated with the interaction between the subject and the filmmaker along with style setups. This interaction was there up to the point of provocation as well.
They firmly believed that it is the most convenient method available for them to express the truth behind the cinema. Cinema Verite acknowledged the camera as well. In fact, the camera plays a significant role by filming people, objects, and events related to the scene in a confrontational manner. The primary goal of the filmmaker was to represent the exact reality that he was experiencing at the time of recording.
They believed that giving life to such realistic outputs can free people from all sorts of deceptions. To achieve this, the filmmakers wanted to be the catalysts of all situations. As a result, they had to put a tremendous effort into the entire scene as well.
In the Cinema Verite style, the filmmakers set up the whole scene and then proceed to record them and capture lightning in a bottle. An excellent example of this is the 1963 film Pour La Suite Du Monde. The filmmaker asked a group of senior individuals to fish for a whale. The result of the documentary was not recording how a group of elders was whale fishing.
It was about lineage and memory. In this sense, Cinema Verite style is concerned about anthropological cinema. The political and social implications were also captured in the movies. On the other hand, it changed the way how a filmmaker shoots a film and what are the objects that are filed in it. On the contrary, Cinema Verite focused on what specific objects should be recorded on a movie and the way how it should be presented to the audiences.
LATE SHOW WITH LINDSAY ANDERSON
Whatever he thought of this country he railed against it he was never happy out of it he was very British he was Scott’s also his background very English in his concerns and institutions and was trying to create images of this country.
Clip: After they finish work the boys usually make for Albert’s one of the cafes around the garden that is open late at night.
It was quite clear to Lindsay Anderson and his friend (name) it was impossible to break into the British cinema coming straight out of the university the only way to get into cinema was to make documentaries.
We were all sort of socialist but the films weren’t at all in sense bulimic or programmatic or anything like that they were they actually took their queue from I suppose the cinema from Humphrey Jennings that is to say working from observation of unrehearsed human details.
We were very conscious of, I was very conscious of the need to be what I call ethic to fashioned the material into something and not suddenly sit down and have a lot of talking heads blathering into the camera lens pretty uninteresting I think.
It was never a school or an organization or an office or a company it was an idea and everybody went on to do other things, I mean Lindsay for instance went on to do a lot of theatre.
I was assigned to Lindsay as an assistant at the Royal Court I had never met him before and my first memory rather than even been about the play was he taking me to the transport cable rather than putting me on the mat to find out if I was going to work out alright with him and as I remember he was very anxious to kind of challenged anything he thought of as being middle class bully minded conventional, but I think everyone felt that something new and exciting was happening.
We were going to change things perhaps naïve at that point which of course excited Lindsay very much and I think he really thrived on that atmosphere and probably the court was as nearer spiritually as Lindsay has ever found.
CLIP: I don’t know in the process of this and you putting it down and then we got stuck and we don’t have any more to do.
I thought I would take it off and put it over my arm wait for Bill to finish his.
It gave him much greater experience and a very useful one of dealing with actors which he didn’t have much of before this was of course extremely valuable for him when he came to make his feature film.
CLIP: Man: I know much about you to keep you in the rubber room for the rest of your life.
Lady: You don’t know nothing about Eddie or me you don’t know nothing about Eddie.
Man: I know he put the file through his guts.
He directed in a way that there was almost non directorial every time you turn the corner he was there facing you every time you turn around he was at your shoulder, he was always under your bed when you went to bed, always with you always with you always talking about it always investigating it always planting seeds and one day you thought you were on your own you were part of his world.
He was a great free spirit Lindsay and is a great emotional Lindsay which if you ever touch it wonderfully free and embracing.
Stories book is in a tradition of a DH logs because it was about people who have great difficulty in articulating their emotions and in the way and to bring this out was to convey this stylistically in the movie.
Lindsay’s difficulty and the generosity in making it were really focused around that and trying to get inside and some very personal experience from the outside and finding his rational and being able in somewhere to understand it and not seem to objectively or too objectively so it became an objective almost an expressionistic technique.
One would have thought that after the sporting life that Lindesay would have been in great demand as it happened the film did not make a great deal of money and so he wasn’t a bankable director, the British ran in quite a lot of trouble the London cinema came out (5:26) which he greatly despise and eventually he had the opportunity to make if which came in with the revolutionary of the late sixties.
CLIP: You mustn’t think that I don’t understand it is a natural characteristic of adolescent.
Interestingly Peter Jeffers Donald in this scene was to a large extent lifted from the book called How Eating Works but I didn’t.
CLIP: I think you boys know I keep an open mind on most things and one thing I am certain short hair is no indication of (inaudible 6:08) so often I noticed hair rebels who stepped in the British whether there is a fire in the house or to sacrifice in order to give a holiday party to slum days in the country.
The country was arthritic in the sense that it was arthritic and yet it was the particular young people who were after change so the school pubic school would be a very good place to would be precisely where you set the (6:36) and that it was both traditional and yet somehow trading people who were discontent.
CLIP: You done it. like here really it comes out of documentary background you know you shoot in here it’s just a record of what it is like to being in this room and he also done a lot of theatre work so he knows how to dramatize the area but it’s still draws line in a way you know that Hollywood director would have started. He would have built all this and he wouldn’t have bothered to address the detail of it.
It is a film which conveys I think what I feel about life which is certainly a suspicion of all institutions and authorities and as for it hitting the right moment of that, it was absolutely astonishing because you could see it was transparently what everybody was interested in what went to the center of their lives and in that way it sometimes happens.
The film came at a time for Lindsay his careeralmost(8:22) from 1945 when as a young army officer he put the red flag out above the officers mess in India where he was then serving right through his disillusion with labour.
CLIP: Good morning say hello to Mr. Travis, please to meet you Mr Travis Barlo name), please to meet you at your service oh, this is Mavis be nice to Mr Travis Mavis, but not too nice, happy to greet you. Great pleasure, Come here come here. We have come to the part of the show you have all been waiting for.
I think Lindsay was some of the needed support and encouragement despite there is apparent self sufficient ironic defiant exterior and I think this starting collapsing and I think the subjects for the films really went out of fashion out of politically fashion and when once the agency came Lindsay is much too radical and to subversive about what he said about society about England.
No artist is worth much as name change the world of course no artist can be judge by his success or failure but to change the world since none of us have succeed we can only hope to change or to influenced likeminded spirits or hearts by telling the truth.
Hanson as a film critique and as a film director do these two things come together is one of the great English (10:21) he is a person who calls us as readers and …to see that film is of the utmost social importance. This is the kind of cinema he wanted to create and despite all he should not have the opportunity to stick around and making movies, but the sad thing was that his own writing his own example meant so little to the younger film makers so certainly neglected.
CLIP: Would you like standard or golden, standard or golden what the difference, well the golden service they retexture and hand finish. Okay, golden service. We are on it keep the crease in the trousers? “keep the crease yes and don’t forget I am a shareholder”. Do you ever let us forget? I certainly can’t afford to.
You can see Lindsay Anderson’s last film Is That all There Is on BBC 2 on Saturday and indeed that is all there is for the late show for Night.
CHRONICLE OF A SUMMER
Subsequent to this festival where they met each other ..claims some critical writing where they Cinema Verite or cinema of truth which often gets interpreted it is in a sense homage to the work of (name 14) the Russian film maker who claimed the term KINNO-NPBBA meaning also the truth of cinema in both cases their meaning not that the film is showing us the truth but the film provokes its own kind of truth that within the film we see a kind of truth emerging.
So very differently the that direct cinema folks in the US at the time who were like the camera will tell the truth it’s the fly on the wall that will just follow people the idea of interfering and showing people making up a film and at the same time was you know completely shocking and often the two movements are considered to be very much the same and they are not they are very much in dialogue.
So they were very interested in creating these kinds of scenario to evoke a kind of explanation of what the truth might be and the lives of parishioners at this time and just by the fact that diversity of people in the film they were already anticipating there were many ways to imagine what that might be.
Bruce believed that people in performance or in ritual or any form of dramatization people only become more of they really are so there is not a lack of truthfulness because people are performing because people are in ritual I mean he sort of extends this from his view of ritual they are just revealing another aspect of themselves.
I think that they were somewhat naively hopeful that somehow all these people would come to really love each other through the film and be comfortable with each other’s representations and that actually did not occur. It is part of what I think makes the film successful from most viewers.
If you are a fan of District 9 well you are in for a treat. Alive in Joburg is the short film that started it all. With amazing visual effects and a unique style, you can see writer/director Neill Blomkamp’s talent. Neill went on to direct Elysium and Chappie. He also launched Oats Studios where he directs high-end experimental short films.
Alive in Joburg is a 2006 Canadian science-fiction mockumentary short film written and directed by Neill Blomkamp and starring Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, and Dawie Ackermann. The film explores themes of apartheid and is noted for its visual effects as well as its documentary-style imagery.
Watch the entire short film below.
You can watch our exclusive interview with Neill Blomkamp. He discusses his creative process, how he made Alive in Joburg and District 9.
Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?
Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.
Everyone is quite familiar with the famous RashomonEffect and those who are not, the term refers to the real world situations in which there are versions and testimonies of various eye-witnesses.
These eye-witnesses can be in your head what is described in the actual movie is what happens to us every single day.
Directed by Akira Kurosawa and released in 1950, Rashomon has won numerous international awards and introducing the world to the Japanese film scene.
Kurosawa was forty years old when he made this movie and was at the initial stages of his career which was to last for five decades giving some greatly produced movies to be ever made in the Japanese film industry. And also to leave a lasting impression on film production. Rashomon surfaced at that time of his career journey when he left Toho for some time where the studio was located which was to be the home of his many more films to come.
Apart from being incredibly directed, Rashomon became renowned for grasping the difficulties which humans come across regarding experiences and memory.
The plot of the movie is focused on a grove where an accident took place. A dead body of a samurai is found who was stabbed to death by a woodcutter. With reference to this crime a bandit is captured but the twist lies in the fact that his testament in court as well as those of the samurai’s wife and the woodcutter who came across the samurai’s body all happen to present outspokenly different realities or versions of the truth.
The various perspectives are portrayed in the movie but the most vivid and clear concept is that the stories happen to be self-serving. The bandit’s narrative shows him as a braver and a bolder character as compared to the other accounts.
The woodcutter on the other hand, leaves out a very significant detail which could have raised fingers at him and get him into jeopardy. Whereas the samurai’s wife is either a very helpless victim or rather a scheming and sinister woman.
The viewer is left in speculation though and may be even those who are telling the stories and not too sure what the truth actually is which will make them face the reality.
During the years from 1949 to 1951 Kurosawa made movies for Shintono, Shochiku and Daiei. Albeit Daiei was somewhat hesitant and showed reluctance to fund Rashomon because he was of the view that the movie was quite unconventional and exceptional from the traditional movies that are generally made. According to Daiei, the film was quite eccentric and will be difficult for the audiences to understand.
All of those fears doubts and proved to be groundless when Rashomon became one of the most worthwhile and profitable films of 1950. Daiei’s view that the film is unconventional was not all wrong, it was and even quite deep-seated in design as well and all of these added into its originality and aided in making it go sky high with international cinema at such a time when art cinema was surfacing with very strong and powerful potency on the film circuit.
With immense averseness, the film was allowed to be submitted for an overseas festival competition. Rashomon won the first prize in the prestigious 1951 Venice Film Festival. It was through Rashomon that world got to know about the expertise and talents of Kurosawa as well as the assets of Japanese cinema.
Rashomon Effect is not only about the variations in the perspective but is occurs specifically where these differences arise combined with the lack of evidence to heighten or disqualify any version of the truth including the social pressure for the closure of such situation.
Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?
Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.
Similar to a number of movies by Akira Kurosawa, Rashomon is two-story based film and set during a time period when the society was going through a social crisis. And in this instance, Japan’s 11th century period is revealed which is chosen by Kurosawa to shed light on the farthest points and extremities of the human behaviour.
As the film is opened, the screen shows three characters who are seeking shelter from a raging rainstorm underneath the ruined gate of Rashomon. This gate is used to guard the southern entrance of the imperial capital city of Kyoto.
As this group waits for the storm to pass, the priest (Minoru Chiaki), the commoner (Kichijiro Ueda) and the woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) dicuss a scandalous crime of a noblewoman (Machiko Kyo) who was raped in the forest and her husband the dead Samurai, (Masayuki Mori) was killed by someone or himself and a thief Tajomaru (Toshiro Mifune) who was arrested in this regard.
Rashomon Effect on the World
Rashomon has surpassed its own status as a film and effected the culture at large too. It symbolized the general notions about the truth and the unreliability of memory. The Rashomon Effect is usually spoken of in the legal industry by judges and lawyers when the first hand witnesses come up with conflicting testimony.
Kurosawa came to rank amongst the leading international figures of cinema with Rashomon and following movies by him. It was more than just a commercial entertainment film. It had ideas of a serious artist possessing aesthetic design.
The modernist narrative not only impressed the audience making it a classic but the massive visual skill and power which was brought to the screen with amazing shots of forest, the sun directly. It was incredibly a sensual film. Nobody has ever filmed forest like this.
The film was a conscious attempt to recreate and recover the marvel of silent filmmaking. The cinematography by the Kazuo and editing are marvellous. Many sequences of the film were purely silent in which the imagery seems to speak and carries the action.
One such sequence which was the best in the series of moving camera shots was of following of the woodcutter in the forest before he happens to find the evidence of the crime.
The brilliant designs of Kurosawa’s films which are motivated with precision makes him a great filmmaker. Like the rest of his outstanding films, Kurosawa responds and reacts to his world as a moralist as well as an artist.
Japan was devastated after the Second World War and that is why Kurosawa’s embarked on a journey with immense artistic ambition as well as moral urgency to make a series of films. Seeking via his art, to produce a legacy of hope and faith for a ruined nation.
The desire for restoration which these stories clearly exemplified had to deal with a struggle with an entirely opposite and dark too. Rooted in the cynical and distrustful reflections of human nature, Kurosawa’s films tend to have a tragic dimension.
With the aid of the common human propensity to cheat and to lie, he manifested a tale in which the ego, disloyalty and conceit of the characters make the search of truth such a tough thing to find making it too difficult. The question arises that whose account is to be believed? Whose testimony of the crime is to be relied on? Who is correct? It is a question which one cannot seem to find the answer to as all versions of the truths are distorted in such ways that only benefit their narrators.
The world faces a dark moment as the ego takes over everything. Portraying a quite dark scenario, at the last moment with utter simplicity and beauty, Kurosawa pulls back from the darkness he exposed. The woodcutter makes the decision of adopting the abandoned baby and as he walks away with the child in his arms, the rainstorm lifts.
No matter what one decides regarding the conclusion of Rashomon, it is as genuine and real as it comes making it truly a classic. The greatness that emanates from this movie is both undeniable and palpable.
The nonlinear narrative and the sensual style which formed this film and in turn reformed the face of cinema is outstanding because to expect this from someone who was still a young filmmaker is astonishing.
Transcription: Kurosawa and Rashomon
Kurosawa’s Rashomon is a particularly dramatic example of a film that understands itself to have the kind of claim on its audience that the greatest art has always imagined itself to have on its audience. So I want to begin by talking very briefly about what I call the moment of Rashomon. There’s a bit of confusion or at least historical, chronological confusion, or inconsistency in the notion that in the in the principle that we end the course with a film that was made and shown internationally before the sum of the last two films that we’ve seen in our course.
But my reasons for that, as I partly explained in an earlier lecture had to do with the fact with my desire to show a certain continuity amongst forms of European cinema, and the link between genre Anwar and the Italian Neo realists, and the French nouvelle vog is so intimate, that it seemed to me important to show you that progression in sequence.
But if we had been going by strict chronological order, we would have introduced this Kurosawa film a bit earlier, because it was made in 1950. And, and in 1951, it won an important International Prize of the Golden Lion, the highest prize available at the Venice Film Festival in 1951. And this had a seismic effect on internet on movies around the world. The dramatic and powerful subject matter of Kurosawa’s film, of course, riveted attention. But even more than that, the the freedom and imaginative energy of his stylistic innovations in the film had a profound impact on on filmmakers around the world. And the the when the film was shown in at Venice in 1951.
What another affected had been one of the prize was to introduce Japanese cinema to a wider world. It was the first significant Japanese film, Kurosawa, the first important Japanese director to gain reputation a reputation outside of Japan itself. In fact, there are many film buffs, and especially specialists in Japanese film, who are somewhat resentful of Kurosawa’s eminence, even though no one denies that he is an eminent director. Because there are other directors, the two I’ve listed under item two in our in our outline are the most dramatic examples, Mizoguchi and also who are often thought to be his superior, even greater directors than Curacao. This is a debate forth.
This is a debate of nuances. All three of these directors are major artists. But But it is true, I think. And it is widely recognized that Kurosawa was the director who, who crossed that barrier more, more immediately, at more dramatically than any other and open the world, not just to Japanese cinema in some degree, but opened the world in some longer sense to Asian cinema more generally, that the so called Western world, the European and an American cinema universes, had been fairly oblivious to Asian cinema and certainly to Japanese cinema.
Prior to this, and the appearance of Rashomon, its enormous impact in 1951, began to change that. So that was demonstrated in part in that moment in when when Rashomon won this award, won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival was a reinforcement of a principle I’ve been discussing throughout the semester, the notion of film as an international medium, the idea that the notion that that directors from different national cinemas were now being deeply influenced by directors from from other nations.
And that and that film itself was in some deep way, a global phenomenon, this even even an international form. And, and this, I think it was in the 50s and early 60s that this idea began to become more and more widely embraced by film goers in the United States and in Europe, but perhaps especially in the United States. And one mark of this of this, of this the emergence of cinema as a as a fully recognized independent art form.
