View
239
Download
4
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
My completed honors thesis with documentation describing my research as well as my implementation of film theory.
Citation preview
Film Authorship: Exploring the theoretical and practical sides to authorship in film production
David Tregde
2
Table of Contents Literature Review Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 Auteur Theory ......................................................................................................................4 Writer Theory .....................................................................................................................15 Collaborative Theory .........................................................................................................18 Breakdown .........................................................................................................................25 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................28 Case Study Preproduction .....................................................................................................................31 Production ..........................................................................................................................37 Postproduction ...................................................................................................................40 Reflection ...........................................................................................................................42 Appendices: Production Documents Voice of Blood script ..........................................................................................................44 Crew List & Duties ............................................................................................................65 Location Contact Information ............................................................................................66 Production Schedule ..........................................................................................................67 Costume Breakdowns ........................................................................................................68 Prop List .............................................................................................................................69 Equipment List ...................................................................................................................71 Shooting Schedule .............................................................................................................72 Shot List .............................................................................................................................73 Score and Audio Mixing Notes ..........................................................................................76 Budget ................................................................................................................................78
Literature Review
“Authorship does matter,” says Janet Staiger, because it addresses the issue of causality
behind a motion picture (Gerstner and Staiger 27). When addressing the responsible parties for a
film, it is important to know why such analysis is needed. Whether it be an issue of credit when
it comes to major awards or discovering the reason why a production failed, it can be paramount
to know who is responsible for the creation of a film. Film authorship theories fall into one of
three categories: auteur, writer, or collaborative. Classic auteur theory has commanded much of
film scholar debate since the 1960s. Although outcries against auteur theory have been
published since 1963 (Gerstner and Staiger 9), writer and collaborative theories have not been
given the same serious thought (Kipen 17). While critics and scholars can debate for eternity on
topics of authorship, the real issue is what filmmakers actually practice during production
(Tomasulo 114). An examination of film authorship should cover the evolution of authorship
theory from the 1960s to the present.
Feature films are never made by a single person. From the writer to the director to the
studio executives, many ideas and hours of hard work go into collaborating on a film production.
It is important to know that one theory of authorship will not answer the question for all films.
However, opening the discussion and studying films and filmmakers will make the reality of
theory more visible (Tomasulo 114). In addition, instructing future filmmakers in the processes
of established craftsman and artists in the industry can “confirm the value of theoretical inquiry”
through the practice of theoretical concepts (Tomasulo 116). Studying the work of filmmakers is
one way to improve the production value of a film. In this sense, the study and application of
film theory will also inform and improve a production.
4
Due to the nature of the filmmaking process, film often aligns with a more collaborative
form of authorship than other artistic media. While some films are recognized for their directing
or writing style, their true authorship lies in the intentionality of the collective that produced the
final product. The art department’s contribution is arguably no less important than camera
department’s in bringing the story to the big screen. Even the director’s and producer’s power
on set may be debatable considering the impact of actor input, assistant director’s duties, and
technicians’ crafting. Therefore, the following essay will examine major authorship theories,
building towards a collaborative theory of authorship.
Auteur Theory
At its heart, auteur theory promotes the director as the author of a motion picture
(Gerstner and Staiger 8). Behind every movie lies a director with a vision. The director gives
the motion picture “any distinctive quality it may have” (Grant 31). Many motion pictures are
extensively guided by a director from script to completion and are considered the work of that
director. Concept artist Syd Mead said, “The director is God in film” (Dangerous Days). For
instance, Alfred Hitchcock’s films are recognizable not only for their story and stylistic elements
but also for his standardized production method (Carringer 374). Hitchcock is “universally
acknowledged as the world’s foremost technician” and his form “does not merely embellish
content, but actually creates it” (Truffaut 17). It is this combination of high technical skill and
artistry that makes an auteur. Hitchcock was known for creating detailed storyboards for each of
his shots and both experimenting with and implementing filmmaking and storytelling
conventions.
When French New Wave critic Francois Truffaut published the auteur theory in the
Cahiers du Cinema in 1954, it took the world of film criticism by storm (Grant 55). The origins
5
of auteurism can be traced to the article Truffaut wrote titled “A Certain Tendency in French
Cinema” (Caughie 23). In this article, Truffaut explains where he believes American filmmakers
have succeeded where the French have not. The French critics for the Cahiers were concerned
with not only elevating film itself as an art but also naming American filmmakers as artists. At
the time, auteurism was a uniquely American trait from the French critics’ perspective. The
French critics became particularly interested in American filmmakers because of their focus on
visual narrative and strong heroes (Hess 52). Two strong film genres coming from the U.S. at
the time were film noir and westerns, both of which display independent and masculine heroes.
It was the way American directors rose above and beyond the genres that fascinated their
European counterparts (Hillier 32). What fascinated the French critics was when an American
director took a genre movie with a basic story and created compelling characters with an
interesting story that amounted to more artistically than its parts would lead a viewer to believe.
The critics often discusses this in reference to noirs and westerns where the protagonist became
more than the independent macho personality so cliché in both genres.
According to Truffaut, an auteur transforms the film into something personal, “an
expression of his own personality” (Caughie 23). Jacques Rivette made a similar argument,
saying that an auteur, rather than being at the mercy of a good or bad script, can take the material
and turn it into his work (Hillier 38). The original French version of auteur theory was the idea
of making a film distinct to the director by infusing ideas of his own into the characters and story
beyond what the script required. Jean-Luc Godard, in his article “Sufficient Evidence,” shows
that despite the “conventional scenario” of a film, an auteur will probe stereotypes and
archetypes to turn them into “living beings” (Hillier 48). This is why the French critics were so
obsessed with filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock because of his tendency to add personal
6
expression throughout his filmography (Truffaut 314). In fact, Truffaut’s idolizing of Hitchcock
lead him to conduct an extensive, in-depth interview with the filmmaker and publish it as
Hitchcock. Truffaut holds that a filmmaker, like any artist, fundamentally tries to show his
audience how to understand themselves through artistic expression (Truffaut 20). Rather than a
theory of authorship, Truffaut’s auteur theory argued that a director is an artist rather than a
technician (Hess 50). His interviews with Hitchcock revealed the director to be a deeply
emotional man who “feels with particular intensity the sensations he communicates to his
audience” (Truffaut 15). This would make Hitchcock more than a craftsman or technician and
elevate him as an artist. Alexandre Astruc wrote a later article addressing the “camera-stylo” as
he termed it, which compares the director’s camera to an author’s pen (Caughie 24). This
comparison led to the idea that a director is the sole authorship force behind a film. In addition,
the interpretation of Truffaut’s and Rivette’s articles spawned the idea that only auteurs or
cineastes (one who has a passionate interest in cinema) were capable of making a film truly their
own. Other directors were unable to disguise the fact that authorship lied elsewhere, for
example, directors who are heavily influenced by the writer of the script or the studio that
financed the project (Caughie 24). These directors would not be considered auteurs by the
French critics.
In conjunction with the destabilization of the studio system and a greater emphasis on
directors rather than studios, auteur theory came to command major attention in film theory for
the better part of the last several decades as well as dominate critical and public notions of film
authorship (Grant 111). Due to improved international relations after World War II, the French
were introduced to a whole body of American cinema at one time, and they quickly embraced
the American individualism portrayed in films by Howard Hawks, Orson Welles, and John Ford
7
(Hess 51). American film critic Andrew Sarris whole-heartedly adopted auteur theory and wrote
extensively on the topic, interpreting it for the American world of film theory and progressing
auteurism to the narrow, director-focused theory for which it became known (Caughie 9).
Charles Eckert argues that works by Sarris and Peter Wollen would have been a “mere eddy” in
auteur criticism if other critics and theorists had not clung so whole-heartedly to their assertions
(Grant 103). The Cahiers had to devote a lot of time and space “dissociating from the excesses
committed in its name” (Caughie 23)
Critics in film theory seek to give credit to the creator of the emotional and psychological
impact of a film (Macgowan 308). Auteur theory gave critics a way to associate film authorship
to a single entity. The moments, scenes, and sequences that impact the audience are the work of
the director because he is responsible for working with the talent, cinematographer, and editor to
tell a story which he sees in his head. Allowing the director to see his own version of a scene
could let him create a more artistically personal film, which the French critics relished. The
auteur critics also emphasized performers’ performances over acting ability noting the director’s
likeness to a psychological therapist who was able to tease out the performances like confessions
in group therapy (Hess 52). He is the conductor that approves the artistry of all the separate
pieces involved in the production (Grant 191).
Because of the popularity of auteur theory and directors proving their ability to make
money through control and personal expression, studios began to give their directors more
control over their films after the 1950s (Grant 186). Because of this industry-wide shift, auteur
theory began to evolve with the industry. Instead of an auteur’s status being defined by
“overcoming barriers to personal expression,” a director’s auteurism became defined by the
nature of that expression: the director’s auteur thumbprint (Grant 187). For example, the films of
8
Terry Gilliam show his obsession with the themes of reality and fantasy. Production designer
Benjamin Fernandez for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote said the film is “his [Gilliam’s]
vision. There are so many things fixed in his mind” (Lost in La Mancha).