Obviously, people had thought this and many directors had achieved artistic distinction before this, but I’m Talking about sort of the public understanding of movies, the way people in different cultures actually recognized implausible thought about movies. It was as if this is the moment in which movies were understood to enter the museum in a certain way to earn in public in a public sense, the status that that more traditional art forms had had. And one of the explanations for why this would have been so
why it would have had such a powerful impact. I think I mentioned last time that this insight was partial in the United States, especially That is to say, in the 50s and early 60s, it began to dawn on movie critics and scholars and of whom there were only a few at that time and and then movie audiences that European films and Asian films, especially Japanese films, might have great artistic value. But it was it was a longer time before Americans began to realize that their own native forms of films had had a similar kind of authority. And so this moment, in the in the early 1950s, was a deeply significant one.
Let’s remember, historically, what it represented in in in Europe and in the United States. It’s the moment of the emergence of Italian neorealism, which itself begins to establish a kind of very powerful claim on people’s on people’s attention. Oh, one irony of Rashomon success was that it was not very successful in Japan, when it was released in 1950. And the producers, the production company responsible for the film was very dubious about entering it in the competition, didn’t think it was a significant film.
But even though it transformed Kurosawa’s career, because of the immense recognition, it finally got, and corsola himself recognized, he’d been making films for almost a decade before that, but Rashomon was his most ambitious film to that point. And it also incorporated more innovative strategy, visual strategies than any he had tried before. established him as an international director, and I mentioned the names of two other directors, just as a from different traditions as a way of reminding you of, of another feature of this phenomenon.
Another reason, as I began to say earlier, for why this moment was such a significant one. And the term I use here is modernism modernist cinema. Remember, one of the ways to understand this idea is to recognize that a great revolution in the arts had occurred at the turn of the 20th century, the end of the 19th. And at the turn of the 20th century, and we’ve talked about this earlier, it’s the movement we call modernism, right? It’s the moment of Picasso, it’s the moment of James Joyce.
And it was a kind of revolution in both art, visual art, literature, music, took place in this period, and and what was characteristic, among the characteristics of this modernist movement was a new was it was a newly complicated and self conscious attitude toward narrative itself towards storytelling. So it was a modernism in literature and ignored, involved, among other things are kind of a continent, if not a hostility, at least a kind of a kind of, or antagonism, at least the kind of skepticism about inherited traditional categories and ways of doing things.
One form this took a narrative was to decide what to dislocate or disorient the narrative line, instead of telling a story in a chronicle chronological sequence, a lot of the great works of fiction of the modern of the modernist era of books, books by writers like Joseph Conrad, or or Proust, the great French novelist who was so preoccupied by memory and human subjectivity, or the great German novelist, Tomas, mon, number of other great figures that we could mention began to construct stories in which in which chronological order was profoundly disrupted. And they also began to connect, create stories in which there were multiple narrators, in which and the effect of multiple narrators begins.
Even in even if you do nothing more than have multiple narrators, you begin to raise questions about the about the veracity, the truthfulness of the of any single perspective. And you will understand when you look at Rashomon why this movie embodies the many of these same modernist principles. But the point is that cinema as a as a as a narrative form, lag behind these more traditional arts. And it really wasn’t until the 1950s. And partly because of films like Rashomon, that it began to be recognized that the movies too, could embrace and embody the principles of modernism.
So one way to understand what happened in the 1950s was, was to right now is to is to recognize that directors like Kurosawa and Ingmar Bergman, the great Swedish director, and Fellini, the great Italian director of the the inheritor and a expander of the Neo realist tradition going far beyond a narrow realism, that directors like that began to create films that in a in a formal sense in a structural sense, in and also in terms of their content had the kind of complexity nuance and skepticism, that and even the philosophic of self awareness that would that was characteristic of high modernism at the turn of the 20th century.
So it’s as if what was going on was the movies themselves, were now asserting themselves as a modernist art, right? I don’t mean as a contemporary art, right, I’m referring specifically to the modernist movement and to the end to the end to the dislocated, and, and, and, and much more demanding kinds of narrative strategies that are characteristic of the modernist movement.
So Rashomon played a fundamental role in this sort of transformation of what we might call the cultural understanding of movies among ordinary people, as well as among scholars, critics and other filmmakers. I want to mention one other point, give you a kind of note, to clarify, from some of what I’ve been implying, what what I want some of what I implied when I talked about Mizoguchi and Mizoguchi and Ozu as directors who are often more even more highly regarded than Kurosawa.
I’ll leave that to each individual film goer. All three directors are astonishing and remarkable. But it wouldn’t it be appropriate to talk even about this single film Rashomon, without paying respects to those two great directors whose dates I’ve put on your on your outline. I won’t talk about individual films by these directors, but I urge you all to look them up in in read about them in David Cook’s history of narrative film, and think about experimenting by extending your knowledge of Japanese cinema by trying films by these two remarkable directors.
One of the things that’s characteristic of all three of these directors of Kurosawa, even more fully of Mizoguchi, and ozone, ozone most fundamentally of all, is that their films are marked by a kind of impulse towards stylization, toward fabulous, feeble like creations, that distinguish them in some ways from Western from European and American films. And I think that one reason one explanation for this has to do with the long, longer artistic traditions of Japanese society.
Japanese film grows out of theatrical traditions like kabuki theater, or no drama, and drama, both of which have profoundly stylized and fable like qualities. They’re anti narrative, in some sense, and any of you who have ever had even minimal experience with either of these two theatrical traditions will understand what I’m what I’m discussing that these are theatres of gesture, and up and up, and have very decisive sort of symbolic representation. They are
what we would think of as sort of realistic characters, or realistic stories are, are not a part of these very ancient traditions, these theatrical traditions go back hundreds, even 1000s of years. So there’s a there’s a tradition in Japan of a kind of stylized, of symbolic representation. And, and you’ll, you’ll see, I think, how of how, in Russia, how powerful this principle operate, how powerfully this principle operates in Rashomon, what even when the film even when film itself emerged in Japan in the silent era, when emerged in a slightly different way.
And one of the most interesting features of the silent film tradition in in Japan was the appearance of a character who has no counterpart in western cinema, a character called a Benji bns, a char, any of you heard of it? None. What he was essentially was a narrator and explainer, and he stood next to the movies in a way and gave explanations right, he said,
Now, we will introduce the villain now we will introduce the you know, he was like a kind of intermediary, a narrator, or, or a concierge Who, who, who mediated between the audience and the text who gave the audience information. Again, it’s a deeply in one sense, we might think of it as a as a as an anti narrative tradition as a tradition in which things are presented or spoken rather than literally acted out or, and certainly one in which in which, in which the details of a story are less important than its than its general, then its general outline.
So when we talk about stylization, one of the things we’re talking about is an impulse toward what we might think of as generalized argument instead of a specific argument, and an impulse to have one moment stand symbolically for many other moments. And what we might think As a simplification, or a, or a distillation of reality, into certain symbolic moments that are that are thought to be emblematic in certain ways, but don’t necessarily have a realistic feel.
And you’ll see almost instantly when this film begins, I mean, there’s a there’s a kind of prologue. And then when the film makes a transition into the first sequence that takes place in the forest, you’ll begin to see what I mean when I say that the film seems to enter into a kind of symbolic realm in which you’re in which your sense of reality is, in some sense of undermined, as if you’re entering into a dream or a symbolic space. Kurosawa, talking about that astonishing sequence at the beginning of Rashomon said that the the cameras, complex movements and the
movements of the of the character himself, everything is in motion in that remarkable opening sequence. Some people have called it the most visually poetic sequence in the history of movies, what you call our call, this moment, a moment in which the camera was shown to be penetrating where the into a space where the heart loses its way, as if you’re penetrating into a, into an ancestral space, into a, into a space of space that’s dreamlike, in fundamental ways.
So that very opening of the film istat were almost very opening of the film establishes this kind of complexity, this kind of I don’t want to exactly call it an ambiguity, but this, this, this complexity, about the about the nature of the reality that you’re watching, and this is even before the film proceeds to to present, essentially four different accounts of the same event, these four different accounts conflicting with each other in a variety of ways.
So these, these abstracting, or symbolizing, or stylizing narrative of add dramatic traditions lie behind and shape the movies in Japan, even movies like Kurosawa’s, which embrace the cameras freedom in a way that’s much more characteristic of Western directors than of then of Eastern ones. Although the the the second of the two directors I’ve listed on your on your outline is especially famous for holding his camera almost stationary for tremendously long time for and in fact, he sometimes he is sometimes called he sometimes called a director who tries to create a Zen aesthetic, because the camera is so quiet and so stationary.
And so in relatively inactive, it’s a it’s a style that lays tremendous emphasis on the nuances of facial expression and, and vocal tone. So that and both Mizoguchi and those who do, in some sense, have an even greater sense of stylization in many of their films than then Kurosawa does. But I don’t want to oversimplify because they are also capable of very great realistic moments.
And they have a moral realism that’s at least as powerful in their films as Kurosawa himself. Of course, I was career is a very remarkable one. And and I wish I had time to talk about it in detail. Organizational Structure of Japanese cinema was not unlike the structures that developed in in Western societies in the United States or in France, there were essentially monopolies of not not a small number, but a relatively larger number of film production companies operating at at different levels of significance.
So they were second rate, and there were second level and third level production companies as well. But all of them operated in similar way there was the director was a was a more dominant and major figure in this system. And they surround surrounding each director, what were a group of workers and a group of creative people, including usually performers who went with the director from space to space, from film to film, as well as his technical people that he would often use, they would often use the same people to write the music and the same crew to work on the film that the same if they could succeed, get the same cinematographer.
And the Kurosawa’s It was called Kurosawa’s group was called the Kurosawa Gumi, jus EMI means the group or or khadra, the chorus, our group worked with us on a series of film, I don’t mean it was always identical. There were changes, but it was a stable group unified especially by Kurosawa’s vision and, and supervision.
And I’ve listed here a few of his most famous and fundamental films besides Rashomon, ikiru maybe his greatest film I really Stick film set in the modern world, the title means to live. And it’s about a man who discovers that he has only a few months to live in it stars. The actor, techie Xu Mora who plays the woodcutter in Russia on the actor, the other actor that you’ll see in in Russia on that, that that is one of Kurosawa’s favorites and appears again and again, Kurosawa’s films, is the act of Toshiro BuffOne in Russia, and he plays the bandit, and you’ll see what a remarkable figure he is, though, so I’ve only listed a few of his films here.
But among his most important, Rashomon, ikiru, Seven Samurai, many people would say, the greatest of all Samurai movies, and probably the greatest of all western movies, because it puts most westerns, American westerns to shame. It’s influenced by American westerns, as as Kurosawa himself acknowledged, and it was itself that film and made in 1954, remade as an as an American film some years later, under the title, The Magnificent Seven.
And it was so successful that it was then there was a sequel was made something like this Magnificent Seven return. And in fact, one of the deep features of Kurosawa’s work is that many of his films have been remade by other directors, both American and European directors. Rashomon was made 14 years later or remade. 14 years later, with Kurosawa given screenplay credit in a film directed by Martin rich in the United States called the outrage and it really tells the story that’s at the heart of of Kurosawa’s film.
It starred Paul Newman, among other things, and Edward G. Robinson, among other significant American actors, Throne of blood I mentioned because many people see it as the most successful of all adaptations of Shakespeare. It’s a Japanese Kabuki eyes version of Macbeth, and many people starring to shiroma funi. And many people think of it as the greatest of all Shakespearean adaptations.
Yojimbo is a samurai film a much more straightforward Samurai film in many ways than Seven Samurai, also stars made funi and it has brilliant, brilliant sword fight sequences in it and anticipate the kind of thing that is now common in Asian cinema, but much less trivially done in Kurosawa’s, then many of these later films that merely seem to want to entertain us by their sword play and and the physical grace of their of their actors, but don’t connect nearly so powerfully as cortisol was films due to a profound and serious historical setting and story.
Yojimbo was also made into an American movie called Last Man Standing in 1966. I mentioned kagemusha, only because it’s a later film, and it’s many people, many people admire it. Because it shows that Kurosawa was working effectively, even in old age. He made another film in 1985, one of his final films called Ron ra n, which is a remake of King Lear. And these two older films. Later films kagemusha and Ron, show his v show Kurosawa’s visual sense of visual imagination to great effect.
But they feel stylized in a way that they weren’t stylized may not be the right word. They feel abstract in a way that earlier, Kurosawa’s films do not. They are extraordinary spectacles, but they don’t have the same interest in character, the same focus on character that his earlier films, despite their stylization, seem to do. I’ve saved my most of my time today to talk about Russia on itself. Because it’s such a central and significant film, and I hope when you when you will watch it, you’ll
not be impatient, and you’ll especially that you’ll watch for the ways in which from sequence to sequence, the visual style alters it’s a very, it’s a very demanding film in that sense. Let’s begin by talking a little bit about the problem of rape in cultural stories, because I think that one of the problems with responding fully to Russia man is is that we especially in in, in the in the Western world, are, are newly struggling with notions of of gender identity and, and, and and of the legacy of patriarchy.
That gives us a particularly fraught and complex, but put us in a fraught and complex position in relation to stories like that of this film, and I want to be, I want to confront it right in the beginning. As some of you may know, the story of Rashomon is the story of a rape. There are four different A rape occurs at the center of the film. And the and there are four different accounts of what happened of how the rape occurred. And the film is partly a meditation on why would What? What motives do the different tellers have for for putting this particular spin on the story? How, and and part of what’s subtle and disturbing about the movie is that when when the first testimony is given, it’s not fully clear yet to us that we should be skeptical of the testimony.
And when I think the first time, I think the first one of the test one of the people whose testimony we heard is the murderer himself, or the or is it the rapist himself, the phony character, he’s the first one to testify. And it’s, as he’s testifying, it begins to dawn on an attentive viewer, that maybe his testimony is self serving in certain ways that there are certain way things he’s saying that maybe we shouldn’t fully accept.
And, and then when the next account comes, our sense of skepticism is reinforced, and fortified, we begin to worry about what what and and then the film itself reminds us of the fact that these tales are problematic, because the film structure is so interesting. roughly every 10 minutes or so I’ve timed most of them that are a little less than 10 minutes, in some cases a little longer than some, you’ll have an extended narrative sequence, which will last about 10 minutes.
Usually, it’s the testimony of one of the one of the people appearing before the before the court. And then when that after that happens, the the film, the film sort of shifts into or shifts into another mode. And the way you can tell is that it shifts back to the scene with which the film opens with all the way through the scene. It’s marked by this, but the structure of the film is marked by this return to a scene at at Rashomon gate, and which I’ll explain in a moment.
So the point of the one point that I’m trying I’m trying to get to here is the idea that as we watch the film, and we begin to sort of weigh the accounts that different people give of this, of this rape, many of us are likely to feel uneasy and different and disturbed, because that one of the things that disturbs me in the film is the woman’s reaction to her rape, she feels terrible shame. It’s as if she had felt, and and there’s an impulse, there seems to be an impulse in the film that certainly some people have certainly gotten there, they at least they perceive an impulse in the film, or an impulse in the narrative to blame the victim. Right?
We have to get in some sense, what I’m suggesting is that, not that that response is inappropriate, but that that, that it’s a little bit off key off off center, because if you recall, the idea that the film is deeply stylized, and it’s said in an in an ancestral past in a, in a, in a, in a in a in a in a in a in a medieval Japan, in a moment of terrible social breakdown, in which vestiges or ancestral attitudes towards sexuality and gender are being are being mobilized or awakened. Right. And if we understand that, in that way, we can begin to recognize that our own discomfort with the subject matter is a discomfort that the film itself may even be aware of and may even be encouraging.
And I what as you’re watching the film, watch how in some sense it especially in in one moment, where the where the victim of rape makes an appeal to her husband right after there’s a sequence where, where we see her embracing her husband and looking into his face. Now, the problem is she’s giving this testimony.
And there’s some reason to, it’s after the fact and there’s some reason to doubt what she’s saying, especially as the film goes on. Nonetheless, it’s a it’s a moment of, of great power, and what what and and that moment at least mobilizes sympathy for the victim of rape that is very significant, because you hear so little of it elsewhere, elsewhere in the film, not that the woman is, is is treated badly or but but she’s subjected to the same suspicions as the other as the other central characters.
But there’s a larger thing to think about a larger a larger way, a larger way in which we can accommodate ourselves to the slight discomfort we might feel at turning a story of rape into a philosophic discourse as this film does. And that’s simply here’s how we might do that. Let me just remind you that stories about rape are at the heart of many cultures.
How many of you have heard of the story of the rape of Europa? It’s a Greek myth. None of you. In many ways, it’s the story of the foundation of Europe. Zeus, disguised as a white bull is to the great Greek gods, right the God of all gods and one of one of Zeus. His best habits are the most most remarkable habits in the in the, in this in the in these mythological stories is that when he gets a yen for a human female he will disguise himself as a as a creature of the earth and rape her go down and rape her right and he does this with Europa and the story of the rape of Europa is a kind of symbolic story which is which which later, Europeans actually took as a kind of one of the founding tales of how Europe itself was founded. Can you think of another story in which Zeus is a rapist? How about Lita?
How many of you know the story of Lita and the swan? About about which gates wrote So, so, such beautiful poems, again, Zeus, the God of gods disguises himself as a great Swan, and swoops down on Lena, this beautiful woman, and rapes her as it were in the, in the guise of the swan, and there’s a brilliant, almost pornographic, really powerful poem by wb Yeats, in which he describes this terrible moment of rape.
It’s one of the, it’s one of the great poems of the Western world, and it, it’s about this rape and so that what I’m what I’m reminding you of is that the massage money that you may sense there is a massage money that’s embedded in culture, it’s a massage you need that’s embedded, it’s a massage need that’s embedded in, in all the stories that human beings tell them in many of the stories that human beings tell themselves about, about the world, about the relations of men and women, and often, especially about the foundations of society.