One should consider the director in discourse concerning his work in order to find the
truth behind critics’ assumptions of his decisions and actions (Grant 30). The traditional, “low
tech” method for auteur analysis involves examining a director’s work “until patterns begin to
emerge” (Kipen 51). The Hollywood auteur filmmaker “existed once discovered by the rigorous
critic” (Gerstner and Staiger 9). Auteur analysis relies heavily on the subjective observations of
the critic through extensive viewing of the filmmaker’s work. Sarris held that auteur theory
served two purposes: to classify films and to give them value as works of art (Caughie 27).
Observing whether or not a film was created by an auteur could determine whether the film fit
into high or low art categories, in Sarris’s opinion.
Truffaut began in this way and went on to interview the legendary Hitchcock to uncover
the director’s methods (Truffaut 17). Hitchcock shares intimate details about each of his
significant productions, such as The Lodger (1944), which Hitchcock himself recognizes as the
first “true ‘Hitchcock movie’” (Truffaut 43). Hitchcock was able to have the genre of suspense
“more or less” to himself because he was one of the few to follow the rules of the genre (Tuffaut
194). This includes suspenseful diversions to throw the audience off from the true reveal and
coincidences that bring characters and plot elements together, like in the films North by
Northwest (1959), Vertigo (1958), and Psycho (1960). Because of this, Hitchcock carved a
definite auteuristic thumbprint into his own films and cinema as a whole, establishing himself
within Sarris’s pantheon of directors (“Sarris Categories”). Sarris looked at many of
Hollywood’s top directors and classified them as he saw fit, with Hitchcock, John Ford, and
9
Charles Chaplin at the top. Truffaut notes that those elements of Hitchcock’s style that put him
at such a high place artistically are summed up in Hitchcock’s need to “charge the screen with
emotion” (Truffaut 314). This driving desire lead Hitchcock to obsessively remove flaws from
his stories and created a drive to improve. This “filtering process” incidentally expressed a very
personal vision and “instinctively imposes” Hitchcock’s inner ideas on the audience (Truffaut
314). This, it can be said, is what makes each of Hitchcock’s films so similar and so different
simultaneously. At a young age, Hitchcock’s father had him placed in jail for “five or ten
minutes” to teach him what was done to children who misbehaved (Truffaut 25). This would
later lead Hitchcock to tell stories with so many characters wrongly accused of crimes (The 39
Steps (1935) & North by Northwest).
James Naremore examines the films of Stanley Kubrick across genres and decades to
draw conclusions about the filmmaker’s authorship (On Kubrick 1). Kubrick was able to
exercise large amounts of control over the final edits of his films due to early successes,
including Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960). Even before he was making successful
big-budget films, Kubrick would take as much of the production work on himself as he could—
from cinematography to editing—to maintain his vision throughout the filmmaking process (On
Kubrick 52). Spartacus being the exception, Kubrick desired and exercised sole artistic control
over his films. This stemmed from his feeling that his films should be his vision from start to
finish. In Killer’s Kiss (1955), Kubrick decided to do all sound in post-production because the
boom microphone interfered with the interior lighting he designed (On Kubrick 245).
Kubrick heavily involved himself in the scripting of his films to insert his ideas into the
story as much as possible (On Kubrick 123). Most of his projects originated from existing
material or a story Kubrick himself wanted to see made “cinematic” (On Kubrick 80). Kubrick
10
often told his interviewers, “that he considered the average talking picture uncinematic” (On
Kubrick 56), so Kubrick focused much of his energy on writing action sequences and allowing
writing partners to fill in with minimal dialog. Kubrick was constantly rewriting screenplays
during production to fit the film as it flowed during production. However, Kubrick’s controlling
desire led to him offending writing partner Jim Thompson by giving him little credit on the
projects he contributed to (On Kubrick 68). Kubrick often butted heads with the Production
Code Administration over approval of his screenplays. Many of Kubrick’s films contain graphic
sexuality or violence, which at the time of their production, was unfamiliar to the audience. He
was able to negotiate his way through to tell the stories the way he wanted (On Kubrick 54).
Kubrick was very much a revisionist with his genre movies. From The Killing to The
Shinning (1980), he played on genre clichés and premises before betraying them with twist or
non sequitur endings. Paths of Glory takes a war epic and turns it on it’s head by removing the
patriotism and heroism most often found in other World War films (On Kubrick 82). While
designed as a star vehicle for Kirk Douglas, the movie took a negative approach to the Allied
powers—specifically the French—and ended “morally ambiguous” (On Kubrick 83). The
Killing is more “slyly cruel” than an ordinary thriller (On Kubrick 75). Kubrick also uses
standard camera movements combined with unconventional lens choices to create “especially
bizarre” visuals (On Kubrick 71). Even Kubrick’s work on the horror classic The Shinning took
horror conventions and ideas from the originating novel and perverted them (On Kubrick 188).
Kubrick opened with the idea of a psycho killer gone crazy from cabin fever, but the ending
opened the audience to the idea of a supernatural force guiding the killer. This played off the
cliché notion of a killer and gave him a deeper motivation for killing.
11
Edward Gallafent links the works of Quentin Tarantino by themes, style, and storytelling
devices (Gallafent 1). For example, Tarantino ends most if not all of his films with “less than
happy” endings (Gallafent 5). Key examples include Reservoir Dogs, where each of the main
characters suffers a bloody and violent death, most of which we see on screen. In Pulp Fiction,
Vincent is gunned down after overcoming a bulk of his conflict in the film (the non-linear nature
of the film means his story continues within the context of the film). In Inglorious Basterds
(2009), several of the main characters die in a shootout and the remaining characters are mostly
killed off by the end.
Tarantino takes advantage of the ability of the filmmaker to modify the flow of time in
Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), and the Kill Bill (2003, 2004) movies (Gallafent 4).
In Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino skips over the main events of the story to cut straight to the
aftermath. Then, through a series of conversations and flashback sequences, the audience pieces
together A) how the group came together, and B) what happened between the opening scene and
everything else after the opening credits. Tarantino specifically creates this disorientation to
replicate the characters’ experience (Gallafent 15). To further emphasize the non-chronological
order of his films, Tarantino employs chapter numbers and titles to separate sequences from one
another (Gallafent 103). Pulp Fiction is famous for its multiple storylines colliding in unlikely
places with each chapter giving us a little more information about each character, albeit out of
order. Tarantino takes the storytelling style he established in Pulp Fiction and refines it in Kill
Bill Vol. 1 and 2. Following one former assassin, the audience is given slices of her life; it is
only in Vol. 2 that the viewer really understands the motivations and trials Beatrix faced.
Of course one of the most popular of Tarantino’s signatures is his pervasive use of
gratuitous violence (Gallafent 38). Aaron Barlow notes specifically that film is not real life and
12
the actions and consequences portrayed in movies are not reflective of reality but are rather
influenced by it (155). The violent ear-cutting perpetrated by Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs is
still one of Tarantino’s most-discussed violent moments, but, ironically, the actual act is never
shown on-screen. Tarantino’s character-specific choices for violent acts serve to develop
character and move the story forward. For example, Freddy/Mr. Orange’s cold gunning-down of
Mr. Blonde after torturing the cop tells us a lot about Mr. Orange before he reveals that he is an
undercover police officer (Gallafent 44). This act, when compared to his thoughtless execution
of the woman who shot him, shows the audience a character that doesn’t apologize for his
actions (Gallafent 45). When the audience finally sees Mr. Orange’s transformation into a
criminal, they learn he is now consumed with survival. The “joke” he learns to tell to get in with
the gang parallels his own story with a pension for cold, calculated survival. Another interesting
use of violence occurs in Pulp Fiction when Jules and Vincent murder three men in the second
sequence. To highlight the professionalism and sociopathic nature of the two men, once they kill
a character, we don’t see that character again (Gallafent 47). Once they have killed, Jules and
Vincent no longer care about the victim; they have written off the body as an item of furniture.
Furthermore, before the murders occur, Jules and Vincent take time to “get into character.” This
acts to prepare both the characters and the audience for what is to come, while the audience may
not know exactly how events will take place (Gallafent 46). Rather than explosive, angry, and
passionate violence in Reservoir Dogs, this scene slowly and carefully crafted. Whether it’s
done in gangster or kung fu style, Tarantino’s violence is always stylized and may or may not
have an overt point that some critics search for (Barlow 157). However, many of the focused
acts of violence in Tarantino films reveals elements of his characters we would not otherwise
see.
13
James Swallow conducts a similar analysis of the films of David Fincher. Fincher’s
trademark look “remains emblazoned on every frame of the film he shoots” (Swallow 175). This
is everything from the muted and dark tones on screen to his often-violent characters. Fincher
himself cites Alfred Hitchcock as a major influence on his work, and his work in suspense and
mystery serves as evidence for this claim (Swallow 191). Since making controversial and
blockbuster hits such as Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999), and academy-award-winning The
Social Network (2010), Fincher has become one of the “boldest directors of the decade”
(Swallow 114). Fincher is as unafraid to tackle violent or controversial stories as he is to
embrace new technologies and techniques in filmmaking.
Fincher is well known for his dark and violent films (Swallow 13). The perverse and
over-the-top violence in Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) are
Fincher signatures as much as his exploration of the darkness within his human characters.
Fincher pushes his heroes to the point of no return to exact violence from them. These three
movies revolve around violent protagonists stuck in violent situations. The perpetual cycle
serves to lead the characters to an eventual low point causing them to act in ways not before
explored.
However, even from its beginning, the auteur theory faced opposition. More recently,
theorists have delved into the cultural context in which the French New Wave critics birthed the
auteur theory in order to explain the original idea as well as revise it for contemporary critique
(Naremore 14). Specifically, post World War II, Europe was flooded with American films, so
the French were exposed to a cornucopia of American filmmaking. The French critics’
fascination with American films has been attributed to their lack of exposure during the years of
the war.
14
Even the critics themselves tried to separate themselves from the more radical adherents
to the theory. André Bazin, a critic with the Cahiers du Cinema, wrote, “The evolution of
Western art towards personalization should definitely be considered a step forward, but only so
long as…[it] doesn’t claim to define culture” (Caughie 26). Bazin hoped to correct for the
outbreak in director-centrism that sprung out of the Cahiers love for American directors. Rather
than push to extremes in the way Andrew Sarris did, the Cahiers critics chose to instead attribute
directorial genius to other factors including industry environment and historical contexts
(Caughie 27). As mentioned previously, Sarris argued that auteur films gave them more value
within society than other films. Bazin argues the theory should not be used in this way because
it perverts the entire idea the creators had in mind. However, Sarris’s notion became more
popular in the public eye when used on popular and well-known directors, such as the ones
analyzed previously.
Critic and theorist Pauline Kael wrote that Sarris’s breakdown of the auteur theory in
“Notes on Auteur Theory” (1962) relies on “incongruous premises and incorrect assumptions”
(Grant 54). Kael considered Sarris to “lack rigor” and be “undisciplined” (Gerstner and Staiger
9). Some theorists hold Sarris in a similar position to the French New Wave critics with their
star-struck criticism and Sarris’s unwavering dedication to the Hollywood director. Many critics
agree auteur theory to be fraught with logical problems (Kipen 63). For example, auteurism
unnaturally elevates the director’s place within production and judges films based on their
director rather than as an individual artistic work (Gerstner and Staiger 39). Even the original
writers of auteurism did not intend it as theory of cinema; this was an interpretation perpetrated
by Sarris (Grant 76). In fact, Thomas Schatz claims auteurism “would not be worth bothering
with if it hadn’t…effectively [stalled] film history and criticism in a prolonged state of
15
adolescent romanticism” (Braudy and Cohen 524). Graham Petrie says auteurism evades “all
the sordid and tedious details of power conflicts and financial interests that are an integral part of
any major movie project” (Grant 110). On a movie set, the director’s word is art, but the
producer’s word is law. The producer keeps a film on budget and on time, if he’s doing his job.
The director works for the producer unless they are the same person. Therefore the producer
curbs the director’s vision—his authorship. It is “naïve and often arrogant” to assume the
director is the only author that matters in the filmmaking process (Grant 112).
Eckert complains there is “so much oversimplification, obtuseness, and downright
unfairness running through the whole debate” (Grant 103). Historically, critics have attempted
to design formulas and methods with which to recognize auteurs separately from others.
However, these methods “dumb down” the art into a matter of numbers and tally marks that
destroy the purpose of analysis: to better appreciate the artistry present. Eckert holds that while
coding as part of a “careful, logical system” can assist the critic in his research, there are too
many variables to simply lay conclusions down as immutable law (Grant 105).
Writer Theory
With the supremacy of the director in the construction of a film generally held and
popular notion, auteur theory ignores the writers, the studios, and the collaboration that goes into
completing a motion picture project. David Kipen considers his Schreiber—Yiddish for writer—
theory to be worthy of the same consideration as auteur theory because it considers the party who
creates rather than tells the story (17). In The Schreiber Theory (2006), Kipen lays out one of the
most “radical rewrites” of authorship theory (19). Irving Thalberg said, “The writer is the most
important person in Hollywood” (Kipen 13). Since Andrew Sarris’s “Notes on Auteur Theory”
16
(1962), anti-auteur critics have espoused screenwriters as the authors for their contribution to
conception and drafting of the story (Kipen 29).
In the silent film era, a director’s power over story was unquestionable due to a lack of
any real screenplay (Macgowan 307). Early screenwriting obviously drew from theater, but it
was also influenced by cartoons and slideshows (Azlant 228). In 1889, the Biograph studio
separated writing as its own “branch of production” (Azlant 230). Around the turn of the
century, filmmakers began to move beyond simple outlining to a more complex narrative
structure (Azlant 231). For the first time, filmmakers began to see writing the story as an
integral part of the filmmaking process. One of the first screenwriters, Roy McCardell, was paid
a “princely sum” of $150 per week: an average $125 more than the average newspaper man
(Azlant 233).
A narrative film must begin with a screenplay (Hatfield 2). Simply put, one cannot build
a skyscraper without a blueprint. So who writes the story? As basic as it may sound, the
individual or group who put the words to paper create the story. A writer is the architect of the
movie, while the director and his crew are the foreman and construction workers. Buildings are
credited to their architect, not their builder. A critic cannot assume the director’s contribution is
“automatically of major significance” (Grant 111). The original French auteur critics began to
find more interest in a film’s script than its direction once they began making films of their own
(Grant 112). As they began writing and directing their own productions, the critics saw the
importance a script had on the outcome of a film. Kipen even gives credence to director John
Huston for his great understanding of novellas as premiere works from which to adapt films and
names him a “schreiberist” filmmaker for his credit as a writer-director (Kipen 26).
17
In response to Sarris’s pantheon, critic Richard Corliss created his own list of great film
writers. Corliss surveyed writers’ works for “themes and idiosyncrasies” that made each writer
unique (Kipen 27). These “schreiberist” writers include classic names like Ben Hecht, with a
filmography including Scarface (1932), His Girl Friday (1939), Monkey Business (1952) and
Academy Award-winning Underworld (1927). Hecht infused his “trademark cynicism and racy
vitality” in all of his work (Kipen 27). Hecht worked repeatedly with director and producer
Howard Hawks because of their similar view on character and cinematic language (Liukkonen).
Hecht would go on to work uncredited with Hawks on other projects. Hecht recognized the
writer’s place in Hollywood movies when he said, “Writing a good movie brings a writer about
as much fame as steering a bicycle. It gets him, however, more jobs” (Liukkonen). Hecht’s
opinion represents the position of a writer in director-focused Hollywood.
However, writer theory breaks apart on the issues of creative control. Once a script is
sold, the writer loses control of the final outcome of their idea. Directors are free to rework, edit,
and interpret a screenplay “nearer to their heart’s desire” (Macgowan 307). Writers often have
no control in the interpretation of their story (Sellors 266). In Blade Runner, once Ridley Scott
was given the script, he was able to ask for rewrites and edits that fit his vision rather than the
writer’s (Dangerous Days). Scott and producer Michael Deeley brought on another
screenwriter—David Peoples—to continue work on Hampton Fancher’s original script. They
wanted to simplify a concept that had become too “cerebral” (Dangerous Days). Fancher was
adamantly against going “commercial” with Blade Runner, but he admits that the movie would
not have happened unless he gave up control (Dangerous Days). Unless the writer is also
director, he is at the mercy of the director to carry out the vision of the screenplay. As
mentioned previously, Kubrick exerted heavy control over his screenplays, even to the point of
18
discounting writing partners like Jim Thompson (Naremore 68). Another key example is The
Searchers (1956), written by Frank Nugent and directed by John Ford. There are “sharp
differences between what is in the screenplay and what we now see on screen” because Ford’s
directorial vision took control of the process from the outset (Eckstein 3). “Crucial scenes” were
deleted from the script on set and new ones were added (Eckstein 4).
Corliss notes that screenwriters suffer from being credited for no work, not being credited
for work, and multiple writers being credited for the same work (Kipen 28). This confuses the
idea of writer authorship because it becomes harder to analyze writers as authors when there is
no consistency to their credited contribution. While Kipen claims “collaboration doesn’t
preclude analysis,” it makes it significantly more difficult to “give credit where credit is due”
(Kipen 29).
Collaborative Theory
Paul Sellors claims authorship—whether for novel, film, or fine art—is an issue of
intention (264). He argues the causal party behind the communication of the media in question
is the author. This concept is not exclusive to a single person, but rather, it can be applied
broadly to the studio, the director, and the writer if they all play a part in producing the final
product. The contributions of the cinematographer and the editor also cannot be ignored in
bringing the moving image to the screen (Grant 111). Films are not created by a single
consciousness (Grant 193). They come together as part of the collective effort by artists and
technicians. Collective authorship comes from group intentionality moving towards a common
goal (Sellors 268).
Sellors concept of authorship comes from studies across media and disciplines that avoid
the complications film authorship presents (263). To Sellors, the author intentionally creates an
19
utterance (Sellors 264). He defines utterance as an action of expression or communication. As
applied to filmmaking, movies communicate a story. Therefore, the author(s) of a film is the
party(s) who possesses the most intentionality behind the making of a film. Sellors then presents
the issue of control: whether or not intentionality covers control. Sellors believes an intentional
party will exert control in a production, and therefore, control does not need to be explicitly
stated in defining authorship because it is implied (266). As to issues of lost control, Sellors
concedes we are unable to add mechanisms to evaluate to what extent control was lost (266). A
studio executive’s power over a production is less tangible than an art director’s. In instances
like Alien 3 where Fincher lost control of the final outcome of his film, his authorship is
diminished due to the studio exerting control and intentionality over him (Swallow 60). On the
other hand, as mentioned previously, Kubrick was known for overstepping his writing partners
who made major contributions to his work by reworking their ideas enough to make them his
own (Naremore 68). Because anecdotal evidence can indicate issues of control versus
intentionality, it increases the difficulty in assigning authorship because of the varying and
disparate inputs a film can have.