So that so that this, so that this meditation, on on human frailty and human deceit focused on a rape it from that perspective is one of many such stories, not a unique object at all. And it seems to me that it’s that that, that that’s one of the ways in which we can recognize that what Kurosawa is doing is part of a more long and complex and in many ways, very disturbing. habit of mind that many, many cultures share the title, Russia among Western people, students are often puzzled by it, it’s a reference to the name of the gate.
But the word gate is complicated, too, because it’s not an American gate that just opens and closes. It’s a great, great massive entrance to the city of Kyoto in the southern part of Japan in the late 11th, or early 12th century, it’s a period of complete disillusion and, and, and, and destructive poverty, in political chaos. And the broken down condition of the gate, which you get long shots of, you know, you see this massive structure in, under which it’s a terrible rainstorm going on, under which certain people come to get shelter from the rain.
And that is Russia, gate, right. And, and it’s broken down condition symbolizes the broken down condition, of politically and socially of the society represent that is represented there. And again, and again, the characters gathered beneath the gate, to protect themselves from the weather engage in conversation about the about the nature of about human nature, are human beings innately evil, do they always lie can we never trust them. And one of the characters who carries on this discourse is a is a priest, who has a kind, who has an idealizing tendency, which another of the characters a commentary, he’s called the commoner, he’s an ordinary man is constantly mocking and arguing against, it’s almost a kind of argument that reminds me in some ways of the argument between spirit and flesh, in, in Cervantes Don Quixote, in which in which sansho, Pons is constantly reminding the idealizing Quixote of the miserable actuality of the world look, when you get stabbed, you bleed, when you’re, when you haven’t eaten, you’re hungry, right?
The world is real in a way that that that ideal, that ideal and miserable in some respects, in a way that idealists don’t like. And so that’s the kind of argument that runs through these interludes as the as the film goes on. So the title refers to the Russia gate and Russia gate is itself a massive symbol for the breakdown of order for the misery of India for the miserable circumstances that individuals find themselves in and what you one of the things you’ll see is that it’s it’s chilly, it’s cold, it’s raining like mad have tremendous torrential downpour, incidentally, created partly by fire trucks. In his autobiography, Kurosawa talks about how difficult it was to create this sense of an immense ongoing almost a tsunami of rain. And he talked about the technical difficulties of of doing so.
Very impressive, very impressive rain, the most impressive rainstorm in the history of movies, I think. And so these, these these people are gathered beneath the gate in order to in order To protect themselves and the gates symbolic significance is it is important, we will notice that one of the things they do when they get cold is they go over to certain parts of the of the building, it’s a wooden structure already half broken down and, and, and in decay, and they’ll break off banisters or other pieces of wood and rake them up and turn and burn them up.
And the implication is if things go on like this, pretty soon the whole gate will have will have been consumed by people who have tried to take shelter under it. So it’s so it’s a symbol of the breakdown of social order, and of an end of the society. I’ve already mentioned, the medium the name of the Japanese word is Meiko. And I mentioned it here just because I wanted to clarify, I wanted to be sure all of you understood what was going on there, the husband is dead. When the testimony begins.
He’s a samurai. So a husband, a samurai who is the husband of the of the rape victim. And as the story unfolds, you’ll see what what you’ll get the basic facts, but you’ll also find that even when the film is over, there are many fundamental things you won’t be able to have decided. And I think that’s part of certainly part of Kurosawa’s point.
So the medium is just this this clairvoyant type apparently, characters, real characters believed in and socially recognizable in late middle in late medieval Japan, a character who had claims to have access to the words and beliefs of dead people. So the dead man testifies in another way of reminding you that we’re looking at a very stylized a dream, a story that isn’t in a narrow sense realistic at all. The visual style of the film is especially remarkable, and and astounding, in some ways.
It’s almost as if each of the tested, each form of testimony has its own style. And you might want to watch the the way in which Kurosawa sort of builds his eclectic and dynamic since of the eclectic and dynamic way in which in which Kurosawa’s editing camera work use of music combined to create a kind of almost constant visual excitement.
One of the most remarkable things about the film is how many sequences in it are without dialogue with extended wordless sequences, truly, entirely cinematic, the opening sequence is almost the opening sequence, the first extended sequence in a forest, which comes after the sort of introduction, which I’ve described earlier, is a magnificently clear example of that process. And in that, one of the things that you may notice, in that sequence especially, is the way in which you become increasingly disoriented about the direction in which the woodcutter is going.
He’s apparently narrating the story in his narration sort of segues into a visual experience, as happens again and again in the field. And the visual experience we have shows him going into the woods, walking and then discovering first a woman’s hat, and then discovering other things and discovering a body and then running away in fear.
And and as he penetrates into the woods, one of the things that happens is the camera is always moving and and the camera becomes as interested in the in the forest itself in this densely wooded forest and in the play of light and dark. Because the sunlight comes through the wooded canopy in odd and profoundly, visually powerful ways.
It’s as if you begin to have a sense that that that the camera is at least as interested in the woods and in the play of sunlight, as it is in the motions of the of the woodcutter and that the whole sequence has a kind of profoundly lyrical, but also in some degree, disorienting sense that as Kurosawa said, you’re entering a space in which you’re you’re you’re entering a space that’s dreamlike, that’s dangerous, a place where the heart will lose its way, right as if you’re you as if you’re entering a symbolic space, not a realistic space, right, a stylized space and in some in some in some deep way.
And there are there are a couple of specific strategies that Kurosawa uses in in the in the film to reinforce I think our sense that he is indeed that he’s engaging every element of the of his of his cinematic palette, in order to create his effects. One thing he does violate certain rules that Beth especially at the time, which would have been tremendously shocking to professional directors, one thing he did does in the film, was he points the camera at the sun and he creates sun effects, right?
That was a no no, it was a sort of rule that directors should never do that. Of course, it doesn’t. It does and you’ll watch while he does it. It’s very it’s it’s very powerful that it also has As a disorienting effect of the effect of making us understand more deeply what it’s like to work to work our way through this incredible dense forest in which the event occurred in which the crime occurs as if the forest itself is a space. So complex, and so private, so caught off from from the outer world that almost anything could could happen there a space of dream, a space of terror, a space of symbolic fable. And, and there’s, there are a couple of other things I wanted to mention about the way his camera behaves.
One is that he, of course, I will use this here a device at certain points in the film that a very interesting device, it’s the official name for it that the fancy name for the technical term for it is, he makes what is called an axial cut a XL, it’s really a form of a jump cut. That is to say in, you know, an abrupt edit, which which you’re not fully prepared for which breaks in it, a jump cut, as you know, breaks the the action in in mid stride or in mid action and then jumps to something else in a kind of in a way, that’s slightly disorienting. that eliminates, right, it’s elliptical, it eliminates, it eliminates connection or transitions, right.
And, but, but the axial cut does this in a very dramatic way that also calls attention to the apparatus of the movies. The most dramatic places in which this occurs in the film are certain scenes in which you see the samurai husband tied up sitting on the ground, tied up like this, kneeling on the ground, and the cameras at some distance from him and moves toward him. But it doesn’t move toward him in a smooth tracking motion that is characteristic or tracking motion characteristic of most films, what it does is it moves forward and it stops and then it jumps, it moves forward. And then it and what you feel is leaps forward.
And what’s happening, of course is that he stops the cameras forward movement moves, it further makes a cut so that what you want. So the effect is the camera moves, method, the cameras jerky, but it’s it’s, it’s as if it’s, it’s as if it’s a speeded up, in some sense, we can feel that the camera is becoming elliptical. So say this fellow in the front is the person I’m focusing on, I’ll be here that you’ll see this shot, then you’ll make two minutes and then you’ll see this shot and it will. And the effect is very abrupt, and you watch what happens.
So one effect at one One consequence of this kind of a shot, is that you watching it, you can feel how mechanical it is you you begin to think to yourself, well how could that have been created, you’re aware of its mechanical qualities, that is to say, you become partly aware of the apparatus behind the making of the movie, it’s a moment of self consciousness that other elements of the film also reinforce. So the visual style is profoundly eclectic and dynamic. I’ve mentioned at the axial cut and pointing the camera at the sun.
Maybe I’ll mention one other device that he one of the other technically intricate and and at the time revolutionary thing that Kurosawa did was he violates what’s called the 180 degree rule. And the 180 degree rule essentially has to do with your sense of spatial orientation in it within the frame, right? The essentially the 180 degree rule holds that if you’re showing characters moving in this direction, right?
See, you’re showing a character moving this way, you won’t suddenly if he’s still going in the same direction, show him walking this way. Because it disorients the viewer, right? So that if but what is in our film in in Rashomon, there are certain moments and there are hints of it in that opening sequence, or that lyrical first sequence in the forest that I mentioned, in which you in which you can see that the cameras own movements.
complicate and in some sense, confuse our sense of where the woodcutter is going. And, and, and it’s in that sequence and some other places in the film as well with 180 degree rule is violated. And the effect again, is to disorient us is to feel, gee, I don’t know whether I’m coming or going this guy doesn’t know whether he’s coming over what kind of space is he in, again, violating certain conventions of traditional filmmaking in order to create new effects. So it’s, and the, the the consequence of these choices, the impact of these choices in 1951, when the film won its prize was profound.
I want to say one other thing about another aspect of the film’s structure, which I’ve described perfectly and I apologize for being so Tongue Tied about it, but as I tried to describe earlier, the basic structure of the film becomes fairly clear. What happens is you get testimony. Then there are interruptions in which you as essentially all four of the primary pieces of testimony take place in the past, right. So there, so what we have are flashbacks, but competing flash And that various points, the film returns to our scene of rain at Russia gate in which the people under the gate, the three people under the gate, two of them are actually partial participants.
The third, the commoner was just a kind of listener to the story, although a profound commentator on it, right, the Santo ponza type who’s, who says, look, the world is miserable. Why should you? Why should you believe anyone, and the priest is constantly resisting him? Well, when we return to these moments, and it was so so we returned to Russia on gate several times, many times in the film, and every time we returned to that spot, where are we we’re in the present time of the film.
So one of the things that film does, it creates what I call a drama of the telling of the story in which the conversation that’s going on in underneath Rashomon gate is a kind of meta commentary on the story that we’re watching, right? The characters inside the film, comment on Well, can we believe her? Is this credible? Why did she say this? Right?
And the effect of this meta commentary is to create essentially a separate story. What’s the separate story? It’s a philosophic topic. The topic is the telling of stories. In other words, this interruption creates a new kind of moral and thematic complexity in the film, something that’s characteristic of the great novels, and fiction works.
I’d mentioned earlier in our in the lecture that appeared at the turn of the 20th century, what we have not only are the is the principle of unreliable narration being introduced, and the principle of competing flashbacks being introduced, and the principle of dislocated chronology being introduced, all of those things are operative. But what is even more important about it is that this more these moments of conversation amongst this, those three characters, that Rashomon game also constitute a kind of philosophic meditation on the nature of storytelling and the nature of truth.
Right? And they actually say, Well, how can you believe a person or what is truth? How can we believe what anybody says? So the so the film calls attention, not only to the profound subjectivity, of human responses, and the profoundly unreliable nature of memory, right, but also the extent to which individuals themselves have reasons developing from their egos, right, to distort and tell stories that are more flattering to themselves, right. And so that by the time we come to the end of the film, it isn’t clear at all, when the film is over, whether there is a truth and whether there is any final truth that we can embrace. The issues are not finally resolved.
But what is resolved for us is the idea that human reality is immensely complex, that that human beings are endlessly deceitful, that that the stories they tell about themselves and others may not be trustworthy. So in other words, that the film opens out into a kind of philosophic profundity that’s partly a function of its structure.
So it’s another example, one of the most remarkable examples that we’ve seen in our course of what I call organic form of a film whose have a text whose whose structure helps us understand what it’s about, and whose structure is part of what it means whose structure is essential to its meaning. We couldn’t imagine this film as a straightforward chronological sequence, it wouldn’t be it wouldn’t be able to do what it does.
This so what i what i mean by the drama of the telling of the story is literally that that is to say, there’s a second story that in a second subject matter in these interlude, let’s call them interludes in these interruptions, in which we return to the present time get out of the path. And those those interludes are an extended, philosophic and moral conversation about human nature, about the nature of the human of our human capacity to understand the world.
And, and, and our capacity to talk about it, to narrate it accurately and fully. So this drama of the telling of the story, this drama of the screening, this drama of the making of the story, is as important a dimension of the film as its actual story as the actual story that it wants to tell. I have two other points to make about this remarkable film, and I’ll be done.
The first is that one of the things I think you’ll notice, as the story goes on, and as different different people give different accounts of what happened is that the actual physical conflict between the two male characters, which one would expect to be grand and heroic, is almost always clownish and on heroic, we expect this great.
He’s a samurai warrior after all, and the man he’s doing battle with is a very famous or infamous, banded, criminal, so gifted a criminal that he has that he’s famous right. And yet in there, and both what what one realizes in retrospect that we When the criminal the tissue to shiroma phony character gives his gives his testimony in the beginning of the, in the early part of the film.
He’s exaggerating his own his own martial genius, so that we don’t fully realize that at first, but it becomes clear and clear to us as the film goes on, that he has a motive to sort of exaggerate his heroic stature and his strength and so forth, not to mention a motive to exaggerate and maybe to lie about the woman’s reaction to his to his forced attentions.
All of that is, is is a is a central part of of our of our of our understanding of what of what is at this what is at stake, I guess, when when we think about the the subject that Russia among the various subject that Rashomon gestures toward. So it the clownish on heroic behavior of these fighters is something to note because there’s a deep skepticism in the film itself about about all forms of a grand of human aggrandizement, there’s a there’s a skepticism that the film shares with the commoner who said, Who, who maybe is too negative about human nature, who thinks human human beings are completely objective that this is the justification for the most selfish kind of behavior, because no one can behave well. Alright, I have hardly exhausted the film.
But I hope I’ve said some things that will be valuable and useful to you on your first viewing. But let me end by talking about the ending. Because the ending of Rashomon presents us with a problem similar to the problem that we confronted in a film like the last laugh during that sermon, in which there seems to be a kind of optimistic or, or reassuring ending. To the to this film, The film has been very dark and rain. And in fact, one of the ways you can tell that the film has changed registers is that the rain finally disappears.
Well, as you’re watching the ending, which way which is quite explicit, even heavy handed about its attempt to return us to a sort of more hopeful view of mankind, you should ask yourself, does it deserve to be deleted. All through the 40s when Kurosawa was first learning his trade, he began to direct early in the 40s. And he directed this film in 1950, his his his his first real master work, he’d become more and more confident and ambitious as a director during this period. But he hadn’t sort of displayed his full capacities as a director until this point, most accounts of his career suggest.
But during this period, in the 1940s, Kurosawa took upon himself what he regarded as a social project, which was to try to help renovate Japan after the devastation of the war. And his films of the 40s almost always tried to suggest various forms of wit, various ways in which people could behave decently and heroically, if not decent, not heroically, at least decent decently, in an effort to sort of renovate and re reconstitute a damaged society, a broken society, one of the reasons that the that the breakdown of ancient Japan is so powerful in Russia, man, is that no question that is that a corsola. and his and his cast believe that in some sense, there was a symbolic analogy to be made between conditions in Japan, in actual Japan in 19, in the 1940s, and early 50s, and the broken, terrifying conditions of society in the in the 11th and 12th centuries. In the past parable, that narrative is telling us. And so and this film continues that tradition.
I think, I think many, many viewers, I among them, have the feeling that, that this is more wish fulfillment on Kurosawa’s part than reality. And one could say, from an artistic standpoint, then one might conclude that it’s a weakness in the film, I think I might say that, that the film might be more powerful, more truthful to itself, that it may, that that the ending, that that the ending that’s tacked on May undermine its deepest energies in disturbing ways.
So it’s another example of a way in which commercial and social imperatives may be may be interfering with the artistic integrity of the text. But it’s significant, important to understand that this was a tendency that was present in Kurosawa’s work all the way through the 40s. And that therefore, it’s a kind of expression of of a of a of a Have a moral sense that the director had that that would be that begins to become less powerful after Rashomon. And although although he remains deeply moral director, so the ending is a question and you might want to ask yourself what, how you would react to how you would respond to the question of the relevance of the of the ending to the rest to the rest of the film.
Let me end with a reminder about maybe what is, in some ways, the most powerful aspect of what happens when you’re watching Rashomon, I’ve said that you feel that you’ve entered into a kind of, if not a dream, into a kind of uniquely stylized space in which what happens resembles what happens in real life, but is, but but also distills what happens in real life highlights in a way that isn’t true of actuality, right. And I think you’ll feel this, I think you’ll feel this, this mythic tendency, all the way all the way through the film.
But it’s in a in a certain in a certain sense. It’s a way one way of capturing what I’m saying is to say that there is a tension in the film between this impulse to be mythic, to tell a story that it understands to have a feeble like significance. And its sense of the complexity and, and concreteness of actuality, one, that is to say, so there’s this wonderful constant tension in the film between the enormous persuasiveness of the individual images that you see.
But your sense also that you’re in a world that’s not totally real, that so this is the tension I’m trying to get you to feel you can feel it in the dialogue, you can feel it, but especially you can feel it in the visual images, in the in the visual texture of the film, you can feel a kind of tension between an impulse to mythologize and to stabilize and an impulse to show the world in its in its in its deepest and most concrete elements in its most in its most authentic actuality.
And the tension between the two g This is so real. This is so unreal, this is so fable like, it’s part of the secret of the movie. And one way you can feel it within immensely intense power is sometimes when you see the way the film deals with human flesh. There are certain scenes for example, where a woman’s hand will be on a on a man’s body, right? Talk about what you can, how you can be erotic without, without offending anyone. There’s a moment where you can see the woman’s fingers pressing into the man’s flesh, right?
It’s an immensely erotic and powerfully concretizing moment, it reminds you of flesh, it reminds you of the film’s power to capture actuality with the vividness that goes far beyond what words can ever do, right? The visual power of movie. And that’s what I mean when I say that there’s this constant tension in the film, in the film between the mythologizing tendencies of the story.
And of course, I was imagination, and what we might call the breaking tendency, the the concretizing tendency of the of the, of the film medium, which, which has this growth pack this capacity to register the gross concrete reality of our experiences with a detail and a power that no other medium can, with this sense of tension between a story that wants to be a fable and a story that wants to persuade you of its of its concrete reality is part of what makes the film so memorable. And so and so significant.
In the early 1900s, there were hardly any movie credits. Some movies had just opening credits, while some had just the end credits. Nonetheless, just the title was enough to start the movie. However, once the ’70s came, the statement ‘give honor to whom it is due’ begun to apply to both opening and closing credits in Hollywood.
At first, closing credits were not so long, just like in the 1964 movie, Fail Safe. Over the years, the length of end credits has increased with some even as long as fifteen minutes. Time-consuming end credits have caused a lot of movie fans around the world to ask several questions. Who decides these names? Why do we even need to know their names? These are all relevant questions that will be answered as you read on.
Why are the movie credits so important?
There was a time when fans could not identify their beloved actors. However, with time, that changed. Not only could fans now identify them, but they can also now put a name to those faces. This made actors more famous, and it made other producers contact them for new productions.
The statement, ‘it takes a village’ is not a farce. The actors are not the only ones who make the film. There are other important people who make it possible. As these people do not feature on-screen, it is important to acknowledge them in another unique way.
Therefore, the introduction of the closing credits was made as an avenue to acknowledge the members of the film crew it took to create the movie. The length of the end credits depends on the number of people on the production team. The length of some end credits will make you wonder, who are all these people and what do they do?
Who is in the end credits and in what order do they appear?
Most end credits are typed in white characters on a black background, and it can be displayed in different orders. Some display the movie characters and production team in no particular order, some in order of appearance and according to their popularity.
However, in most cases, end credit begins with ‘above-the-line’ (ATL) individuals. These individuals most times have their names standing alone before the lengthy credits start. Either way, the actors and production team members are acknowledged in their different disciplines.
This is how a standard above-the-line (ATL) closing credit order is arranged;
Several movies follow this order. However, the order is tweaked in some other movies. Other movies might even have the credits displayed at the beginning and also at the end of the movie. Whichever way, the closing credits have come to stay.
Also, the genre of the movie affects the order. Some movies are dance-based, and the choreographer or dance company involved is also credited. Some movies with stunts also add the stuntmen or stunt company to their credits and so on.
Although these credits are significant, there are still a series of steps to be taken to draft one. Several people have to decide how the credits are displayed and whose name comes up in the end credit.
Who decides on the names displayed in movie credits?
The opening credits are strictly done decided by the film unions. Some of these unions are the Writers Guild of America, Screen Actors Guild of America, Producers Guild of America, and a few more. However, closing credits are mostly decided upon by the producer or the production company in support of the unions.
Aside from the producer, several actors have it stated in their contract, how and where they want their names to appear in the credit. This is also considered, so as not to breach the contract. After all, these are considered, the closing credit is decided, and the order and template to be used are also considered.
At times, some people do not have their names on credit even with how long it could be. Some of these uncredited people appear in the movie database IMDB.com, and they always have attached to their names in bracket ‘uncredited.’ This happens once in a while and there are several complaints passed. However, these conflicts are settled privately.
How do producers get people to sit through the end credit?
Opening credits are very easy to watch, as they make you anticipate the movie, especially when they have captivating soundtracks. Fans hardly sit through the end credits because they have already enjoyed the movie and they know the key players. However, Hollywood producers have discovered different ways to get fans glued to their seats for the end credits.
Some movie credits feature some fun animation which keeps fan eyes on the screen waiting for more. A great example is the Marvel Action’s Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2. The animation was also quite hilarious, and it makes you want to even go through the end credit more than once. The soundtrack played along with the credit is also captivating and still, connects fans to the movie.
The most interesting credits are the ones that include out-plays. These out-plays are edited into the credits as partying scenes which are most times very humorous or sometimes a scene from a follow-up movie. Another Marvel Action Movie with an out-play is the ‘Ant-Man’ movie. The scene in the middle of the credit gave fans an idea of an upcoming Marvel movie and fans are still anticipating.
Out-plays, animation, music, and humorous scenes are the tricks producers adapt to make end credits appealing, and these tricks work. More fans are beginning to anticipate closing credits. Although they are cumbersome, closing credits are necessary to the movie crew, and now they are now important to fans.
Transcript for Filmmaker IQ Video:
Have you ever watched the end credits and wondered what exactly do all those people do? Well, today we’ll break down the credits and explain who’s who on a major film production. First off, the jobs and titles we’re going to cover today may change from one movie to another, we’ll describe the jobs that are common, but know that each movie is its own beast and each filmmaker may have a preferred organizational structure. To begin, jobs are divided into two rough categories based on a movie’s budget top sheet, above the line and below the line. The jobs above the line are the people that get paid and negotiated set rate or percentage of gross regardless of how many shooting days or scenes are ultimately required for the film. Think of them as fixed costs. below the line are the jobs that are contracted out depending on the needs of the production, variable costs, depending on the script changes. above the line jobs include but are not limited to the producer, the director, writers and actors, while everyone else is below the line.
So let’s start with the top boss, the producer. People often think that the director is the top dog in production, but it’s the producer that hires the director. So what does a producer do? Well, that’s a big question that can be involved with selecting the script or the material to be adapted. Picking the director and the cast, raising the money organizing distribution, all of it or only some of it. The producer is basically the person that champions a film from the beginning to the end. And that’s the reason why the producer is the one who accepts the best picture Oscar at the Academy Awards. Now there are variations of producing credits.
For theatrical films, the executive producer is the person secured at least 25% of the financing, or played a significant role in the shaping of the story and the script. in television, the executive producer is more of a big upper boss like the creator of the show. associate producer is a title given at the discretion of the producer to anyone they feel has played a key role in any part of the production. A screenwriter is the person that writes the script, and that all scripts are created from scratch by a solitary writer. There are essentially two kinds of writing credits, there is a story credit, and a screenplay credit. The story is the plot characters and themes.
Whereas a screenplay is the execution of those ideas in actual screenplay with scenes dialogue and transitions. When you see a written by that means the person wrote both the story and the screenplay. When you see a story by it means a person either wrote a treatment that’s a prose version of the story of the movie, or wrote an original screenplay that was completely rewritten, only keeping the plot characters and theme. When the story is from a previously published work you’ll see a based on a novel or based on the play by credit. Sometimes you’ll see a based on the characters by in sequels or long standing characters like James Bond or Sherlock Holmes.
Now writing teams are designated with an ampersand, whereas writers working separately use the spelled out word. And there are lots of rules for from the Writers Guild regarding rewrites for determining who gets credit for the screenplay, and arbitration process for disagreements. But getting a name on the credits isn’t just vanity.
It’s also a matter of the author’s more rights and rights to residuals and that means money. Once you have a script, or sometimes even if the script isn’t totally done, a producer will choose a director. The director is responsible for all the film’s artistic and dramatic aspects, visualizing the script and guiding the crew and actors toward fulfilling that vision. Now, the director may also go back and bring in new writers and alter the script and even rewrite the script themselves. Now, DGA rules stipulate that there can only be one person serving as the director on a film At one time, which is why you see Joel Coen credited as the director on their older films, even though he always directs with his brother, Ethan Coen.
Now they have an exemption as a directing team. Although we may give all the credit to the director, thanks to our tour theory, the relationship between the director and the producer is probably the biggest influence over a movie as it could be where a lot of the creativity happens. When we think about credits and billing, we generally think of the names of the actors in the production of the rules for billing are not as clearly defined as they are for say, the director or screenwriter, so each film or television show can be negotiated in a different way depending on the stars contract.
But there are a few trends, a major star will get an above the title billing, that means their name comes before the opening title, the film, and above the title on the poster. Then the cast is listed usually by the importance of the character to the story, with the leads first and the supporting roles following in ensemble pieces alphabetically or by order of appearance.
Now, sometimes stars will negotiate to be the final listing and get a with credit or an and as credit. These credits go to parts that aren’t exactly leads, but maybe filled by an actor with some status, or a character that just has become a fan favorite if we’re dealing with a television show. Now these leads and supporting actors would be considered above the line, although at this point, the distinction may not be so clear. below the line actors include background actors and day performers. Background actors are what you imagine they’re there to fill the background of a scene. The most basic are general background actors for filling crowd shots. For the most part, they will go uncredited.
A background actors that have to perform a special skill stunts or speak a line of dialogue will get upgraded to a day performer. The sag AFTRA rules state that if a cast of entire production is under 50 performers than all 50 performers must be credited. If there are more than 50, then it’s up to the discretion of the producer, which 50 performers will get on screen credit. stunt performers acting as doubles do not need to have the name of the role they’re doubling identified.
From here on out, we will be discussing jobs that are considered below the line.
Of course, this distinction may change depending on the movie or production we’re talking about. The engine behind every film is the production office, the production office is in charge of making sure everything comes together. At the head of the production office is the line producer. The line producer is in charge of handling the budgetary needs he or she is responsible for every line on the budget as involved with the logistics of everything from production to post production, including hiring crew members are one of the first hires is the UPM, the unit production manager and sometimes created as production manager on independent films.
The UPM is in charge of overseeing the day to day operations, including timecards. Reviewing the production reports, and approving call sheets, the UPM can hire assistance, the production office coordinator or pboc. The pboc handles the details of the production staff. Some larger production studios have a permanent pocc position, who acts as a liaison between the individual production office and the big overall studio. Depending on the size of the production, the pboc can have assistance called assistant production office coordinators.
And of course in a small production, all of these separate roles may be combined into just one person. Now working in the production office can be a number of office production assistants office pa who answer phones, make copies do runs basically keep the office running smoothly. big part of the logistics of a film is transporting an entire company to and from different locations.
Here you’ll have a transportation office supervisor and coordinators who oversee drivers who move both people and equipment around. Because there’s a lot of money and paperwork. You’ll see accountants and lawyers in the credits as their key to handling accounts. payable and drafting contracts for the crew. Although those services are still needed after a film is complete to handle sales and licensing deals, as well as setting up royalties to those who have a profit sharing contract.
Before the cameras can roll, the producer, director and line producer or UPM must plan out the production in pre production. Now there are some specific roles to pre production. Now some directors like to pre visualize their script good idea what it will look like before actually shooting it. This is the job of the storyboard artist. If these storyboards are animated, they’re sometimes called animatics, or previous, and you can see credits for previous artists, and even previous supervisors and editors.
Depending on how complex those sequences get for the casting a production or rely on the work of a casting director. a casting director is responsible for finding the talent to fill the roles in a production. And this can include holding auditions and working with talent agencies, casting directors can have assistance called casting associates. To find locations and sound stages for the production, producers will use the services of a location manager, which is sometimes called a location scout.
Location managers must understand the producers needs and negotiate with locations, as well as making sure that the film has all the proper permits. When a production is in operation, the person in charge of running the set is the first assistant director or first ad. Now this can be confused with the assistant to the director of job, which is exactly like it sounds and assistant to the director. But first ad is more of a management role. They start working during pre production to figure out how to schedule a script.
During the production. The first ad is in charge of the day to day operations, running the floor, keeping things on schedule and safe, so that the director can focus on making creative decisions. The first ad is generally not everybody’s friend. The job requires an authoritative personality, and could deal with the major stresses of a big production. Beneath the first ad is the second ad. The second ad is usually in charge of handling the background actors and often directs background action. A second second ad may be needed for films with a lot of background people. beneath a second ad are the set production assistants or set pa is one of the key jobs of the assistant director team is to call the roll.
That is the call on a series of specific cues before it take to bring the cast and crew together including calling for Quiet on the set and roll sound and Roll camera. Big productions may have multiple units. The director may designate certain scenes often special effects, aerial shots or even small scenes to a second unit. Depending on what the needs are. A second unit can have the same director team structure with a second unit director and second unit ad.
The head of the camera department is the director of photography or dp.
The dp is in charge of crafting the look of the film in collaboration with the director using lenses, lighting and camera movement. A dp may or may not actually operate the camera so you may see a camera operator title as the person who actually works the camera. The first assistant camera or first AC pulls the focus and assists the operator and the DP. The second AC assists the first AC but also does the film clapper calls out the scene numbers and fills out the camera reports now productions will shoot with from more than one camera.
In this case you will have operators first and second ACS for a camera B camera and even see camera. If a celluloid film cameras being used, you will see the name of the film loader who has to make sure the exposed film is safely taken out and raw negative is loaded correctly into the camera. Digital productions are starting to use a digital version of that a digital imaging technician that makes sure all the footage is downloaded from the camera’s memory and safely backed up usually in triplicate. Now you will see some special camera credits including steady cam operator who, as you imagine, operates the steady cam or a similar device.
Motion Control Tech’s are for motion control Dolly systems. onset photographers can be listed in the credits as well from photographers who are shooting behind the scenes imagery to continuity photographers taking photos to ensure that a set or costume looks the same over a period of days. And the same vein you have on set videographers who are documenting the behind the scenes for the sound department. The production sound mixers serves as the department head as responsible for recording all the location sound in the production.
Under the sound mixer are the boom operators who are in charge of operating the microphone boom, and utility sound technicians who run cables and make sure everything is operating properly. The head of the lighting department is the gaffer now this position works closely with the director of photography to plan out the lighting of a film and in some productions is called the lighting designer. working under the gaffer is the best boy electric a non gendered term. Even when a woman fills a spot she can be called a best boy. The best boy handles the day to day management including the hiring, scheduling and management of lighting crew and the renting ordering inventory and returning of lighting equipment.
The under the best boy electric are the lighting technicians who set up and operate the lights. The grip department which is the Department for non electrical components of lighting setups such as stands, flags, rigging and bounces as well as camera moving equipment is structured similarly to the lighting department. The head is the key grip and below that is the best boy grip who manages the day to day operation and oversees the rest of the grips. If the grips are operating the camera Dolly than they will be credited as Dolly grips.
The origin of the term best boy may come from the studio days where the line between lighting and grip was not so rigid. When one department needed a temporary worker, the department head of one would just go to the other and asked for their best boy essentially the second in command. A best boy may also have its roots in early sailing and whaling crews as sailors would often work on the rigging in theatres when they weren’t at sea.
With actors cameras sound and lights and place now we just have to figure out what to put in front of the camera and that is the job of the art department. The Art Department is headed by the production designer who worked with the director and the director of photography to figure out the look of the production from the sets, the costumes and the props. Under the general art department is a sub Department called the art department headed by the art director.
The art director oversees artists and crafts people such as the set designers, graphic artists and illustrators who work on the look of a film and its marketing. Once the art department designs the set, it is the role of the construction department headed by the construction coordinator who manages all the construction needed to build those sets. Reporting to the construction coordinator is the head carpenter who leads a gang of carpenters and laborers.
This may also include crafting custom props, construction is also responsible for breaking down a set after the production is over. Once the set is created, it needs to be filled in. This is the job of the sets department headed by the set decorator working under the set decorator are the buyers who purchase or rent pieces for the set leads Minh or leads person who oversees the set dressing crew, often referred to as the swing gang.
This swing gang is made up of set dressers who fill in all the stuff you would normally see on a set of a set needs plants, you will see a greens man who handles all the plant material, sometimes real and sometimes artificial. If a film has a significant amount of greens, this may be its own sub department with its own organizational heirarchy. The items that the actors interact with that are not part of the scenery are called properties or props and are under the jurisdiction of the property master who may have assistance below him or her as some projects will have a weapons matter which will work specifically with guns, swords and other weapons, both in procuring for the set and in training in their proper safe use. not technically part of the art department, but related are the costume and hair and makeup.
The head of the costume department is the costume designer. Under that position is the costume supervisor who works on the day to day management of the costumes as well as overseeing the customers, buyers and renters who work in that department. The head of the hair and makeup departments are the key makeup artists and key hair. Both positions will work on hair and makeup for the leads and oversee assistant makeup artists who work on the other actors. special effects makeup artists may be brought in as necessary. an offshoot of the art department is the special effects department.
Now special effects are the effects that happen in the camera, the practical effects team, a special effects team can have a similar eriko structure to the art department. And that’s headed by a special effects supervisor, with a gang boss or construction foreman under him or her overseeing all kinds of technicians from pyrotechnicians to sculptors to model and miniature technicians backing up the art department and actually all other departments as well is the continuity supervisor sometimes called script supervisor. The role of the continuity supervisor is to make sure that things that need to look the same look the same from day to day that the sets the costume hair and makeup stay consistent over a long shoot.
How before we wrap up the production crew let’s not forget the craft services and catering positions. Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach and a film crew is no different. Craft services or crafty is small snacks, drinks and coffee that is delivered to the different departments to have while they’re working to keep them happy. A catering is a more formal meal where the cast and crew take a break and sit down and eat. Union films are contractually obligated to have a meal every so many hours even on the smallest budget non union film, it’s best not to skip that meal because this is where the cast and crew can bond creating a better working environment.
Once the production is done, and all the shots captured, the post production team comes in and a film is overseen by the post production supervisor. The editorial department is headed by the editor who will be assisted by several assistant editors who do a lot of the logging and organizing of the footage with the help of the camera reports generated by the second a seat. The sound department is headed by the supervising sound designer. Under the sound designer are the dialogue editor who works on cleaning up the dialogue tracks and ADR editor who works on replacing noisy audio that was recorded on set with clean dialogue recorded in the studio.