Authorship comes from the “mutual interaction” between the world created and the
creators (Gerstner and Staiger 12). While the writers, directors, and producers create the work,
the cinematographers, editors, and animators create the world that we perceive as the work. It is
through this interaction that we view a whole, and it is this whole which is authored by the talent
and crew. Therefore, the perceived world of a film is a collaborative whole that is authored by
multiple artists and craftsmen. Films have many components that come together in “some
degree of coherency” (Sellors 268). This coherency is due to the audience’s perception of the
whole rather than the parts. Rather than simply observing a camera angle, wardrobe choice, or
20
an acting performance, the audience perceives the entire film as a single entity. This renders the
director-centric theory of coherency hollow because the director’s contribution is only part of the
whole we view (Sellors 268).
“The author is dead,” proclaims Michel Foucault (Caughie 282). Film is a primarily
collaborative medium, so it would seem odd that theorists are constantly searching for the
singular artist responsible for authorship (Gerstner and Staiger 5). Director-centric auteur theory
could not even hold up Truffaut’s own films. The realization of Tuffaut’s vision in Four
Hundred Blows (1959) “necessitated…the use of an experienced screenwriter, a leading
cinematographer, and a youthful surrogate [actor]” to bring Truffaut’s biographical story to
screen (Carringer 374). In fact, critics now recognize motion pictures having plural authors
rather than a singular artistic force (Carringer 374). One must suspend the idea of single
authorship in order to properly analyze a production from a collaborative standpoint (Carringer
377). This suspension allows the critic to explore performers, production staff, and even the
studio backing the project as co-artists for the motion picture. It also directly contradicts both
auteur and Schreiber theories of film authorship. However, collaborative theory prevents a critic
from falling into the dogmatic pitfalls and harsh criticism faced by Sarris for being too narrow
and simple in his assignment of authorship.
Collaboration theory also accounts for the contribution each artist or craftsman makes to
the film, including above-the-line (director, producer, leading actors) and below-the-line jobs
(grips, gaffers, extras) (Gerstner and Staiger 41). While certainly a motion picture’s personality
can be linked to its major creators—director, producer, leading actors—all those who contribute
play a part in its nuances that may go unnoticed by simple pattern analysis (Grant 80). While a
visionary director like Ridley Scott may draw up his own set designs and be integral in the
21
creation of those sets, he will certainly not build the entire set himself (Dangerous Days). The
producer can be considered the most responsible party in the production of a film because his or
her role demands gathering the cast and crew necessary to pull off the production (Movie Staff).
Once the necessary craftsman are in place, the producer becomes in charge of logistics rather
than storytelling; this role falls to the director and to whom he choses to delegate certain tasks.
However, the producer retains rights of the film; the crew does not (Movie Staff). The
production designer delegates set, costume, and makeup design to the necessary departments in
order to carry out the director’s and the producer’s vision (Movie Staff). The director of
photography oversees the camera and lighting crews and makes what the director sees in his or
her head work in the lens of the camera. Perhaps multiple writers collaborate on writing a film,
like Hitchcock’s Suspicion (Worland 7).
Like a sports team, a film crew creates a collective intention when each individual joins
the group with the same goal in mind (Sellors 268). This means that a film crew, including
craftsmen and talent, can become an “author” for Sellors’s definition of authorship. Their
intentionality renders them a “filmic author” capable of creating an artistic product. Sellors
concedes that not all roles will be included in collective authorship, such as catering services. A
member of collective authorship must be an “actual or potential member of a cooperative
activity” (Sellors 269). Not only this, but authorship is dependent on contribution. To determine
authorship in the collective, one must ascertain an individual’s contributions to the overall film
and how it relates to the final product (Sellors 270). This relates back to the earlier concept of
the interaction of the world created by the work and the work itself. While a single set-builder’s
contribution may be physically small, the set piece’s impact on the film may be significant,
therefore rendering the set-builder’s contribution to be significant. When one looks at Blade
22
Runner compared to the concept art created by Syd Mead, the similarities are instantly
noticeable, making Mead’s authorship contribution significant in the aspect of set design
(Dangerous Days). During the editing process of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Fincher’s
editors did a lot of work to clean the images up digitally by stabilizing shaky footage and
cropping frames to focus the image on particular characters (“In the Cutting Room”). The
editors were able to re-envision the look of certain scenes through digital tools that have “an
affect on the viewing of the movie” (“In the Cutting Room”).
Examples of collaboration in production abound. Specific examples include Martin
Scorsese’s recurring work with actors Robert De Niro [Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980),
Goodfellas (1990)] and Leonardo DiCaprio [Gangs of New York (2002), The Aviator (2004), The
Departed (2006)] (Schickel 137). For Scorsese, this collaboration comes from shared feelings,
personal and creative (Schickel 318). Scorsese says “we think similarly” and that’s what makes
working with them easy because they can tell stories together (Schickel 319).
Ridley Scott forged a similar relationship with Russell Crowe, casting him in Gladiator
(2000), American Gangster (2007), and Robin Hood (2010) (Parrill 154). Crowe consistently
turns in top performances for Scott, particularly in the hit Gladiator (Parrill 160). Scott’s work
with Rutger Hauer on Blade Runner shows the director’s ability to collaborate with actors as he
allowed Hauer to influence his character’s scripted lines as well as on-screen persona
(Dangerous Days). Scott also gave Edward James Olmos free reign to create and implement
what became city-speak in Blade Runner, even when producers and financers were unsure of the
choice (Dangerous Days). Terry Gilliam allowed actor Johnny Depp input on the script and his
character during preproduction meetings for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (Lost in La
Mancha).
23
Breaking down collaboration into more specific examples, one can look at Ridley Scott’s
Blade Runner featured in the documentary Dangerous Days (2007). Early in the documentary,
Scott says, “I’ll get what I want. If you’re with me, great. If not, too bad.” This perspective on
filmmaking is very auteuristic and director-centric. Because of his background in art direction,
Scott is known to micro manage his art department (Dangerous Days). However, Scott turned
over a bulk of the work to artists and craftsman to carry out his vision. The set designer was
informed by Scott’s designs and inspirations, but his drawings and creations were his own.
Similarly, Terry Gilliam worked closely with his production design team for The Man Who
Killed Don Quixote, but a majority of the physical labor was left to the artists (Lost in La
Mancha).
Of course, as we continue to break down the complexities of collaborative authorship, we
begin to run into similar problems faced by Schreiber theory. It is easier to point to above-the-
line cast and crew for authorship for their major contribution to a production rather than dig deep
into the credits to explain collective authorship. While collective authorship is much more
pleasing to a realist studying film, more specific authorship is needed to effectively discuss a
film in literature such as film reviews. Auteur and Schreiber theory present much simpler ways
of discussing authorship in the academic and public spheres because of their ease of
understanding and lack of need for empirical research.
Other Limitations
Schatz argues that films attributed to auteur directors are not “simply of individual human
expression” but a product of studio executive and key crew influences (Braudy and Cohen 525).
A film is a combination of talent, financial, and labor factors. Auteur critic Jean-Louis Comolli
notes even “independent” films are subject to these influences (Braudy and Cohen 688).
24
Therefore films will always be subject to financial backers’ desires for stories to be told. If
financiers don’t like a movie’s story, they will not fund it. This is inescapable. Sellors’s
argument of intentionality then shifts to the position of choosing the financiers as the “authors”
of a film, which few critics would recognize as an artistic force.
Just as unavoidable are the limitations of genre. Genres come from the action on which a
film concentrates most of its attention (Braudy and Cohen 556). Early gangster films were
defined as much by their genre as their writers and directors. The films followed given
conventions and clichés in order to appeal to an audience and access a certain world in which the
filmmakers wished to tell a story. Genre films have traditionally had very strong ties to the
studios that produce them, making authorship very muddy (Braudy and Cohen 526). Pierre Kast,
a contributor to the Cahiers du Cinema, says “the distributors really control production and they
display a complete lack of imagination (Hillier 32). Studio authorship is evident in 1930’s
gangster films predominantly produced by Warner Brothers (Grant 170). During this time,
Warner Brothers produced a vast majority of the gangster films made, so their studio executives
were able to control much of what went into the films to ensure they matched the studio’s brand.
During the same time period, MGM was well known for big budget musical and dramatic
productions. So, it is difficult to point to analyze authorship in this context because a major
contributing factor is the studio’s niche. The mass production of films by studios can create a
cookie-cutter effect which blurs the lines of authorship between the studio and film crews.
Another limitation is the lack of data concerning filmmaker intention behind individual
motion pictures. Noel Carroll wonders why critics would rather assume hypothetical theses
rather than ask an author his actual intentions (Grant 173). Critics chose to limit themselves by
not asking directors of their methods and concepts behind production. Truffaut and Schickel
25
sought to remedy this by conducting interviews of Hitchcock and Scorsese, respectively.
However, the depth of these analyses is rare, especially considering the number of directors in
the industry. The Director’s Guild of America represents over 15,000 “members of the
directorial team” (Director’s Guild of America). Comparatively, the amount of critical analysis
of their directing methods are scarce to none.
Breakdown
One cannot ignore a director’s imprint on a film, especially one so recognizable as
Hitchcock or Tarantino. Certain directors have indisputable visions for films and they become
works of that director. Auteur theory is acceptable in analysis of such directors. When
determining whether a director is an auteur, one examines his body of work to analyze trends,
devices, and commonalities in the director’s films. While this type of analysis is effective for
studying the director, it does not work for examination of a film from production, only
completion. To study a film itself through auteurism would lead to assumptions and guesses
rather than hard theory and evidence. Auteur theory also doesn’t account for a producer’s or
cinematographer’s impact on a film. Many other above-the-line collaborators are as much
responsible for a film as a director, depending on the production.
In terms of authorship, Schreiber theory gives a voice to the much-ignored contributors to
Hollywood entertainment. Without screenplays, we would have no films. Writers begin the
process, and their script—their blueprint—provides then framework from which the production
is derived. However, in practice, directors are able to command rewrites and develop
interpretations that veer away from the writer’s intention. This dilutes the writer’s authorship by
subverting his vision with the director’s. While the writer’s contribution to story is indisputable,
the extent of his authorship can vary from project to project.
26
Collaborative theory offers the most practical, and perhaps most effective, answer to film
production. Collaborative theory seeks to share the burden of authorship across the major
players of the production. Considering film’s collaborative nature as an art form, it is a more
likely answer to the authorship question. Sellors’s methodology allows critics to measure
authorship by looking at intentionality of participants in filmmaking. Collective authorship can
be achieved when members of a production team share similar goals and intentions. Authorship
status is dependent on contribution as well as intentionality.
Each theory is credible in some way. It is perhaps best to say that while each production
is a collaborative work, a director may possess some auteur qualities or a writer some of the
strengths of a Schreiber. Authorship cannot be decided as a blanket industry standard. Rather, it
is a decision a critic can make while conducting analysis for each film he studies. Proper
determination of authorship should take place through research of the production through
interviews or study into how the film was made rather than an assumption based on qualities of
the film itself. The analysis proposed by Sarris is flawed due to its reliance on the subjective
view of the critic. One critic may see certain qualities while another critic may see things
completely differently. Film authorship should not be a passing commentary on certain
directors, writers, or studios. Rather, it should be an active study by critics and scholars to really
explain who is responsible for the making of motion pictures to create an accurate picture of
filmmakers and the industry.
As has been shown, each theory has it’s own drawbacks, including outside factors which
have yet to be addressed by any theory, such as genre or studio influence. Perhaps with the
movement away from auteur theory, critics will begin to explore the authorship influences of
these and other such forces on production. As can be seen by referencing the bibliography, the
27
resources referenced here span the decades from the 1960’s to the 2000’s. Critical film study is
very much alive, but it remains narrow in its focus and should expand its horizons to be more
scientific in its approach. Quantitative research into film authorship could raise film theory from
a place of more niche and theoretical study to that of a scientifically acceptable course for
determining authorship and cause in filmmaking. Barlow contends theory “is only valid as long
as it is useful,” meaning that a theory is just an idea unless it is put into practice (139). When
critical film theory passes into the sphere of implication, it is there we will see the marriage of
the academic and the practical.
28
Works Cited
Azlant, Edward. "Screenwriting for the Early Silent Film: Forgotten Pioneers, 1897-1911." Film
History 9 (1997): 228-56.
Barlow, Aaron. Quentin Tarantino : life at the extremes. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2010.
Braudy, Leo, and Marshall Cohen. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. New
York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Carringer, Robert. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA. 116.2 (2001): 370-
379.
Caughie, John. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul in
Association with the British Film Institute, 1981.
Dangerous Days: Making of Blade Runner. Dir. Charles de Lauzirika. Warner Bros. Pictures,
2007.
Director’s Guild of America. http://www.dga.org. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.
Eckstein, Aurther. “Darkening Ethan: John Ford’s “The Searchers” (1965) from Novel to
Screenplay to Screen.” Cinema Journal 38.1 (1998): 3-24.
Friedman, Lawrence S. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese. New York: The Continuum Publishing
Company, 1997.
Gallafent, Edward. Quentin Tarantino. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2006.
Gerstner, David A., and Janet Staiger. Authorship and Film. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Grant, Barry Keith. Auteurs and Authorship: A Film Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.,
2008.
Hess, John. “Auteur Criticism: A Film Maker’s Approach to the Cinema.” Journal of the
University Film Association 25.3 (1973): 50-53, 58.
29
Hillier, Jim. Cahiers du cinema, the 1950s : neo-realism, Hollywood, New Wave. Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard University Press, 1985.
“In the Cutting Room.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel
Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.
Kipen, David. The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History. Hoboken,
NJ: Melville House Pub., 2006.
Liukkonen, Petri. “Ben Hecht.” http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bhecht.htm. Web. May 10, 2012.
“The Look of Salander.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel
Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.
Lost in La Mancha. Dir. Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe. United States: Docurama Distributed by
New Video Group, 2003.
Macgowan, Kenneth. “The Film Director’s Contribution to the Screen.” College English. 12.6
(1951): 307-314.
“Men Who Hate Women.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel
Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.
Movie Staff. Moviestaff.com. Web. 9 March 2012.
Naremore, James. “Authorship and the Cultural Politics of Film Criticism.” Film Quarterly.
44.1 (1990): 14-23.
Naremore, James. On Kubrick. London: British Film Institute, 2007.
Parrill, William. Ridley Scott: A Critical Filmography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011.
“Sarris Categories.” They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They? Web. 9 March 2012.
Schickel, Richard, and Martin Scorsese. Conversations with Scorsese. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2011.
30
Sellors, C. Paul. “Collective Authorship in Film.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
65.3 (2007): 263-271.
Spadoni, Robert. “Geniuses of the Systems: Authorship and Evidence in Classical Hollywood
Cinema.” Film History. 7.4 (1995): 362-385.
Tomasulo, Frank. “Theory to Practice: Integrating Cinema Theory and Film Production.”
Cinema Journal. 36.3 (1997): 114-117.
Truffaut, Francois. Hitchcock. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984
“Visual Effects Montage.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel
Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.
31
Case Study: Voice of Blood
This case study examines the production processes of a micro-budget short film that I wrote
and directed. It will also serve as a companion to the previous literature review as an example of
collaborative filmmaking by putting into practice the research I explored. Throughout the
production process, I took notes and wrote journals as blog entries discussing the different
meetings and events that occurred along the way in order to present an accurate picture here.
Some of the journals can be accessed on the blog site
http://davidtregde.wordpress.com/category/voiceofblood. This case study is intended to be a
record of a working example of the collaboration inherent in the filmmaking process.
Preproduction
Script
I began creating the concept for Voice of Blood in 2010. Following the idea that storytellers
tell the same stories over and over with slight variations, I decided to dig for stories in one of the
oldest texts I know: the Christian Bible. I studied some of the more classic stories like David
and Goliath and Jonah and the big fish. Some of these stories are so easily translated into
narrative that I could pick out the ideas and themes in many movies. So as not to tread a path
many have walked before, I started looking for more obscure stories. As I kept researching and
jotting down story ideas, I came back to one of the oldest stories recorded in the Old Testament:
the story of Cain and Abel. I was drawn to this story because of some of the baser emotions
involved. Cain is overwhelmed by greed and jealousy, so much so, that he murders his own
brother. I find this fascinating; what would drive someone to kill his own sibling? I wanted to
take this story and modernize it.
32
From the beginning, I saw this story as a classic gangster tale. Dr. Mike Frontani’s class on
Genres and Auteurs really influenced my desire to replicate a gangster film based on the genre
identifiers. Gangster films embody certain characteristics no matter the time period in which
they are made. Even when the film is revisionist (meaning it perverts or disregards certain genre
staples), there are certain elements that are always present. For example, Martin Scorsese’s The
Departed (2006) is considered a revisionist gangster film while Francis Ford Coppola’s The
Godfather (1972) follows classic genre guidelines. Concepts like betrayal and the gangster
causing his own demise are classic examples of the gangster genre that I tried to incorporate in
my retelling of this story. Similar to Little Caesar (1931), Kent (the character embodying Cain)
feels he is betrayed by the person he is closest to and is forced to act to save his livelihood.
In addition to the gangster pillars established above, I also screened a lot of classic and neo
noirs to study the sense of mystery and tension inherent in these types of films. Klute (1971)
and Drive (2011) were two major influences in both visual storytelling and atmosphere. I
wanted to keep certain elements in suspense until a reveal in the end. The “Dark Figure”
referenced in the script acts as a contract killer for the Boss, but we never see the character’s face
until the last scene of the script, so the audience is unaware of who is doing the Boss’s dirty work
and whom Kent will have to face in the end.
When the script was originally drafted, it had a lot of major plot holes and logical problems.
In addition, the characters were shallow and stereotypical. I worked with my good friend and
actor Will Daniel in order to fix the problems with the characters. We gave them more actions in
the script and designed stories outside of the scope of the script to give the characters reasons to
do the things they do. After some initial revisions, I passed the script on to screenwriter Paul
Castro. He assisted in eliminating some of the plot holes as well as tightening up the flow of the
33
script. Because of the length of the script, the rise and fall of action was important to keep the
audience interested. Unlike the short films I’m accustomed to producing, there are multiple
conflicts and multiple action sequences within the scope of Voice of Blood. Unlike “Adrift”
(http://tregdemedia.com/adrift/) or “Countdown” (http://tregdemedia.com/countdown/), Voice of
Blood would be close to 30 minutes of story with more of time to develop character. More
complex characters create a more interesting story if the story follows the proper rise and fall of
action in the proper proportions. Castro’s biggest influences would be the push and pull effect
different scenes have where the action builds, then releases in a slower scene, then builds again
higher before slowing down again.