Foley artists who create sound effects for the film music supervisors who work with composers to score the film orchestra contractors who bring in musicians to perform the score recording engineers who record the soundtrack and then sound mixers who bring everything all back together again. in post production we also have the visual effects department which can be a beast of its own. The visual effects are effects not done in camera Think Green Screen compositing or CGI. Now the organizational chart of a VFX department can look a lot like the production crew with a visual effects producer at the top working with the film’s director and DP and deciding how shots will be done. Under the VFX producer is the creative director who controls the creative decisions. And beneath that is the visual effects supervisor who organizes and coordinates a team of digital artists, painters, animators, programmers, riggers rotoscope artists as a job where they have to cut up the plates frame by frame and compositors the person who brings different visual elements together into a single frame.
Now film will often use several different visual effects companies for different shots. So you’ll see many of these different positions listed over and over again. Once the picture is edited, and the visual effects added, the last touch is to color correct and color grade. Everything else is done by the colorist working in collaboration with the director and sometimes the Director of photography.
Wow. So you can see why a big budget movie can cost millions and millions of dollars. So hopefully now you have a better understanding of who does what on a film. Some of these positions will be different from picture to picture. But the next time you’re at the theater, stick around and watch the end credits, and then assemble your own team and go out there and make something great.
The Dutch Angle or Dutch tilt is a cinematographic technique that has been used for decades to convey a sense of tension or psychological trauma in the person being filmed. It produces the same impact on the viewer. The camera is tilted at an angle that is not horizontal to the bottom of the frame of the shot.
The level of tension in the mind and emotions of the actor is indicated by a greater angle from perpendicular. The technique has changed over time to include varying angles in a series of shots. The technique also can pan through a scene at the same angle or at different angles.
The basic idea is to add to the emotional impact of what is happening on the scene. The angle of the shot can convey a huge range of additions to the content that a director wishes to present in a scene.
Fear, panic, a sense of the unseen, a sense of mental imbalance, and the feeling of threat have been very successfully portrayed with Dutch angels in many films.
Dziga Vertov is the first to have used Dutch tilt in his film Man with a Movie Camera. The German Expressionist film movement made very liberal use of the Dutch angle method to convey uneasiness, madness, disorientation, and other disquieting emotions to the audience.
The original method was changing the angle from shot to shot to convey a particular feeling. The technique changed as film making technology changed.
The terms Dutch angle and Dutch tilt are a misleading bastardization of a German word that dates from World War I.
The phrase Deutsche angle refers to a method of blockade used by the German Navy. Deutsche means German and has nothing to do with Dutch people or the Netherlands.
Many think that the phrase was coined to help German filmmakers get their films out of Germany after World War I due to the excessive restrictions on German exports.
Dutch angle has seen extensive use in film and in television. Orson Welles is noted for his brilliant use of the technique to enhance the emotional content of his films, directing, and acting.
The Resident Evil franchise has used the technique to enhance terrifying emotions and graphic violence through a series of directors. Tim Burton uses Dutch tilt to brand his films in animation and the human form.
Dutch angle gave the television viewing audience hints about what to think and feel. The original Batman series displayed every supervillain at an angle to tell the viewer that they were crooked in some way.
The original Star Trek and the whole Star Trek series used Dutch tilt to enhance science fiction and science fact effects.
A Dutch angle is an inventive method to create an offsetting feeling. The idea is to give the viewer an insight into what an actor is feeling. The subtle hint adds drama and involvement in the film.
The technique has acquired more utility over time and has broadened the scope of what can be done with Dutch tilt as technology has improved film and television.
Whiplash is a 2013 drama short film written and directed by Academy Award winning directorDamien Chazelle. It depicts the relationship between an ambitious jazz drummer and an abusive bandleader. It is the short film that the Oscar winning feature film is based on.
If you want to listen to Damien Chazelle discuss how he made his other Oscar winning film La La Land you can take a listen or watch below: CLICK HERE
Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?
Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.
David F. Sandberg’s story is the “lottery ticket” moment I speak about so often on the show. His journey in Hollywood is remarkable, inspiring and scary all at the same time. He created a short film called Lights Out. That short was seen by famed filmmaker and producerJames Wan (Furious 7, Aquaman, The Conjuring) who offered to produce a feature film version at New Line Cinema.
Lights Out is a 2013 Swedish supernatural horror short film directed, written, produced, shot, and scored by David F. Sandberg and starring Lotta Losten. The feature version of the film was made for $5 million and grossed $150 million at the box office. Here’s what the film is about.
Watch the entire short film below.
Alex had the pleasure of sitting down with him to discuss the making of the short film.
Want to watch more short films by legendary filmmakers?
Our collection has short films by Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Chris Nolan, Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg & more.
We have been on a major roll lately on the podcast and this episode keep that going in a big way. Our guest on the show today is writer, producer, and directorEdward Zwick. Edward made his big shift from his childhood passion of theater to filmmaking after working as a PA for Woody Allen in France on the set of Love and Death. He then moved to California in the summer of 1976 and has since forged a respected name for himself in Hollywood.
Edward Zwick is a multiple Academy Award, Golden Globes, and BAFTA award-winning director, writer, and producer.
Faced with the fear of going to law school during his first five years in the industry if filmmaking didn’t work, Zwick cards turned and launched him into projects that are now some of the most critically and commercially acclaimed in the business. His work spectrums the comedy-drama and epic historical genres. You can see just some of the films he written and directed below.
About Last Night, Edward’s directorial debut was about a man and woman who meet and enter a committed relationship for the first time despite their personal problems and the interference of their disapproving friends.
He next tackled his first historical drama, and definitely not his last, the Oscar-winning Glory.
This is the exceptional story of America’s first unit of African American soldiers during the Civil War and the young, inexperienced Northerner who’s given the job of training and leading them. Based in part on the actual letters of that young officer and brought to life with astonishing skill and believability.
Legends of the Fall: This epic romance follows a man’s fight to come to terms with himself and a family struggling to preserve its simple way of life. Taken from Jim Harrison’s popular Novella, LEGENDS OF THE FALL tells the story of three brothers and the beautiful, compelling young woman who irrevocably changes each of their lives.
Courage Under Fire: A soldier discovers how elusive the truth can be in this first major film about America’s role in the Gulf War. Lt. Col. Nathaniel Serling (Denzel Washington) was the commander of a unit during Operation Desert Storm who mistakenly ordered the destruction of what he believed to be an enemy tank, only to discover that it actually held U.S. soldiers, including a close friend. Since then, Serling has been an emotional wreck, drinking heavily and allowing his marriage to teeter on the brink of collapse.
As a means of redeeming himself, Serling is given a new assignment by his superior, Gen. Hershberg (Michael Moriarty). Capt. Karen Walden (Meg Ryan) was a helicopter pilot who died in battle during the Iraqi conflict, and the White House has proposed that Walden be posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Serling is asked to investigate Walden’s actions on the field of battle, but he quickly discovers that no two stories about her are quite the same; Ilario (Matt Damon) says Walden acted heroically and sacrificed herself to save the others in her company, while Monfriez (Lou Diamond Phillps) claims she was a coward who was attempting to surrender to enemy troops.
Meanwhile, reporter Tony Gartner (Scott Glenn) is hounding Serling, trying to get the inside story on Walden and on Serling’s own difficulties. Matt Damon lost 40 pounds to prepare for his role in Courage Under Fire, which resulted in a potentially life-threatening illness for the young actor.
The Siege: When a crowded city bus blows up in Brooklyn and a campaign of terror begins to make it’s bloody mark on the streets of New York, it’s up to FBI special agent Anthony “Hub” Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and U.S. Army General William Devereaux (Bruce Willis) to find out who’s responsible and put an end to the destruction. Together, they face explosive danger at every turn when they team up towage an all-out war against a ruthless band of terrorists.
The Last Samurai: Tom Cruise stars in this sweeping epic set in Japan during the 1870s as Captain Nathan Algren, a respected American military officer hired by the Emperor of Japan to train the country’s first army in the art of modern warfare.
As the Emperor attempts to eradicate the ancient Imperial Samurai warriors in preparation for more Westernized and trade-friendly government policies, Algren finds himself unexpectedly impressed and influenced by his encounters with the Japanese warriors, placing him at the center of a struggle between two eras and two worlds, with only his own sense of honor to guide him as The Last Samurai.
Blood Diamond: An ex-mercenary turned smuggler (Leonardo DiCaprio). A Mende fisherman (Djimon Hounsou). Amid the explosive civil war overtaking 1999 Sierra Leone, these men join for two desperate missions: recovering a rare pink diamond of immense value and rescuing the fisherman’s son, conscripted as a child soldier into the brutal rebel forces ripping a swath of torture and bloodshed across the alternately beautiful and ravaged countryside.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back: Ex-military investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) leaps off the pages of Lee Child’s bestselling novel and onto the big screen in the explosive thriller the critics are calling “taut, muscular, gruff and cool”*. When an unspeakable crime is committed, all evidence points to the suspect in custody who offers up a single note in defense: “Get Jack Reacher!” The law has its limits, but Reacher does not when his fight for the truth pits him against an unexpected enemy with a skill for violence and a secret to keep.
Edward even won the Academy Award® for producing Shakespeare in Love.
Shakespeare in Love’ showcases a young Will Shakespeare as the up-and-coming playwright of the time, but he has been disastrously struck by the bane of the writer’s life – writer’s block. His comedy “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter” isn’t going anywhere and the playhouse is under threat of closure.
What Will needs is a muse, and she appears in the form of the beautiful and betrothed Lady Viola. The path of true love does not run smoothly for Will, but the joys and tragedy of his own life find their way onto the page in a moving, witty, and spellbinding tale.
The list goes on. Edward has had a remarkable career so far and still has much more to give. Speaking to Edward was like sitting in my persona filmmaking masterclass. We discuss how he made the jump from a low-budget comedy to epic historical dramas, his creative process, navigating Hollywood, directing some of the biggest movie stars in the world, and much more.
Prepare to take notes on this one tribe. Enjoy my conversation with Edward Zwick
Alex Ferrari 2:37
We have on the show the legendary Oscar-winning filmmaker, Edward Zwick. Now, Edward has directed and written some of the most influential films of the past two decades, starting with about last night. Glory, Courage Under Fire, legends of the fall, the siege, Last Samurai, Blood Diamond, defiance, jack, Reacher, and many, many more. He is also the producer of the Oscar-winning Best Picture, Shakespeare, and love. He's also the creator and executive producer of shows like Nashville 30, something, and many more. I mean, the list goes on and on. I was humbled to sit down with Edward and discuss his career, his creative process when he's writing and directing how he directs legendary movie stars like Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Morgan Freeman, and Denzel Washington, just to name a few. I was absolutely in awe of, of Edward while we sat down and discussed his craft and the way he did it; it was awe-inspiring to say the least, talking to Edward. It was like sitting down in a master class of cinema. So I cannot wait to share this episode with you. So without any further ado, please enjoy my eye-opening conversation with Edward Zwick. I like to welcome to the show Edward Zwick. Thank you so much. How you doing, my friend?
Edward Zwick 4:21
I'm doing as well as can be expected, given the circumstances of all of our lives.
Alex Ferrari 4:26
Amen. My friend event it is a weird and wacky world that we live in nowadays. And I mean, we've been locked up for a while now. And I'm sure for directors even. It's like your projects on hold. Can we can we not shoot?
Edward Zwick 4:44
There's of course, all of that. I mean, I am also a writer. So social distancing. And that kind of sheltering in place is too familiar to those of us that that have to write so I mean, a bit of that.
Unknown Speaker 4:59
Yeah. I'm a writer, and I've been in post for 25 years. So I completely understand. So before we get started, how did you get into the business?
Edward Zwick 5:11
Oh, man, it's, it's a bit of a tale. I began, you know, working in the theater as a kid.I even began directing theater when I was about 15. And on through, I went abroad to France on a fellowship, after college and in the fellowship was to work with experimental theatre companies, Peter Brook, and Irianda Skien. But the truth is, the whole time, I had, you know, had a desperate love affair with movies. But it was a it was a, you know, a passionate fan and a viewer, I didn't really know much about the technology, I'd never really learned exposure. I took stills, but I had, you know, I couldn't read a bolex or work of a viola. And so I, I just didn't, I thought it was somehow, you know, forsworn, because I'd spent all my time in the theater, but through an odd set of circumstances, very odd. I had worked for a magazine when I was in college called the New Republic. And while there, I had had a correspondence with Woody Allen, because he was writing for The New Yorker at the time, those occasional pieces. And we had asked him if he wanted to give us some pieces as well. And he said, Yes. And so he was briefly published in the New Republic that year that I was there. So when I was in Paris, I had heard he was shooting there. I was walking down the street, in Santa Monica prie. And I saw him walking toward me. And I did something that I would never dare do now. Particularly knowing you know, how shy he really was, and is, and I just went up, introduced myself, and I said that he and I had corresponded. And I said, I was around and I was on fellowship money. And would it be okay, if I could just come by the set some time and see what he was up to? He said, sure. But actually, what he said was call me at the George V. And I thought, Oh, well, he's blowing me off, you know, which is fine. And I called him he said, Oh, no, come on by. And I did. It turned out that really, he was very lonely at the time, he was one of the few people when a few Americans there. And I spoke English, but I also spoke French. And within a very short time, he offered me a job to work on the movie as a PA slash assistant, which I did. Right. And, and the he actually was very kind he took me to, to Hungary with them, it was a movie called Love and Death. And, and then, that was really it. Except that he was exceedingly generous. He just suffered my ridiculous questions. And let me just observe, I was despised by the French crew, because there I was talking to the director, which is absolutely forbidden in any kind of hierarchical thing and, and yet, he was quite willing to, you know, indulge me. And and so that I had done something actually in college that Joe Papp had seen, and I had a sort of half assed opportunity to go back and maybe work at the Public Theater when I got back to the United States after this year. But I decided instead that I was going to do it, like so many people before me that I was going to sort of reinvent myself in the movies. And I applied to the American Film Institute, from from France, and it was a very early time there, it was not a it was a very small, not very known circumstance there. And I sent them reviews of plays, I'd done I tend some some things I'd written and I sent them some songs I'd written and for some reason I got in, and I came to Los Angeles in 1976. I think never having been to California, not knowing anybody, I arrived it was you know, about 180 degrees and there the hills were on fire, and nothing
Alex Ferrari 9:31
much has changed.
Edward Zwick 9:32
And I thought that I had made a terrible mistake, having left this this apartment that I'd been subletting in Paris and, and, and and went to the American Film Institute did very, very badly my first year would go home and just cry myself to sleep facedown on the mattress every night. But somehow, by the end of the first year there I had somehow managed to slipped by, and was one of the people asked to come back the second year and make a short film, which I did. And he did no good for me whatsoever. But I,
Alex Ferrari 10:11
you know, was that was that was that Timothy and the angel?
Edward Zwick 10:14
Yes, it was, it was it won a prize at a Chicago Film Festival meant nothing except, you know, some, you know, little plaque that I still have. And but the I had two years of the kind of demystification that you need when you first come here, when you understand what people mean when they say these things to you and and that whole nomenclature of Hollywood and development and you know, those horrible critical phrases that that development executives know, and you have to learn the translation. And probably the most important thing that happened is it Marshall Herskovits. And I met, he was there also as a director. And we became friends. And more than that, I think, after we left film school, because there is no, you know, continuing education, I think we remained each other's friends, but also became each other's teachers in a way. And finally, we began to get some kind of work, and it was horrible. The other would be willing to tell the other person it was horrible. And we would try to analyze why. And that relationship began and continued up, day in both and informal ways. At the same time, I met a guy there named Steve Rosenbloom, who cut my student film who'd never cut anything before. So we figured out that Viola and, and then esteem back and, and, and he has cut everything I've done since as well as having several Oscar nominations. And and I don't know, it was just that sort of that cauldron, that that very serene moment where you actually form certain relationships with people who are actually willing to tell you, you're full of shit. And, and you admit your aspirations to each other. And that's sort of how it began.
Alex Ferrari 12:23
Now, with when you did your, your, either your first short film or even when you apply to, to, or went to LA for the first time, what was the biggest fear you had to overcome? Because a lot of a lot of people listening might have not even taken that first step to walk towards the path of following something that they're passionate about. And they have something blocking them. What was that? Was there a fear? Or did you just go gung ho?
Edward Zwick 12:47
Well, well, I mean, to be true, really honest, and my father had gone bankrupt when I was in college. And I had applied and had been accepted to law school. So ironically, when you get accepted, I don't know if it's still true now. But in those days, when you got accepted to law school, they and I had gotten this fellowship, they gave me a, what's it called, there was the, the possibility of coming back the year after, or they were able to attenuate my acceptance. And so I had that thing, that piece of paper. And my greatest fear is that I would have to go back and go to law school, because I just, I really had no wish to do it. I applied because I was scared. And I was a middle class kid who thought I had to somehow have something to fall back on. And I guess, you know, that continued for several years, because while I was starving and mooching off my girlfriend, who was willing to, you know, let me stay in her this little rented house. And, and I was, even if for years after that, when I was a script reader and the various things that I did to try to make money, those people who had graduating and clerking for supreme court justices and going to work for white shoe law firms and making a shitload of money and really advancing to the world and I was not as none of you right away. And so there was a, you know, a certain period of time, I would say, the two years of film school and maybe two or three years thereafter, where I was struggling,
Alex Ferrari 14:26
where as you would and and for people listening today, when you were trying to become a filmmaker, it was not the cool thing to do. Nobody really even knew what a film director did.
Edward Zwick 14:37
Really, sort of true. I mean, I mean, look, I went to I went to an Ivy League school and particularly there I mean, that the couple years before me that I went to Harvard and the guys from the lampoon had come out, and you know, Doug, Kenny, and and and those guys. They had not yet made movies, but they were finding their way here. I seem to remember seeing Animal House like the first year that I actually was there. I don't remember Animal House what year it was. Was it about 77? Is that a good guess? 70?
Alex Ferrari 15:12
Yeah it was rough. Yeah, it was like mid to late 70s. Yeah.
Edward Zwick 15:15
I think in any case, it was not an acceptable thing. There wasn't a mafia of people all from the same school who had come out here and, and there had never been film courses in the school that I'd gone to. And so it was all very, very new. But when I lived in Paris, all I had done was go to the movies, I probably should have spent a lot more time a lot more time, you know, doing the work I supposed to have done which is working with experimental theater companies, but the cinema tech was their only luck while I was still the head of it. You could spend four francs which was $1. And you can see three movies at a six o'clock and at eight o'clock and 10 o'clock show at the Cinematheque and that would be the Festival of Truffaut or it would be Antonioni, or it would be you know Zoo or Kurosawa and or Indian American films to and Paris, which few people know is probably the best revival city in the world. So they would have a John Ford Film Festival, or they would have a no Preston's Burgess festival. And that's every day, we just go to the movies. So my point is that, that I was there, and I at least had a sense of what I aspired to. I didn't know how to do it. And I did work at ASI, and I listened. And when all the fancy people would come in, tell me about their experiences. I thought I was paying attention. But then when I would try to go and do the work, it never resembled what Sidney polycon been talking about, or, or what Roman Polanski was talking about, as he talked to the students. And I, I just wasn't getting it. And I felt despairing about that. And, frankly, it wasn't for several years of just doing work that was mediocre. And until one day, the penny dropped, and I can't really explain exactly why it happened when it happened. But something was revealed to me about the relationship between what I wanted and what the cameras saw. What I wanted to say and what people said it the actors in their mouths and how stories were told and and and and really it happened like Helen Keller at the pump, I don't know if you've ever seen.
Alex Ferrari 17:37
Of course, of course. Yeah.
Edward Zwick 17:38
The moment when, when she's got Patty Duke is there and she's pumping in she goes water just oh, Lord. Oh, and suddenly, at that moment, suddenly she can understand language. And for me, that was some language. And, and from then it was a very, very fast trajectory. After very little trajectory, it then began to really gather steam.
Alex Ferrari 18:03
But you struggled for years until that moment happened. And just
Edward Zwick 18:08
Yeah, I would say the aggregate was was certainly certainly five good years of struggle. And by struggle, I also mean self loathing, of getting an opportunity to write something and then seeing it was bad. And even when I got an opportunity to do a television movie, finally, it was bad. And then the next one was just as bad. I mean, I mean, I'm not sure that they knew at ABC, or even the producers how bad it was, but I knew how bad it was compared to what I was trying to compare myself to.
Alex Ferrari 18:40
Edward Zwick 18:41
And I was embarrassed by it. No, better.
Alex Ferrari 18:45
No, there was. I mean, I've been a fan of yours for a long time and with your filmography, but I saw you on a DVD of this, this this little known amazing acting, directing the actors course called the Nina foch course, because
Edward Zwick 19:03
Alex Ferrari 19:04
can and and I saw you there and and, and of course, George Lucas was in there. There's like a ton of amazing directors who Nina really helped. And I, when I first launched the new film, hustle, I was probably one of the biggest sellers of our course, as I sold tons and because I took it, I'm like, No, I got to promote this to to an audience. And I love that course. But you actually I took the video course you actually took her course. Right?
Edward Zwick 19:30
Yeah. I mean, there are a few people that mark you I mean, I was lucky enough to have several good teachers in high school and certainly one or two in college but she she just was so radical. I mean, you know, I've I know a little bit about Brando's life and because Anne's life and, and and what who Stella Adler was, and and and what effect she had on people and um and and Sandy Meisner, and and Nina was a student their's, and she took their gospel and apply and then really translated into her own understanding because she too had had a more Hollywood experience. She had been a contract player for Louis Mayer in the in the 40s. And she had then been, she worked with George Stevens and William Wyler as a coach.
Alex Ferrari 20:26
Yeah, then she worked with Kubrick and I think sessile made a million.
Edward Zwick 20:30
I think something like two mil, she used to tell the middle story. She had the best stories of anybody. But she was also unbelievably tough. Yeah, she was unsparing about what the calling was of directing. And not just directing the actor. But but but storytelling. And, you know, the funny thing, when you have a great teacher, pay attention, you don't always get it right away. What happens is that, at least for me, a year later, or five years later, you'll find yourself in some situation, and then something will happen. And then you'll say, Oh, that's what you meant. And then a whole reservoir of things that will still have been in you will then be available to you, because nothing really leaves if you're paying attention, it's there, it can be called upon. And I think for me, that I just needed to have some thought sort of practical application of doing a thing for it to then be somehow internalized. But once I had done it, and even done it badly, and I maintain good teachers doing it, well, I was able then to reference what she was talking about. And all the things that she talked about, in terms of how one elicits a performance from an actor, how one uses behavior, how one really breaks down a script, it became something that I then took in and applied some of whatever my own experience had been been to try to make it my own. But, but she was she was really formidable. And and, and believed in it as a calling or believed in it as a you know, like a race to it
Alex Ferrari 22:34
almost like a priest.
Edward Zwick 22:35
I was gonna go there. And I thought at least you said the pretentious part about it. Yes, I think that's true.
Alex Ferrari 22:42
And, and she was I mean, she was a formidable in the, in the DVD and the video course that I saw, I could only imagine being in the room with her. Yeah, it was amazing. I really was. She She was remarkable.
Edward Zwick 22:54
Now, really, she would really take you apart. She had played the they created something that if I called the narrative workshop, where you would show something that you had shot and we all worked on tape at that time shot at single cameras, if it were film, broke, cut it ourselves. And the exercise was like a Communist Chinese self criticism session, where you have to show the film to your peers, and you're not allowed to speak. And they just tell you what they've seen.
Alex Ferrari 23:24
Edward Zwick 23:25
And you have to sit there and fucking take it. And then and then you do some kind of that that repentance thing that you know the Chinese, I am guilty of the sin of pace, I am guilty of this kind of indulgent sort of session.
Alex Ferrari 23:44
That must that must have been amazing. Now, you, you You did a movie in the 80s, which was at least one of those classic 80s movies, which is about last night with Rob Lowe and john Belushi and, and Demi and Elizabeth and it was such a wonderful film. Last night, one of those amazing 80s films and it's a very small, I mean, that's small but it's it's a comedy. And then from from a controlled more controlled comedy you go to glory. Right? How the heck did that convert? Like? Was it an agent? Was it the script? What like what like, how did you get that gig because generally speaking, you don't go from romantic comedy to Epic civil war movie.
Edward Zwick 24:28
Yeah, it was it was one of those again, flukes. Um, I will say that I had obviously studied American history. So I had a very particular interest in it. I had about last night and had the good fortune of doing well. It's a movie that was made inexpensively made a lot of money for the studio. So they were predisposed to be interesting what I might be interested in. When I said that you can imagine their response was the same as yours. But there's a guy named Jesse Jansky, who had actually been to college with me who had gone to work at that studio. So I had a personal connection with one of the executives there. And two things, they said to me finally, as I, as I first worked with Kevin, john, when they were considering doing it, I was involved with a producer named Freddy fields, who's a very sort of legendary character for any number of reasons in Hollywood, as a producer, and then having created what is now ICM, but um, we found out that there was going to be a reenactment of the 100 and 25th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg taking place on the field with the reenactors. And there were going to be 1000s of men, maybe three or 4000 men on the field that day, July 4 125, years after 1863, that would have been 63. A, it was like 89, something like that. And we convinced them to give us $25,000 or $20,000, whatever it was, where I could go with a friend of mine who's a cameraman, and another cameraman we picked up in New York, and Freddie and me to go on to that field, and just shoot what it might look like. And I didn't know what I was gonna see when I got there. But I read about these reenactors. And we went there. And we had to put on the union uniforms because he wouldn't let anybody on the field who wasn't actually in the reenactment. But there we were running around, is 100 degrees in Gettysburg in this mid summer. And we we shot hot, several 1000 feet of film. And I brought it back to LA and Steve Rosenbloom, who was not yet an editor. He was actually an assistant. But my my close friend, we took the film, and at night in the cutting room, when he was done with his day job, we snuck in there and we cut the film together and put it to music and put together about couldn't have been more than a five or six minute reel. But it was magic, because it was the dust would come up and the horses would go through and these cannons would go off. And, and and there was no narrative,
Alex Ferrari 27:23
right? But it was a sizzle. It was a sizzle.
Edward Zwick 27:26
I invented the sizzle, apparently,
Alex Ferrari 27:29
apparently, because I was like this is the most amazing sizzle I've ever heard of.
Edward Zwick 27:32
Exactly. And so we did that. And showed it to the studio. And the one thing the studios are sub are subject to and this is I think explains the sizzle. Which is Oh, well we're incapable of imagining it. But if you show me something that is in fact there, maybe maybe that makes it makes sense. I mean, I I find this sizzle to be a little bit offensive when someone's taking my film and 10 other directors films and saying that they've done it. But that's how it's gonna be because God helped them if they could do it the same way. But, but that was one thing that happened and they looked at it, they went, Wow, that's pretty great. They said to me, we will make this movie for a certain budget, if you can get Matthew Broderick to agree to do it. Now, Matthew Broderick at that point had done Ferris Bueller. He's not exactly the most logical, you know, choice to play in this kind of movie.
Alex Ferrari 28:35
Edward Zwick 28:37
But that began in a bit of a conversation with Matthew and and some real hesitation he had about doing it and having to win him over to that idea. But the good news was they said basically, if you could get Matthew Broderick to do it, then all the rest of those guys, you know, those black guys, you know, well, you know, you'll you'll take care of that.
Alex Ferrari 28:59
Yes, it does a couple guys, whatever, whatever doesn't matter, which which, you know, amazing, amazing.
Edward Zwick 29:04
It's an amazing story. Because I mean, I had known Denzel, because the year before we had started 30 something and, and, and Denzel was, I think he was they're still doing Sandy elsewhere at the time right away.
Alex Ferrari 29:17
That's right. He did say nice.
Edward Zwick 29:19
And I'd seen Morgan do something that bam. And Andre Brower was still a senior it was still in. Still in his final year at Julliard. He had never done anything before. But it it bespoke something that's, I think, also interesting to talk about which that their approach to it was essentially as a white savior narrative, No, man, and that's what they wanted the movie to be. And therefore there was a lot of a lot of pressure put on me to really lift up that character of Shaw and talk about his how he was trained and where he was born. And it got there and there was literally, but two reels of film and, and really to put the burden of the narrative on him. And I had to write a lot of it. And in fact, as we started, I had to shoot a bunch of it. But it became abundantly clear that when I started rehearsing with the guys in the tent with Denzel and Andre and Morgan, Jimmy, that there's that was, that was the story that we shot that first scene and looked at it in dailies. Or let me back up for a second when I looked at the stuff with Matthew alone. And it looked like a kind of bad movie for television, because it was arch, and it was stilted. And it was just something you'd seen before. But when I started realizing what these guys had, it just all revealed itself to me. And I began to write more for them and figure out ways that there would be other scenes in which they would have figured even more prominently in the plot. And so that when I finally showed the movie to the studio, I cut the first two reels, I literally began with Matthew Broderick, on that field in that letter, and he meets Morgan Freeman, you know, three minutes into the movie, when he's lying there on the field, and starts meeting the other guys, you know, six minutes later. And the movie became what it became, which is not to diminish anything that Matthew did, or or to diminish his import, and, and, and, and his performance. But these guys were in a state of grace. They were they were representing something that I could only imagine or humble myself in front of.
Alex Ferrari 31:54
Yeah, and, and, and from what I when I saw the film, I mean, all I all I can remember from from the back of my head is Denzel just, it's just Denzel, I mean, Morgan and everybody else. And Matthew was great, but it's just Denzel. You just saw, he became Denzel and glory, like he became
Edward Zwick 32:14
Yeah, in a relationship with us where we made several more movies together. But, but one thing we will say also, and this is how I tried to make that transition. And I think this is really important to say.
I know that about last night was you know, people in rooms talking and 30 something we should come right after at the regional Mirage the same time was the same thing. But I shot so much film, meaning in that movie, and in those 40 episodes that had preceded this I'm like a lot of the directors that became really great directors, who shot to Reelers, you know, George Stevens who had shot you know, a Mac senate and and john Ford, who had shot you know, crummy westerns and all that shooting film, cutting film, doing it, figuring out what makes a scene work was, again about gaining a kind of Felicity and, and, and the kind of chops as a jazz. You know, trumpeter might fingers scales as a pianist might. And one more thing, which is I went back to some of the Masters that I had so loved. And I think I watched Ron and Kaga Boucher, and the Seven Samurai 100 times. Because what Kurosawa did with those movies, he did not have a lot of money, and we didn't have a lot of money for glory. He showed me how to fill that frame and how to stage that in depth and how to give the impression of scale. And I, you know, stole mercilessly from his technique, even though it was different, you know, period and whatever. And I would have, I could afford, you know, four days in the movie where we had six or 700 extras or five days, right. And I figured out how to space those shots, when I needed them through the different aspects of the story. So that then when I only had 200, or even 100, and Phil inserted those shots into the bigger shots in your mind as the audience you're there among the 700 or 2000 of them, because you have to remember there was no CGI,
Alex Ferrari 34:47
none at all in
Edward Zwick 34:48
All camera. It's all in camera. We couldn't we couldn't duplicate and tile and do any of those things.
Alex Ferrari 34:56
That's amazing. Now moving forward in your in your career. I've noticed that you worked a lot on the upcoming. Yeah, you've worked with a lot of up and coming. actors, like from Denzel. You know, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon encouraged to fire, you have a heck of an eye?
Edward Zwick 35:17
Well, I mean, I thank you. And and I do, I am proud of that. And by the way, I would include, um, Claire Danes, and Evan Rachel Wood in the Intellivision, too, I think it's, it's, it's freeing, frankly, is that would go back to the theater and, and having some confidence in my estimation of who an actor really is, and who he is for that part, as opposed to what his reputation might be, or what other movies you might have seen. of, I would like to think that I would cast unknown actors as movie stars, and I would try to cast movie stars as actors that trying to find some equalizing of the voice and, and ask the same thing of both of them.
Alex Ferrari 36:08
Now, how do you know how do you sculpt those remarkable performances? Because throughout your filmography, I mean, you have amazing actors, obviously, but use your films for specifically this, the performances are so sculpted, how do you work with them? How do you kind of come up with these from Leonardo and Blood Diamond to Tom and Last Samurai? And these kinds of films, like their performances are? So there's depth to it? How do you sculpt a great performance? Um,
Edward Zwick 36:42
I think it begins with a kind of trust, that has to be earned. And I think that comes out of some set of conversations that begin, and they begin very early. Sometimes it's doing the research together. Sometimes it's doing physical things, you know, Denzel and I, I mean, the guys, even all of them in the tent, as they were learning how to, you know, load a musket and do drills with with the, with the reenactors, or Tom working with the sword or, or drinking Jagermeister, with Leonardo with guys who had been in the South African Defence Forces. There's a building of vocabulary and, and trust that that's part of it. I think there's also a commitment to honesty, about not bullshitting an actor or a movie star, about what what they're doing and not being the person whose job it is to suck their cock, but rather to really demand something of them, right, because you've done the work and, and, and the truth is, they want to do the work. And, and I think, obviously, over time, when you've done a certain number of performances, actors might come there, knowing that you might have some notion of what you're doing. Right and, and how to get them there. But by the way, you evoke Nina. And, and, and, and there's a very, very good example of something that I might things I might have heard her talk about, when I was 22. That then, when I found myself at 35, in these relationships with movie stars, or 45, those, that's when a lot of that stuff came in handy. Because, you know, she had worked with mighty Clift, and she had, you know, understood that, that that, that actors and actresses were a very particular breed. And there are very specific kinds of issues that you could understand that they have to deal with. And, and you could be sensitive to those. And then one other thing, I think, and that is maybe it's going to sound a little bit woowoo. But I think the directing, kind of directing, and I believe there's a certain amount of exchange that happens, a kind of my experience of the material first say as a writer, or even breaking it down just as a director of someone else's work, but that as I approach it, I want to understand the nature of the experience that the actor is going through. And when I go and talk to that actor, somewhere in me, I'm also communicating to him or her. What I believe the nature of that experience to be, and it might be the tone of my voice. It might be a touch on the shoulder. It might be my posture, it might just be the intensity and the sweat. I don't know what it is. But I think that there is some willingness to go deep. And to understand where that actor wants to get to.
And to create an ambience where that actor can be comfortable to discover something. And to feel like they have the time to discover it, a lot of what you do as a director is to is anti entropic push away all the entropy of life of noise and traffic and pressure and your watch in the end, is to give them at least the illusion that they have a safe space,
Alex Ferrari 40:46
Edward Zwick 40:47
which they can create. And, and something that I that I talked a lot to Steven Soderbergh about when we work together is creating a circumstance in which the default is truth. And just to say, the script and what you're asking the actor to do, is to not make some ridiculous transition into lines is not to have to give along expository speech for no reason. To have a costume that feels right, to have a set that feels like it's real, to not ask them to not to stage things in a way as to be arbitrary for the camera, but to have let life in to that process. And as a director, however much I prep, there's no substitute for me sitting there and letting them play an experiment and discovering myself even things I might not have known, because there is life happening in front of me. And if you can create enough of that, that the actor feels as if, as if they're cheating. As as if there's just life happening. And by the way, when you read about it, and you read about what the gift was suddenly of Kazakhstan and Brando, or, or James Dean or, or, or, you know, different actors, that was the Revolution, the revolution was was bringing life onto the stage and in front of the screen that was not very different than the life we know it to be. It's just that life put into extreme circumstances.