I spent the summer of 2012 in Los Angeles, California interning for a reality television
production company while simultaneously working on two short films (“Adrift” mentioned
above and “My Family Circus”—http://tregdemedia.com/my-family-circus/). The scripting
process of these two films would significantly influence later drafts of Voice of Blood by
maturing me quickly as a writer and storyteller. I also worked with screenwriter Nizar Wattad
on fixing more problems with Voice of Blood. As the story increased in complexity, the problem
became keeping it a short film rather than a full-blown feature. The story was growing out of
control for the time limit set by the Elon University School of Communications, and I was
having difficulty fitting the plot points necessary to move the story forward. Wattad suggested
creating more backstory for characters that would be briefly referenced in the film in order to
create deeper relationships on-screen without spending more time with the characters. Wattad
often said that characters’ stories precede and follow the story told in a film, and this will
influence the writer and the actors.
34
In the final stages of the script, the major changes would be to specific characters by making
their actions less cliché. Most importantly, Delilah began as highly sexual and shallow
character, who later became a major player in the script, rivaling Kent for most aggressive
actions without overshadowing him. Also, as locations were secured for filming, the appropriate
rewrites were incorporated so as to give the actors a sense of the space by reading the script. The
benefit of being a writer-director is that I can make this kind of changes myself without having to
go through the screenwriter and hoping he makes the changes I need. I’m also not stepping on
the screenwriter’s artistic toes by demanding changes.
Crew
The crew was hired in two stages. In the first stage, I contacted Claire Gambrell to produce
the project. Claire and I had worked together before on projects, and our working styles mesh
together well. Claire is also highly organized and calm on set, which is helpful when I get
anxious and things get out of hand. I also hired Brittany Barbieri as production designer.
Brittany and I had also worked on projects together, and Brittany is much more detailed oriented
with production details than I am. Her knowledge of fashion and design are invaluable and came
in handy later in preproduction. Mariah Czap was brought on as editor later in the first pass.
Mariah had been a major reader and contributor to the script, and with her knowledge of the
story and skills as an editor, I knew she would be a good addition to the project. I also knew that
if we were working in a Final Cut Pro X workflow, she wouldn’t object as this was her editor of
choice at the time.
The second round of crew hiring occurred after my summer in LA. In September of 2012, I
added Michael Tahan as assistant director after we worked together on “Adrift” and “My Family
Circus.” Kara Johnson was added as director of photography due to having worked with her on
35
previous projects and the display of her skills over the summer. Kara and I also share a visual
language after having taken several courses together, so I find it easy to communicate with her.
After working with music technology majors Benjamin Soldate and Robert Watts, I decided to
bring them on the project as sound mixing and scoring, respectively. Ben really showed his
talents by helping to save an otherwise doomed short film from sounding terrible. Robert wrote
original music for two films, one of which was dominated by the music, and his score improved
the storytelling immensely. Other crew members added in Fall 2012 are as follows: Mia
Watkins (location supervisor/associate producer), Jon Smith (1st assistant camera), Bryan Cross
(grip/gaffer), Tina Tozzi (makeup), Avery Ecker (wardrobe/prop supervision), William Simon
(script supervisor/set photographer), Brent Edwards (graphics/vfx), and Tyler Oberle (behind-
the-scenes videographer). After receiving a list of the locations, Mia called the locations and
scheduled meetings to discuss the project with the location owners and secure permission to film
at their sites. After receiving more details concerning shooting dates and times, Mia again
contacted the locations with specifics and secured the locations for the needed times. Tina
conducted a lot of independent research into makeup methods for the application of temporary
tattoos. She would report back with her findings to verify that she was looking in the right
directions with respect to the style and tone I had set up in the script.
Casting
Casting was also completed in two rounds. In the spring of 2012, Jordan Roman was cast
as Kent. After working with Jordan on “Countdown,” I knew I wanted to work with him again
because of his work ethic and his willingness to take direction. Molly is an outstanding actress
from the Elon University acting department. After seeing her work in LA, my decision was
further solidified. She takes direction well and is very good at doing her homework before
36
coming to set. The rest of the casting was completed by doing a series of screen tests with
various actors recommended to me. The cast is as follows: Jordan Roman (Kent), Logan Sutton
(Allen), Molly Dougherty (Delilah), Jennifer Roberts (Isabel), Dylan Moon (Johnson), and Kirby
Wahl (Boss).
The Boss was the most difficult to cast. Initially, I contacted a professional actor in the
area to play the Boss. He initially agreed to play the part despite not being paid because he was
interested in the story. However, in later meetings and readings with the actor, he revealed he
wanted to do major changes to the character that would create whole new storylines and plot
questions. He indicated he would reconsider his participation in the project if he wasn’t allowed
to make these changes. After letting him out of his verbal contract, I began looking at actor
professors from Elon to fill the part. Molly Dougherty suggested Professor Kirby Wahl. He
agreed to participate in the production with the condition of only having to be on set for one day.
Production Design
Our production design was established through study of our characters and of gangster
films. One of the locations we dressed ourselves was Kent’s apartment. His living arrangement
was based on Matt Damon’s character from The Departed. Over a series of meetings with the art
department, we established the look and visual style of the film based on concepts and designs in
other films and television series. Brittany created a wardrobe look book for each character based
on the films and influences discussed in our meetings. This look book was then used to acquire
costume elements for each character and to show the actors to give them an idea of their
character’s style. Props were purchased to compliment their characters. For example, Kent’s
gun is purposefully flashier than his brother’s to showcase his tendency to peacock.
37
To acquire the wardrobe and props we needed, we raised funds online using Indiegogo.
In total, we raised 750 dollars on top of the 1,000 dollar grant from Elon University. This money
was budgeted to cover the costs of physical items as well as purchasing food and reimbursing
travel costs. The support on Indiegogo mostly came from friends and family of the cast and
crew. For their generosity, our patrons were promised everything from credit as a “Special
Thanks” to posters and copies of the final film, depending on the size of their investment.
Production
Rehearsals
We held formal rehearsals twice before filming: one rehearsal per day of principle
photography. During these rehearsals, we analyzed and performed the scenes for the upcoming
day of production. These rehearsals were important for me as a director to get a feel for the
actor’s understanding of the character as well as establish their approach to delivery. We also
practiced blocking during these rehearsals. Since all of our filming took place on location, we
were unable to practice blocking in the intended locations, but this still allowed the actors to gain
a better understanding of my intentions for each scene. During both rehearsals, the actors asked
questions about my intentions as well as making suggestions for their characters. Particularly in
the second rehearsal, Dylan was worried his character would come off as comically weak if he
followed the blocking directions as written in the script. In order to make his character more
believable, we rewrote his and Jordan’s blocking to make his character more realistic. This kind
of input and collaboration strengthened the story and the characters to bring more tension and
realism to the scenes.
38
Principle Photography
Once on set, Claire Gambrell took over all producer duties, including keeping us on time,
managing expenses, coordinating travel and logistics, as well as keeping us on script and shot
list. Even when Claire had to leave for prior commitments, she left instructions and her
production binder with myself or another crewmember to keep us on track. This allowed me to
focus on the visual and acting components of each shot rather than the physical logistics of our
day.
Our first location proved to be one of our more challenging setups. We filmed in a restaurant
with multiple refrigeration units that proved difficult to remove from our soundscape. However,
under the owner of the location was very generous and did not charge us to use his space and
allowed us to unplug all refrigerators while we were filming. I constantly checked with sound
mixer Ben Soldate to make sure there were no audio issues. He would often tell me if we needed
to redo a shot because of the audio or he would let me listen to the take to determine for myself.
More often than not, I would default to his judgment due to his expertise with audio recording. I
also watched only a select few takes on camera and trusted camera operators Kara Johnson and
Jon Smith to tell me if a shot had to be redone. For more complicated or important shots, I asked
to be shown the take to make sure the shot fit with my concept for the scene.
As the day progressed, the crew began to communicate better. We began to set up and
shots and complete set ups faster and more efficiently. Especially when we began working on
more emotionally charged scenes, our crew efficiency helped the actors by not waiting too long
between takes and not causing setups to last too long. My previous experience has taught me
that dragging out emotional setups can be taxing and even detrimental to actors and their
39
performances. By time we wrapped for the day, we had a very efficient system for setup and tear
down as well as communication between crewmembers.
One specific example of my trust in the crew is allowing camera operator Jon Smith to
experiment with a first person point of view shot in one of our final and climactic scenes. To
achieve the style of this shot, Jon placed the camera over the actor’s lap. Then, with his eyes
glued to an external monitor, he acted out the movements of a man waking up from
unconsciousness. Jon took in a few deep breathes before lifting the camera as if the character
were raising his head. Then he focused the camera on the actor facing him as if the eyes were
shaking off sleep. Recently, I have become very interested in open-world, role player game
(RPG) style video games that allow you to interact with your world and other characters through
questions and answers and exploration. Whiles these video games tend to tell stories, their
stories are unconventional in that they rely on the decisions of a player. This introduces an
element of unpredictability into the outcome. More than that, these games are always played
from the first person point of view of your digital avatar. This really puts the player into the
perspective of the character, and that’s what we wanted to do for this shot. The choice for point
of view puts the audience much more in the scene than an over-the-shoulder shot, and Jon’s
input really helped make this scene more effective.