Alex Ferrari 42:34
And I think I think the two words that really sum up the performances I've seen in your films is depth and truth. Is there is that there is just, there's substance, it's not it's not it's not a veil, very thin performance, with all of them. Because some actors, you know, movie stars, in some movies, they're Oscar caliber. Other Other times, you just like what happened. And it happens with that happens with every artist in every field. But but but there's a consistency in your work. And that's why I wanted to ask you that question.
Edward Zwick 43:09
Well, I mean, I think it's also it's also who you're surrounding them with, yeah, what are the nature of the words, you're asking them to say, you know, I listen, I I have found at times that the hero of a production has had been the, the, the costume designer, yeah. Or the prop man. Or, you know, the skinny knife that Brad has, and legends of the fall that was the built and that somehow becomes this, this thing and I and obviously, the the DP who creates this universe, everybody, if you're if you have those magnificent people, they are also creating this edifice on which the performance then can rest, but the edifice is already higher up and the performance is already lifted in some way. So it's, it's, it's, it's about everybody else, too. And of course, not me. I sometimes think that it's the hair and makeup, people who are in the trailer, who are the first people to see that see the actor in the beginning of the day. And the last people to see them at the end of the day, that are as instrumental in giving them that sort of confidence to to go out there like on a, you know, those umbilical lines that the guys go out on a spacewalk, you know, out there, they're out there in zero G, and you're back behind the camera with a cup of coffee, but but they're out there and they have to feel like they're like they're being taken care of and supported.
Alex Ferrari 44:39
Now, another another theme I've seen in your films is just the massive scale of many of your films. It's just so many like very, you know, just very epic films from legends of the fall to The Last Samurai to glory. As a director, how do you work with such a massive Live, not only crew, but just the 1000s hundreds, if not 1000s of people that might be in front of the lens sometimes. How can you like because I look, I have a, you know, when I'm directing, I'm directing a scene, I'm directing a scene with four or five people in a room. And you just try to keep hold of two or three cameras, and making sure everyone's you know, just trying to take the narrative. How can you even grasp that man?
Edward Zwick 45:23
I know this, this is gonna sound a little bit fatuous. But I think it's it's just as hard to direct a scene with five people in a room as it is with 500. I think, you know, when you have 500, it's, it's about your canvas. What what is on your palate? And and in some odd way, there's more to photograph when there is 500 people out there, right? There's there you can juxtapose what's that that meyerhold phrase, neither, you can never be too close nor too far away. I mean, you have the you have the long shot, you have the great scale thing, which then juxtaposes to a close up you have, you have a kind of palette that is exciting. Action, certainly, particularly action where there is stakes that are emotional, where you're not looking at action for its own sake, but you're actually following the story. And that action has a purpose with that story that you're telling me that individual actor or that set of actors. And part of it is the thing that I never thought I would be well suited for it always having a certain amount of patience. I mean, you know, there, there have been there have been days when you arrive, it's 530 in the morning. And then about five hours later, six hours later, the ad says, okay, that's lunch, and you haven't got a shot. When, and, and, and, and Okay, and you know, you're getting written now it's three in the afternoon, and you're convinced that you're going to get fired, and you're going to have to lose student days, you have to get some confidence that you're going to then accomplish when you do those things, the things that you want that you've got the number of cameras, and then you've got the right shots, and you've done a shot list. I mean, II don't do shot lists of people in rooms and talking and whatever. But on those things, you damn well better have your shot list because you're not coming back there, you know, with 500 extras the next day?
Alex Ferrari 47:23
Yeah, so like, it's kind of like that old, that old story of john Ford on a script. The Indians take the fort. Like it's literally one line, but it took two weeks to shoot. And I'm assuming once you move that machine to reset that machine, that's another day, almost sometimes,
Edward Zwick 47:41
there's so many great stories about that I won't bore you with and there's there's a great one about David lean, and they're setting the the the, the attack on aka but you know, without the camera without filming the cameras and, and, and there's, um, what was I gonna say there was another thing that reminded me of, of I, you know, yeah, you just have to that that's a real, that's about a kind of redundancy. I read a now something really weird has happened to the visual on the front, okay. I am I there's a book that I read by Rick Atkinson called the army at dawn. He's a Washington Post reporter about and it's about the Allied it was part of a trilogy about World War Two. And it's about the invasion of North Africa, which was an utter failure. And it's about all the preparations they had to do to create amphibious landings. Well, they'd never done them before, what is an obvious landing, they had invent the amphibious craft, and they had to understand about supplies and all of this. And it was about the redundancy of checking and rechecking and having these endless meetings with all of the departments and making sure that everybody's on the same page and, and being honest about you can and can't accomplish. And what they discovered when they did the landing, is they got it all wrong. But they never could have done D day if they hadn't fucked up so badly in North Africa. And so part of it is also making really stupid mistakes, as long as you then don't make them twice,
Alex Ferrari 49:27
then that's pretty much filmmaking. Not one one part of filmmaking that is not really taught in schools very often. And I know I felt I've had to deal with it I'm sure you have to every director has ever had to deal with it. Is the inevitable politics of being on set the hierarchy dealing with politics of actors or crew or studio or producers. Can you talk a little bit about how you as a director deal with those, those those panels Tick moments, which, when you have a group of people, it's going to happen.
Edward Zwick 50:03
Yeal. well, you've you've mentioned, you know, by those seven people you've mentioned, if you if you triangulate them, you've mentioned about 49 different relationships, so, so maybe more, so I can only I'd have to talk about them somewhat separately. Um, the one thing I would say is I have over time, come up with a kind of an analog to what a film set is. And, and, and, and because it's not a startup, and it's not a team. It's not a business. It's this, a group of people all coming together with a common goal. But the goal is ephemeral. The goal is a story. And I think of it a little bit like the sort of like the sailing ships in the 16th century. Everybody on that ship is a master, the ship's carpenter, the sail maker, the cook, the navigator, everybody is really is an expert in what they do. Um, and at the front of the ship up in the in the in the prow of the ship is some guy with a big long beard, blown back by this spray in the wind. And he said, I don't really know the way, right, he has idea. But somebody's got to say that. And all the rest of them are probably capable of being that guy who's up there, but they don't want that gig. They're perfectly happy being in their own depart, doing their thing as experts, and also grumbling that the son of a bitch up there doesn't know what he's doing. But, but they're wonderful people, they might film people on a set are funny as shit, they are capable of working in long hours in inclement conditions with crummy food. And, and, and, and, and there's a love there. And there's a commitment to this thing. And it's, it's romantic, it's a beautiful thing. So generally, I find a crew to be just the best part of it are all that now, when you fold in the actors who have their own little world and their own set of issues, they have to be that they have to be dealt with in a very particular way. So as to be able to keep that separateness to a certain degree and be able to have the focus and the concentration that they need. But you'll also find that if actors are not in gratitude for their opportunity, or not aware of what's happening, they could lose a crew to an actor could get a crew to do anything for them. Or they could have a crew that's working against them. And it's all it's often a factor of what their nature is, you know, a little bit have a little bit of sensitivity on their part or kindness or awareness of what other people are going through goes a very long way. And and vice versa. Because a crew could sabotage an actor just in some very subtle but very unhappy ways.
Alex Ferrari 53:19
And when No, and I think the same goes for directors like it if you don't, I mean, I've had crews, I see I've been on sets where the crews are completely against the director, either in either in television, because television is even rough. And that's a whole other conversation. Yep. But in a feature world, they come in and if you just a little bit of kindness, saying hi to them, saying thank you, you know, all those little things, making sure that they that they're fed on time that these little little things go such a long way when you get when you're at our 12 and you need them to go another 30 or 40 minutes. Totally,
Edward Zwick 54:01
totally and, and also I listen, I started I was very young, when I started really directing. I mean, I was maybe 26 wives, and I would do some of these shows at Universal. And those guys, you know, they had been working for 35 years, they've done 1000s of hours, right? And even when I started making movies, it became very clear to me that the dolly grip I was making my third movie so I shot six hours of film and he shot 600 and when I would start to say Okay, now we're gonna put the camera over and by the time I point he was already moving the dolly over to where the camera was going to be because he knew so so the part of it was actually surrounding myself with people who really knew much more than I did and trying to pay attention and really ask you know, dumb questions and and and try to listen
Alex Ferrari 54:57
their absolute absolute absolute
Edward Zwick 55:00
When you when you try to then factor into the executives, and oh, yes, that's that's a whole other story about you know, yeah,
Alex Ferrari 55:08
that's another podcast, that's another podcast. Now, um, have you ever had to deal with an unprepared or difficult actor? And if you have what do you as a director? If it's a star, if it's a bit player, if it's if it's a secondary supporting character? How do you deal with that as an actor, as a director to keep the engine going?
Edward Zwick 55:34
You know, I've dealt with actors who were too anxious to do well. And that's something you deal with. But when you deal with an actor who's not prepared, was drinking at lunch? At the bad scene, and I'm not sure I handled it very well, I'm not sure I even knew what to do. Because there's not much you can do. I suppose if you're in the position to fire someone, you can. But you also know that when you fire someone, you're also hurting yourself. Because the they're not going to necessarily say, Oh, it's fine. We'll go back and reshoot all this, and we'll give you all the time back, it'll inevitably hurt you in some way. I think there are two things. One, there are a lot of us, I think, who are perfectly willing to call each other out of the blue. And I won't mention names of guys who called me. But I could tell you that I have presumed to pick up the phone and call another director and say, before I work with this guy, I've heard something just talk to me, tell me honestly, this will never go any further. What am I looking at? What am I up against? Because that's the kind of honor among thieves. Yeah, if they've had a bad experience, they don't want they don't want you to have a bad experience. Directors, ironically, are very, are very supportive of each other, we may be competitive in some, in some industries mind as to who could do a better film, but any director who's been through it more than once, or has a life in it has real compassion for for their peers. So I will call people and they will call me and so that's one failsafe to avoid that thing happening. And only once I've been forced to use an actor that I didn't want to use that I heard stuff about. And it almost ruined, I think it actually did really hurt the third act of one of my movies, and I will not mention who that is, but it was, it was bad. And I hated it. And I should have fought it harder. It was because the movie was going out way over budget and that needed, they felt they needed another star and it was just a bad scene. So that was that. Um, but the other thing is, try to if there's a way that you know, you're not gonna get a movie star to read for you. Right? But you can, but you can try to spend time with them. And, and even though it seems awkward, really try to talk honestly and get the measure of who that person is. Because people will tell you who they are. I mean, there's, if you really listen, when you anybody in life, when you beat them, they want you to know who they are. And, and and if you can get past your own anxiety or your or your expectations, you know, I need this person to be in my movie, therefore, I'm going to like him. Right? In fact, what they're saying is crap, or what they're saying is terrifying about, you know, their, their entitlement or their, you know, pomposity, or, you know, they're ingratitude things that really make you crazy. You end up if you end up casting that person, then you get what you deserve.
Alex Ferrari 59:04
We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor. And now back to the show. Amen. Amen. Very, very, very true. Now, in Last Samurai, which by the way last summer is one of those movies that if it's on, it's a it's a remote throwing kind of throw away the remote kind of movie for me. Like if it's on wherever it is, in the movie, I just stopped Okay, I'm in I'm in and I'm, it's one of those films for me. I absolutely adore it. I also am fascinated with Samurai culture and cemetery history and I haven't recorded our autograph. In in, in the it's, it's on the wall in the back. I'm, I've got my samurai sword in the other room. I mean, I'm in so that's why when I saw that trailer for the first time, I was amazed. Some there's so many things in that movie that we could talk about, but The fight sequences in that film are so wonderful and so amazing. And I know Tom, from what I hear from other directors I've talked to who've worked with him, and also just the legend. He is a serious, committed, professional actor, and he wants to do everything himself.
Edward Zwick 1:00:20
Yeah, I mean, yeah, there. Um, I would say, there is only one shot in that movie that Tom did not do. And that's when the horse that he's riding in the final charge takes a fall. Right? Right. Because, first of all, the insurance company would never let us do that. And I would never let him do it. Because the guys who did it were the gypsies from Spain, from zingaro, the great horse circus, who were the greatest writers in the world, and who had trained with those horses for four months before then. But he wanted to, but he wanted to do it. Oh, I'm sure and by the way, he's riding in the charge. He's, I'll tell you what he's in. He's in the charge on the on foot when the two armies come together and hit each other. Oh, he's in that shot that. But But what I remember is, is it was February, we didn't start shooting the movie. We till like September, October. So in February already, I remember he was renting a house someplace on the west side, and like, there was a tennis court there. And I went to go see him one night, and it was foggy, cold. And it was nine at night. And I remember walking down to the tennis court, and he is out there with a sword guy working out. And that's seven months before we shot the movie. And, you know, some of the learning Japanese. And I mean, you know, there was a great guy, a guy named Nick Powell very talented stunt guy who was really good with sword. But I also found that a lot of the Japanese had their own you know, experts and they had shot a lot of Samurai movies. And and there were there were some guys on that on that field of there were 700 Japanese who came to live in New Zealand with us, when we made that movie even created a village with our own doctors and diet and whatever. But there were guys on on that field who had been in those carousel movies. So and and there are certain guys in those battles, who must probably who die about 100 times, I think that it's
Alex Ferrari 1:02:46
as good as good stunt people. Do you just put another wig on them? Get them out there again.
Edward Zwick 1:02:51
But But I do remember that literally. It was a kind of ghoulish exercise, certainly in that final battle about saying, okay, okay. What's another way to kill someone? How many ways are there that I could devise to kill someone? tell you another interesting thing. You probably like we there's the scene when that when the samurai first come out of the mist and they charge and they're on horseback and horseback week week, we built an app that's an animatronic horse. It was a million dollars to build a horse. That is probably only in about 28 seconds of film.
Alex Ferrari 1:03:36
How is that? That doesn't make a lot of sense ROI wise. Like there's not a really good return on investment or is there? I
Edward Zwick 1:03:42
mean, seriously? No, it does. Because in the middle of this remarkable season, you have your movie star, doing things that you would never let a movie star do. Okay, horse rearing, turning sword bending, twisting to an end then getting t boned by another horse and going over.
Alex Ferrari 1:04:04
I guess you're right. I guess you're right. You're absolutely right.
Edward Zwick 1:04:06
There's no other way to do it. And you save yourself. Okay, this whole sequence is going to be five minutes. If you got 30 seconds of that movie star doing that in the middle of it. It's probably worth it in a movie that cost $130 million. That million dollars was well spent. Yeah, but true.
Alex Ferrari 1:04:26
That's amazing. So like so that sequence that fight sequence in the in the back alley, the when the samurai surround Tom and that the way you shot that in the way that the timing and the slow mo and the way he the way he was thinking like the images. How do you approach a scene like that?
Edward Zwick 1:04:44
Yeah, I am. I I read a I read a book by john McPhee talking about Arthur Ashe, and I think it might have been osuna playing a tennis match in the 60s. And it's a brilliant analysis of, of sport, but also competition and I remember him time trying to break down a tennis stroke into the composite motions of every change the weight and and and a vision and timing and and what the human brain might be capable of doing and understanding all at once. When you see a player in hang time twisting and reverse the ball and then going opposite Elio, since you know, things that are or I once had a cat, that I slow motion and dropping the cat from higher up upside down and seeing the cat come and find his feet with a kind of gyro ability that he would have. So the idea was to say, how would it be possible for someone because you know, in Samurai movies, when you see it, they're doing it, but it's very fast. And you're taking it on faith? That that's how it would have been. But I said to myself, okay, is there a way that we could literally break it down and see it, and do it in the reverse? Usually, what you do in action, or at least what I seen before, with action is some action starts in it immediately goes into slow motion
Alex Ferrari 1:06:33
Edward Zwick 1:06:34
And that's how it happens. And I said to myself, well, what happens if we do it, and then find a way to then go backwards, and almost like that, that, you know, he's been training? Right. That's, that's why this makes so much sense. And when you're, when you're training it, you know, you train and you train and you train, and they try to say to you, and the whole theory of that was, which is what coaches used to say to me, if you did well, oh, man, you were playing out of your mind? Yeah, you're playing out of your mind. What does that mean? The zones are opening, you're only reacting,
Alex Ferrari 1:07:14
Edward Zwick 1:07:15
So this first show him playing out of his mind, almost been unaware of what he had done. And then go back and almost to recapitulate it, in that penultimate moment, that leads up to the last moment, that was the whole theory. But Tom, I will say, Does every, and those guys are swinging, they're not they're not sharpened swords. But if one of those swords would have hit him in the face, or in the arm, that would have been, you know, the, if not the end of a career would be the end of a couple weeks of shooting. So, so imagine the amount of time that he spent rehearsing that with those guys to do that. It done all I wanted to show it all in one take first.
Alex Ferrari 1:08:05
Yeah, and that and the reason why all of that works so beautifully is because it works into his character. And that's what I love about that action sequence. It is it is a statement about what the character is gone through. It is not just an action sequence to look cool, which is fine. And there's those those stories in those films. But in this your action sequence are actually telling is a storytelling aspect. It's not just look how cool you swing a sword. It I mean, I believe I'm not interested in action for its own sake.