Of course, the set was not without its problems. The second day of photography included
a lot of action scenes and long takes that we had not fully blocked out with the camera due to
scheduling conflicts. This meant that a few scenes required more time than scheduled because of
needing to redo takes. In the morning, this was not a problem because the cast and crew were
still energetic and excited. However, by the evening shoot, the day’s struggles had begun to
wear on us. We (particularly myself) became easily frustrated and concerned with completing
40
our shots on time. However, the camera and audio crews really came together and made some
compromises in order to capture our scenes. It was this collaboration that saved this day of
photography because if we had continued stubbornly in one direction, we may not have finished
on time.
Public Relations
During production, we had two set photographers. They took photos during set ups and
takes to be posted online later. Aside from adding a pre-designed watermark to the images
before posting them, the photographers selected which photos were posted to the film’s
Facebook page. They were given the simple instructions to not give away any major plot points,
which they had no trouble following. It became a challenge for them to take interesting (almost
teasing) photographers of the set without giving away too much information.
After production wrapped, public relations duties were turned over to Strategic
Communications student Trey Newstedt. Our photographers coordinated with Trey and myself
about specific dates to release photos in order to better control our Facebook page views so when
we released the film online it would receive more internet traffic. Trey was also took lead in
selecting photos for our posters and coordinating digital signage on-campus for our screening.
Postproduction
Editing
Our print takes were synced with their audio clips and transferred to editor Mariah Czap.
She then edited a rough cut together using the script and shot list as guides. I viewed the cut and
made some final suggestions before exporting the video. After exporting, this rough cut was sent
to composer Robert Watts and sound mixer Ben Soldate. Robert had already been working on
41
some melodies to use for the score, so he quickly threw together the score for Ben to mix with
the dialog and effects.
This rough cut was then shown to several communications school faculty members and
students for feedback. We received feedback via a Google form, which placed all the answers
together under their corresponding questions. Then, producer Claire Gambrell coded the
feedback based on our ability to complete it with our budget and time constraints (example, a
group of responses were coded as “if time allows” while others were labeled as “to fix in
editing”). Feedback ranged from cutting certain shots to reshooting entire scenes.
For multiple reasons including actors’ schedules and budget, we chose not to reshoot
anything but instead work with what we had. We chose to cut one scene and trim others. We
also significantly tightened up our dialog scenes while adding establishing shots to transition
between different sequences. To avoid having to coordinate with actors for dialog replacement
sessions, we corrected a lot of dialog problems by pulling audio clips from other takes that lined
up with our actor’s mouths. Again, the footage was passed off to the composer and sound mixer.
This time, Robert and I sat down together to listen to and discuss the score. He showed me some
new ideas and we discussed changes that needed to be made. Ben then mixed the score with
improved sound effects and audio filters, and the final product was ready for screening.
The film was screened on campus on April 25, 2013. It was then released online to the
video sharing sites Vimeo and YouTube. We used the film’s Facebook page and our personal
accounts to share the video and create traffic to it. The full film was also linked to previously
released materials so that if fans stumbled upon older material, they were directed to the full
film.
42
Reflection
Because of the nature the Honors thesis at Elon, I had to maintain a certain amount of
control throughout the process to ensure the appropriate use of grant money as well as ensure the
project was completed on the appropriate timeline. I acted as a producer throughout most of the
process while delegating duties to Claire to make sure everything got done on time. In
postproduction, in order to stay on schedule, I was forced to act as finishing editor while Mariah
was on vacation to ensure our picture locked version was ready for export to our sound team.
Preproduction was probably the most collaborative phase for Voice of Blood. It was when there
was the most input from parties other than myself. As we progressed into postproduction, the
process became less collaborative as I took more control to ensure we finished on budget and on
schedule.
All in all, the application of collaborative theory is imperfect in this instance. The above-the-
line staff (producer, director, etc.) exerted more decision-making control over the production
because of the need to stay within our budget and time constraints. At the same time, we tried to
incorporate the work and ideas of others as often as possible. The screenwriting process was in
particular especially collaborative because of the number of people who had input on the story.
In addition the art department had a lot of influence on the look of the film down to some
seemingly minor costume details.
Based on our experience on this set, I would conclude that practical film production is a
version of collaboration where authorship is shared, but unequally between crewmembers. As
noted in the literature review, authorship is based on intentionality, and the above-the-line crew
put more intentionality forth towards the completion of the production. Therefore, although we
aligned with collaborative theory, other auteur theory is not far from truth as the director perhaps
43
exerts the most intentionality towards the completion of a film. This is why the director is often
responsible for the success or failure of the film because he often makes important creative
decisions that guide the process. In the research and in the practice, directors make many of the
creative decisions and is seen by the crew as the decision maker. The producer also has similar
power in that he or she can say yes or no to the director on occasion as well as keeping track of
budget and time to constrain the director. These two positions hold the most power and therefore
authorship in the filmmaking environment.
Voice of Blood
By
David M. Tregde
dtregde@gmail.com
http://tregdemedia.com
FADE IN:
INT. EMPTY BAR - DAY
Dark wood and leather furniture. Well kept, but not
spotless. Light streams in through window with partially
open blinds. Ambitious KENT (late 20s)-dark hair, cold
eyes-and humble ALLEN (late 20s)-dark hair, soft eyes-sit
across from the formidable yet gentle BOSS (mid 50s) at
table. Kent and Allen wear dress shirts and ties. The Boss
is in full suit.
BOSS
You will be my go-to boys when I
need things done and done
well. When I need things done
clean. (Beat) Loyalty, that’s
something you can’t buy. Even if
you could, you wouldn’t want
to. Your father was a good
man. Loyal to his friends. I
expect the same from his sons.
Kent, Allen nod, stand.
ALLEN
We won’t let you down.
BOSS
Sit.
Boss waits for brothers to sit before proceeding.
BOSS
(To Kent)
Can I trust Allen?
KENT
Of course.
BOSS
(To Allen)
Can I trust Kent?
Allen hesitates for a split second.
ALLEN
Yes.
BOSS
If I find out you’re cheating me,
I’ll forget how much your father
did for me.
2.
KENT
You’ve got nothing to worry about.
Boss leans back, folds his hands over his stomach.
BOSS
A man was walking home on a
freezing cold night. He found a
stray dog, freezing to death on the
side of the road. The man felt
sorry for the dog and carried it
home with him. When he got home,
the man put the dog on the floor
near the fire. The dog turned to
the man’s wife and child with a
hungry snarl. The man promptly
buried a fire poker in the dog’s
skull.
Boss leans forward, places his still-folded hands on arm
rests.
BOSS
I’ve taken you into my home and
into my business. Don’t make me
regret it.
The Boss leans back, satisfied with his warning.
BOSS
Now, there has been word one of
Baptiste’s dealers likes to hang
out around 5th and
Williamson. Check it out. And if
he comes around, kindly let him
know he’s far from home.
EXT. ENTRANCE TO BAR - CONTINUOUS
Brothers exit front door. Allen spots self-assured ISABEL
(mid 20s) as he exits. She sees him, smiles. He reaches
out, grabs her hand.
ISABEL
How’d it go?
ALLEN
I can’t wait to show your dad what
I can do.
3.
ISABEL
You’re going to impress him. I know
you will.
Isabel kisses his cheek. They cross the parking lot
together.
ISABEL
Is Kent going to hold up his end?
ALLEN
Yea. Why?
ISABEL
I don’t know. He always just seems
to try too hard.
Allen stops.
ALLEN
What do you mean?
ISABEL
He always has to be better than
everyone else. Especially you.
ALLEN
Well, we’re working together, so we
should be fine.
ISABEL
Okay. Good.
EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - LATE AFTERNOON
Brothers lean against wall. Kent, Allen see shaggy JOHNSON
(20s) approaching on sidewalk corner. Kent taps his brother
and crosses to Johnson with Allen in tow.
KENT
What are you doing here?
JOHNSON
You guys like to party?
Kent steps uncomfortably close to Johnson. He reaches
inside Johnson’s jacket and yanks out a paper bag.
JOHNSON
Piss off. Who do you think--
4.
ALLEN
You’re a long way from home, buddy.
JOHNSON
Fine, I’ll go. Just give me my--
KENT
Uh uh. Call it an insurance policy
against us breaking all the bones
in your body.
Johnson makes another lunge for the cash bag. Kent whips
out a folding knife, bringing it to Johnson’s face.
KENT
If you’re not gone before I take my
next breath, I’m going to take your
face as a souvenir.
Johnson throws up his hands defensively and backs away. He
is compromising, not frightened. The brothers retreat down
the alley. Allen points to the bag of cash.
ALLEN
What are you gonna do with that?
KENT
Take good care of it.
ALLEN
But...stealing from Baptiste?
KENT
Not stealing from him. Stealing
from his idiot dealer.
ALLEN
Okay. Just--
KENT
Be cool, okay?
Kent’s phone RINGS. He checks it, answers.
KENT
Hey sexy. (Pause) What’s up?