Edward Zwick 1:08:36
I mean, I like it sometimes. So this is not who I am. I, if there's a reason. If something is accomplished narratively in it, then there's a reason for it to be in the movie. And sometimes that's a by design. It's great if you can reveal anything through behavior, rather than through exposition. And in this case, it It literally begins with that first scene with the character playing YuGiOh hero hero Yuki sanada when Cruz refuses to, to, to lie down, and get up, he's trading that stick Oh, so good. But it's a progression. And even that scene, by the way, which we did in the rain, which made it much more dangerous hurry for him. It happens to be a master. But that to have slipped if one of them slips at that moment in that wet, sloppy mud. That's just, you know, right out. So
Alex Ferrari 1:09:43
it is it is again and if anyone listening has not watched last time. Please do yourself a favor and watch it because the actual sequence is the story. I mean, I cry at the I mean, you're just tearing at the end of that. It's just so emotional and so well done. You go to something like Blood Diamond, which is again, another dis. I mean, it's not a war movie, per se, but it is a war movie. You know, there is definitely elements in that. And that's one thing I wanted to ask you. There is something I've noticed in your filmography as well, is there's a theme, a lot of the stories you tackle are deal with war, and even even pawn sacrifice about Bobby Fischer is a internal and external war of one character. So what draws you to that kind of material? Because it started way, way early with glory.
Edward Zwick 1:10:37
I don't know.
Alex Ferrari 1:10:42
Because, I mean, you do see you sort of pattern, right?
Edward Zwick 1:10:45
Yeah. I mean, look, I'm not the first dramatist to realize that, that in those extreme circumstances, you can find great story. And you got to go back to you know, let's start with Homer. Right, right. Right. And then and then the aliens are pretty good one.
Alex Ferrari 1:11:03
Time, it's okay. It wouldn't, it wouldn't have a good box office opening,
Edward Zwick 1:11:06
I'm just gonna write and Shakespeare did, okay. With, with several different wars. And, you know, I mean, I, you know, in those moments, obviously, things are simplified. Yeah, the nuance of care, I had done plenty of ambiguity and ambivalence when I was doing 30 something and doing little, you know, modern, you know, behavioral comedy. But with this, there's an opportunity to juxtapose that kind of emotionality that's at the same, it's not strange to see that at the same pitch. Because that's the world that it's in the outside the external reality matches the internal reality there. So it doesn't seem stupid. For that to be at a certain depth of intensity.
Alex Ferrari 1:12:00
Now, the siege which is, by the way, one of my wife's and mine favorite films, which is he she adores that film. Um, she's the one thing I want to ask you there, it's an eerie Omen to 911 like you did that in before 911. How, how did you come up with that story? Because, I mean, imagine when you, you know, when you experience 911, you're like, oh, Mike, Oh, my God. I mean, it's Yeah,
Edward Zwick 1:12:24
obviously, that certainly was a but
Alex Ferrari 1:12:28
comparing it to your to your story to your film, you're like, Oh, my God, this is? Wow. Well,
Edward Zwick 1:12:32
I would say two things. One is that I was reading a lot about Europe, and what Europe was going through with terrorism. And, and I have a number of friends who went into government, and whom I could talk to write out what they anticipated. Because a lot of times, what seems like it's happening someplace else, is inevitably going to happen here. And I you know, and, and, and, and that only gets faster and faster. We look no further leaving in the pandemic, you know, which Oh, that's gonna be just over there. No. It is. It is one world in that regard. And, and so, I guess I was paying attention. I wasn't prognosticating. I was trying to pay attention to what was happening in the world. And, and I just felt that that was coming here. And by the way, the guy two people helped me on that script very closely. The first was Larry, right. Larry, right, who then wrote the looming tower. He's one of the greatest journalists of our day. And he wrote this book about the pandemic. A year ago, before this all happened. He's a, an amazing journalist who's paying great attention. And the others men omis, who's a friend and a great writer, he was actually I think he wrote a couple of the Indiana Jones movies and and he's a politically very savvy guy. So it was, you know, I had help. And I also had helped by talking to people from the, the the FBI, CIA, counterintelligence, Task Force, Task Force and and talking to people who were, you know, experts in the field of hostage negotiations, and at every stage, you know, if you're, I mean, I did have some experience at the very beginning of my life as a journalist, and I still hold on to the understanding that there's no substitute for talking to people and know what they're talking about. Especially if you bring a movie star with you.
Alex Ferrari 1:14:54
That always helps is what you're saying.
Edward Zwick 1:14:56
Yeah, it really does. You mean then i would i would be there with the CIA with Annette Bening and and and and then would they would have stonewalled me at the minute she walked in it was like, Oh, wait, let me show you this secret document from like,
Alex Ferrari 1:15:12
what do you want to know who shot JFK? Like? Exactly.
Never underestimate the power of the star power of movie stars and trying to get anything done in this town in general. Now, you you have been, you've been a writer from for most of your career actually, I think it was in most of your career you've always been writing and you write most of you work that you direct. And then also you write scripts that are are, are that are not something that you direct. What is your writing process? Like? How do you get into it? Because arguably, directing 500 horses, taking a hill is probably easier than looking at a blank page. Yeah, I
Edward Zwick 1:15:57
think that's a fair way to put it. I mean, I know that when I'm writing, I'd sure rather be out on the set with 500 horses, but I conversely, when I'm out there with 500 horses, I sure wish it would like to be back someplace else writing.
Alex Ferrari 1:16:11
It's, it's Yeah, it's always that yeah. So but what is so what is your process? Do you start with character? Do you start with plot? Is it Do you like what is that process for you?
Edward Zwick 1:16:22
Hmm. I mean, I mean, I I do believe I mean, I mean, sometimes there are simple things I know when I when I started writing Blood Diamond. I Chuck Leavitt had written a very interesting script that really didn't have much to do with what we were doing but it was set in the time of you know, that the conflict diamond you know, moment and but I kept thinking and thinking about the story would be in as reading a lot of books and reading a lot of articles and talking to people whatever. And I came up with a phrase and the phrase was the child is the diamond. And like that, I put that on my like on a post it note and if you think about it, um, you know, the the the Solomon Vandy character is looking for his son. Leo is looking for the stone, Jenny Connelly is looking for a bus story. And somehow, the idea that the each had these goals were started it all spinning in my mind as to as to how one could, it's sort of a john Houston sort of plot really, where these different people have these different agendas, and they come together and, and apart. That's conceptual. And part of it is conceptual, I think, certainly, for samurai, no, Marshall and I, and john Logan, we've had because john Logan and I did the first drafts together. The idea that a man would end up turning against everything that he has been trained to do and believe in and fighting to the death for it.
Alex Ferrari 1:18:20
Edward Zwick 1:18:21
is a concept. Yes. How does that man get from that place to that place? And then we talked a lot about Samurai culture. We talked a lot about Zen. Um, so that's part of it. But the other part, I know is going to sound it's kind of sounds kind of hokey. But what's a movie that I really want to see that nobody else is making?
Alex Ferrari 1:18:46
Edward Zwick 1:18:47
Can I entertain myself? Can I can I give myself the experience of doing this kind of doing this movie? Because while you write a movie, you are living it. And in fact, maybe the best performance of it is the one that nobody sees. It's the one that only you have been able to imagine and see in your mind. Because it's inevitably going to be reduced by compromise of money and time and performances,
Alex Ferrari 1:19:14
Edward Zwick 1:19:15
Is there any way that I can, you know, just sort of re imagine my experience of being a kid in the movies or that person at the Cinematheque at 22 years old? Just just been, you know, hypnotized by, by a thing that that really interests me.
Alex Ferrari 1:19:38
Fair enough. And that leads me to the next question. What drives you as a storyteller?
Edward Zwick 1:19:48
Oh, look, you early in this conversation, you use the word calling?
Alex Ferrari 1:19:58
Edward Zwick 1:19:59
So I'll throw it At the end, I'll say, I'll say, I think that there is purpose. And I think there is value. In trying to hold a mirror up to our society, I think the storyteller had a role in the primordial cave cave, trying to explain to everybody why that saber toothed Tiger came and took that child away that day, or what that Eclipse meant, you know, that we've, we've, we've had a role. And it may be just to make people laugh, and it may be to to deal with their fears. Or it may be even to explain their own ambivalences or to give them language for something that they don't have. But but there's there is something of a ministry in it. And I and I do think that the reason that certain movies are memorable and others are forgettable is that the movies that are memorable, somehow dig into those personal secrets and, and internal workings of the mind and of the heart that that people want to explore. And they want to start with it. And when we are in movies, we are weeping for ourselves, we are weeping for those characters, but we're weeping for the parts of ourselves that identify with those people in that moment that have something of them or have experienced something, or will experience it. I had a conversation with James Newton Howard yesterday, who is a some wonderful composer with him. I've done several films. And he said, You know, people say they, they, they they, they make movies. Because they want to explore something they've experienced. He said, I write music, to experience something that I've never felt.
Alex Ferrari 1:22:06
Edward Zwick 1:22:07
And that was so beautiful to me. It's very honest. And he and I want to have an experience. And and and then I want to offer it to other people. And that's a whole other way of sort of turning it around.
Alex Ferrari 1:22:21
Fair enough. Now I'm gonna I'm gonna ask you a few questions. I ask all of my guests. If you could go back and tell your younger self one thing, what would that be?
Edward Zwick 1:22:34
Be? be bolder,
Alex Ferrari 1:22:37
take more chances. Take more chances. You'll be okay. It's okay. Yeah, don't be so scared. Yeah. I'll agree. I'll agree with you that I feel like my 20s were a complete waste. Yeah. Now, what advice would you give a filmmaker trying to break into the business today?
Edward Zwick 1:22:59
Well, I mean, it's kind of remarkable in that, you know, with it with a consumer HD camera and, and avid for Mac and, you know, some you could make anybody can make movies now. I mean, I saw you actually had Shaun Baker on your show once before. Yeah. And, and and his first movie, and even a second. I mean, you you know, he, I think that it's not nearly so much about technology as it is actually coming to understand why you have any notion of telling a story. You know, what is it? The i i've never, yes, there's a whole world of people that, that make movies, because that's cool. And that's a comic book. And, sure, God bless them. And it's fine. It just, it just, it just does not, you know, my jam. But, but you've got to have something to say. You've got to, I would say, for a filmmaker, it's not just to look at other films, but to try to look at life and to read books about psychology and politics and science. And I think it's curiosity for the world about how people behave and how the world behaves. I just don't think it's about trying to figure out where to put the camera. Or, or or you'll you'll be, that was, by the way in going all the way back what I watched with Woody Allen, when I first was 21 years old. He didn't know any of that stuff. They were people I realized he was a writer who has somebody wanted to say and some of it was funny, and so it was emotional, but he had people who could help him learn that and he learned it and I loved it too. But I'd like to think that there were things that I was interested in beyond the process of making the film. I love the making of the film. And we've talked about that today even. And it's, it's delicious. But it's actually what's gonna give a film some kind of substance is something in it something worth saying.
Alex Ferrari 1:25:27
Now what is the lesson that took you the longest to learn whether in the film industry or in life?
Edward Zwick 1:25:36
Boy. Yeah, I guess I would say that, when I was really young, and beginning, certainly in the, in the industry, that I thought that I was making movies, so as to get something else was to get fame or money or sex or, and some, some validation that I didn't get in childhood. And, and so so so my process was fraud, my process was contorted to some degree. And, eventually, and it took a while, I realized that, Oh, actually, it was the doing of it. That was the gift. I made movies, because I really liked doing it. I did it, for the joy of it. And, and, and the reward. It's not the credits on IMDB. It's not anything because they're all going to be forgotten. Like, everything is forgotten. It's it's, it's the the reward is the those relationships and the memories of, of the struggle, and, and the defeats and the triumphs, but to have the experiences that is that is the thing that that I have.
Alex Ferrari 1:27:08
And what you've just said is so perfect. So, so profound, that I just want to touch on it for a second because as as filmmakers, because I deal with independent filmmakers on a daily basis, and I've spoken to many over the years. And there is I mean to be a director in many ways there is there has to be some sort of ego there to be able to say I'm gonna, I'm gonna go do this. But a lot of them get caught up in the whole awards, or my legacy or what I'm going to leave behind or, or, or then of course, the more shadow things like rich, famous Sex, drugs, money, whatever that is. But if you look if you start to study history, you know, most filmmakers today, most people who really can name one Orson Welles film, can maybe name one or two john Ford films, unless you're a real cinephile can go in there. And at the end of the day, you know, no matter how many Oscars you've won, how many how many awards, you've gotten, what you said, is so profound, because it's about the experience, it's about the religious, it's about living life, it's about going through all that. And it's not about the awards. It's not about them, if you can make some money along the way, and when a couple of words along the way, great, but it doesn't mean anything. It's more about that experience. Would you agree?
Edward Zwick 1:28:28
Think of the privilige of being an artist?
Alex Ferrari 1:28:31
Oh, god, yes.
Edward Zwick 1:28:32
You know, and and by the way, it's it's it's maybe a pretentious to even use that word in film, because it's a film business. And so you're an artist, businessman, but whatever, you are sure. That rather than punching a time clock, or doing something that I despised, so as to get a pension, or, or deny, I have gotten up every morning, just excited. Now, what that day might hold, I've been given the privilege of exploring my imagination and my fears, or my fetishes, or my anxieties or my desires, and been overpaid for it, you know, really wildly over rewarded for it. And given some sort of sort of validation. I can't begin to describe, um, it's, it's that there's that commercial where it says, Oh, this thing is valuable. This thing is, you know,
Alex Ferrari 1:29:34
right, right. Right. Right.
Edward Zwick 1:29:37
Ivaluable, whatever. But no, I mean, that, that that is it. It is it is this astonishing privilege, and to have been in relationship with really great, brilliant people, artists themselves, really, you know, passionate people who care about what they're doing. You can't even can't even estimate its value.
Alex Ferrari 1:30:02
And last question three of your favorite films of all time.
Edward Zwick 1:30:05
Oh my god. Well, I named I already named no parasolid movies so you could take any one of those as
Alex Ferrari 1:30:13
many as fair enough, fair enough. I'll allow that cheat. Okay.
Edward Zwick 1:30:22
Uh, I guess I have this movie that I really love. Um, yeah, it's by Ettore Scola. The Devil in Love. We all loved each other so very much.
Alex Ferrari 1:30:36
Edward Zwick 1:30:37
It's in by Ettore Scola. It's an Italian movie that I really really love. It's going to be such a hokey thing to talk about, you know, to talk about you know, the Godfather one and two. I mean,
Alex Ferrari 1:30:49
Edward Zwick 1:30:50
You say you throw the remote away. that's a that's a remote thrower away. I hope that if that movies on and it's 11 at night, I'm gonna be up till two you know it just
Alex Ferrari 1:31:02
I was seeing an interview with Tom Hanks once he's like, all things can be all answers are in The Godfather. Like if you have a question about life,
Edward Zwick 1:31:11
Alex Ferrari 1:31:13
leave the gun, take the cannoli. That's profound.
Edward Zwick 1:31:17
And by the way, and and in and anything you want to know about, about about film about directing, is in The Last Samurai. It's narrative action, characterization, humor, pace. It's all there to staging. So if you had one on a desert island, it would be that one who want to learn go to film school be that one.
Alex Ferrari 1:31:38
Now I absolutely agree with you. And what it has been an honor and a privilege to talk. It's been an absolute pleasure talking to you. It's really, really been great. Thank you for your time, and I truly appreciate it.
Edward Zwick 1:31:52
All right, well, I really enjoyed it too. And best of luck with your with your show.
Alex Ferrari 1:31:58
I want to thank Edwards so much for coming on the show and dropping his knowledge bombs and sharing his experiences in the film business and hopefully sprinkling a little inspiration to keep the tribe going and following their dreams. Thank you again, so much, Edward. If you want to get links to anything we spoke about in this episode, please head over to the show notes at indie film hustle comm forward slash 447. And if you haven't already, please head over to filmmaking podcast.com and leave a good review for the show. It truly helps the show out a lot. Thank you again for listening guys. We've got some more amazing guests coming in the weeks and months ahead. I've been very, very busy. And we got some other stuff. I've been cooking up for you guys as well. So keep an eye out for that. Thank you again so much for listening, guys. As always, keep that hustle going. Keep that dream alive. Stay safe out there, and I'll talk to you soon.
We all have to start somewhere and Quentin Tarantino is no exception. Unlike popular lore, Tarantino did not come bursting through the indie film gates with Reservoir Dogs as his first film. Before you go out and see any of Tarantino’s films you should watch his first little ditty which was an unreleased feature film called “My Best Friend’s Birthday.”
“My Best Friend’s Birthday” is a black-and-white amateur film written by Craig Hamann and Quentin Tarantino. This was also the first film the Quentin Tarantino directed. It was shot while he was working at the now sadly closed down indie film shrine Video Archives in Manhattan Beach, CA.
The project started in 1984, when Hamann wrote a short 40-page script about a young man who continually tries to do something nice for his friend’s birthday, only to have his efforts fail miserably.
Tarantino and Hamann expanded the short script into a full-length feature film screenplay. Some of the dialogue and characters would eventually find a home in Tarantino’s classic screenplay True Romance.
Actor Allen Garfield (from Beverly Hills Cop fame) was teaching Quentin Tarantino acting at the time, and that is how he also became involved in the project.
The budget was an estimated $5,000, which was tiny considering they shot the indie film on 16mm over the next three years. Quentin Tarantino acting bug was in full effect so he also starred in the indie film, along with several video store and acting class pals.
Tarantino worked on the crew, which included fellow Video Archives employees Rand Vossler and future Oscar® winner and Pulp Fiction co-writer Roger Avary, who also acted as cinematographer on the film. It’s the most overtly comedic film that Quentin Tarantino has ever made.
The original cut was about 70 minutes long but the final reel was destroyed in a lab fire that broke out during editing. The surviving 36 minutes of the film has been shown at several film festivals around the world. It has never been officially released.
When watching this short you can see early seeds ofQuentin Tarantino‘s genius for dialog and character. It’s a fun watch and a must for all aspiring filmmakers. Enjoy the rare indie film oddity “My Best Friend’s Birthday.”