(Pause) Are you free later? (Pause)
Swing by my place around 7.
ALLEN
Who was that?
Kent looks at his brother as if Allen should already know
the answer.
5.
KENT
Delilah.
ALLEN
She’s a nice girl. You should take
her out sometime.
KENT
When I need advice from you, I’ll
ask for it.
ALLEN
I’m just saying. Might be nice to
get out. Spend some of that money
you just got.
KENT
Oh, I know how to spend my
share. Don’t worry about that.
The brothers turn, look out at the alley.
INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT
One lamp lighting mostly bare room. Couch, floor neat and
sterile with pillows, blankets, magazines. Kent and
manipulative DELILAH (late 20s) sitting on couch, rigidly
cuddling. Kent wears white t-shirt, dark jeans. Delilah
wears skinny jeans, red top. Light flickers from the TV.
KENT
You’re right. That extra 10 inches
makes a difference.
DELILAH
I told you. You’ll never be able
to watch on a little TV again.
KENT
Yea, well I’m not planning on
downsizing at this point.
DELILAH
Where do you want to go eat?
KENT
I don’t care.
DELILAH
You must have some idea what you
want.
Kent shrugs.
6.
DELILAH
There’s this new Japanese place on
10th I want to try.
KENT
I really shouldn’t be down past
7th.
DELILAH
Come on.
KENT
Delilah...I can’t.
DELILAH
This is ridiculous.
KENT
There’s plenty of nice restaurants
on this side of town.
DELILAH
I hate that stupid rule.
KENT
The two families get along as long
as we all stay on our own
turf. It’s for our own good.
DELILAH
It’s for your own good. I can go
wherever I want.
KENT
Let’s just go to Rico’s.
DELILAH
God, I’m so sick of this.
KENT
Well, what do you want me to do?
Quit? Yea, that’s a good idea.
DELILAH
Well something has to change--
KENT
I’m working on it, okay?
DELILAH
I’m not going to limit my life for
you.
7.
KENT
I promise. Sooner than later.
Delilah lays her head on Kent’s shoulder.
DELILAH
I don’t want to look back and ask
why we didn’t take any risks. I
don’t want to be stuck here
forever. We deserve more.
Delilah looks up to make sure Kent heard her.
EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - DUSK
Allen sees Johnson dealing to scruffy COLLEGE KID
(20s). Allen walks toward Johnson, but Johnson notices and
runs away. Allen pursues.
EXT. BACK ALLEY - DUSK (CONTINUOUS)
Allen rounds the corner, nearly running into Kent.
ALLEN
Whoa. Hey. Did you see, uhhh...
Allen looks behind Kent.
KENT
See who?
ALLEN
That dealer. That guy who we
scared off the other day.
KENT
Oh him? Nope. No one down there.
ALLEN
You sure? I could have sworn he--
KENT
Too young to be losing it, bro.
ALLEN
Guess I’m just paranoid.
KENT
Why don’t you head back. I’ll keep
an eye out for him.
8.
Allen retreats. Kent turns back down the alley. He
approaches Johnson behind a dumpster, pulling out a tooth
pick to chew on.
JOHNSON
I don’t know why you did that--
KENT
Because now you owe me.
JOHNSON
I don’t understand--
KENT
You keep dealing around here, and
it’s a problem for everyone. You
cut me in, and I’ll protect you.
JOHNSON
Screw you. I don’t need--
Kent opens his jacket to show his gun. Johnson looks.
JOHNSON
Be cool.
KENT
We can do this my way, or let the
bosses handle it.
Johnson looks away, frustrated.
KENT
It’s a good neighborhood. They
like to spend here.
JOHNSON
Fine.
Johnson shakes Kent’s hand reluctantly.
INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT
Kent pours money out of paper bag. Delilah sits on couch,
eyes lit, hungry. She grabs a stack of cash.
DELILAH
What do we do with it?
KENT
Whatever we want.
9.
DELILAH
Maybe a house? Over in Raintree?
KENT
We’re not there yet.
DELILAH
But we will be.
KENT
I’m good at what I do.
DELILAH
And you should be rewarded for
doing such a good job.
Delilah leans in and pushes Kent down on the couch.
EXT. LOCAL COFFEE SHOP - NIGHT
Allen and Isabel walk down street with coffee.
ALLEN
How many shots of espresso did you
get in that?
ISABEL
Don’t want to fall asleep on you.
ALLEN
I could always carry you home.
Isabel takes Allen’s hand.
ISABEL
You know what I keep thinking
about?
ALLEN
What?
ISABEL
That one time as kids when your dad
dropped you and Kent off at our
house. I was a princess and you
two were my knights. Remember
that?
ALLEN
Kind of. Yeah.
10.
ISABEL
I know it’s cheesy, but it would
still be nice to have a fairy tale
ending.
ALLEN
It is a little cliche, but it
sounds nice.
The couple walks hand in hand down street.
INT. EMPTY BAR - NIGHT
Boss folds hands. Kent chews on tooth pick.
BOSS
Years of peace. I don’t want to
start a war. This guy...what’s his
name--
KENT
Johnson--
BOSS
--just can’t take a hint?
ALLEN
Maybe this is a bigger move by the
Baptiste family?
BOSS
No, Baptiste has no idea. Says the
guy is acting all on his own. I
believe him.
KENT
If this guy is on his own, then he
isn’t protected by the family.
BOSS
(To Kent)
Take care of this. No mess. There
was once a man sitting
outdoors. An ant crawled up the
man’s leg and bit him. The man
slapped his leg trying to kill the
ant, but the ant had already
escaped. The man’s leg now stung
from both the bite and the
slap. Don’t overreact to a small
problem.
11.
KENT
You can count on me.
Kent smiles slightly, straightens jacket before exiting.
INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT
Kent thumbs through a stack of bills. Delilah sits next to
him, rubbing his back. Kent chews tooth pick.
KENT
Not sure how long we can keep this
up. Boss is getting suspicious.
DELILAH
(Whispering in his ear)
Whatever it takes, my hero.
Kent grabs his leather jacket, wool-knit cap, and his gun
before crossing to door. Delilah catches him at the door.
DELILAH
Be careful. I don’t know what I’d
do without you.
KENT
The hero always comes back.
EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - NIGHT
Kent and Allen approach the alley from the street. Johnson
stands with his back to them.
KENT
Let me handle this.
Allen turns to watch the alley. Kent grabs Johnson and pins
him against the wall, keeping his voice down. Allen starts
to slowly approach.
KENT
It’s getting too hot man. You need
to clear out of here.
JOHNSON
(Too loudly)
You said you’d handle this.
KENT
Shut up! (Beat) I will. You just
need to disappear for a while.
12.
JOHNSON
I was doing fine til you showed up.
KENT
Until I saved you, you mean. (Beat)
You’re mine.
JOHNSON
Nawww. You’re on you’re own. I’m
out. You can take your deal and
shove it. I’m gonna tell Baptiste
you made me deal over here--
On "made me," Kent whips out his pistol and FIRES into
Johnson’s abdomen before Johnson can return
fire. Allen rushes up as Kent fires three more
times. Allen grabs Kent’s shoulder and whips him around.
ALLEN
What are you doing?
KENT
Cleaning up.
ALLEN
Yeah. You’re mess. What deal did
you have with this guy?
KENT
Nothing.
ALLEN
You were letting him deal down here
and taking a cut, weren’t you?
Kent puts his gun in his jacket, adjust his hat.
ALLEN
I can’t believe you.
KENT
This is what it takes.
ALLEN
This isn’t what it was like with
dad.
KENT
Yea, well he’s dead, isn’t
he? Kind of hard to teach lessons
from the grave.
Kent storms off, leaving Allen with Johnson’s body.
13.
INT. CHURCH SANCTUARY - NIGHT
Allen sits, hands folded in prayer, forehead on the pew in
front of him. Isabel enters. Allen raises head.
ISABEL
What’s wrong?
ALLEN
Kent.
ISABEL
Is he okay?
ALLEN
It just wasn’t enough for him.
ISABEL
What happened?
ALLEN
I found out something today that’s
not going to go over well.
Isabel looks in his eyes, encouraging him to finish his
thought.
ALLEN
Kent. He protected one of
Baptiste’s dealers on our side of
town. Then he killed the guy for
threatening to tell Baptiste.
Isabel continues to study Allen’s face.
ISABEL
What are you going to do?
ALLEN
Don’t say anything to your
dad. I’ll fix this.
Isabel turns, looks straight ahead. She reaches over, grabs
Allen’s hand.
INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT
Kent paces in front of Delilah sitting on the couch.
DELILAH
What are you going to do?
14.
KENT
If you would just shut up for a
minute, then I could think. I
wouldn’t be having to deal with
this problem if it wasn’t for your
delusions of grandeur.
DELILAH
You did this. Don’t blame me.
Kent’s phone vibrates. He reads text.
KENT
Allen wants to talk.
DELILAH
Well at least one of you has
balls. What are you going to do?
KENT
Allen knows. A lot.
Kent pulls out toothpick and begins chewing
forcefully. Delilah stands beside him, runs her finger
along his shoulder and neck, addressing him soothingly.
DELILAH
We can run this town. You and me.
She leans forward and kisses his neck. Disinterest oozes
from Kent’s unwavered breathing. Kent crosses to door.
KENT
Don’t wait up for me.
DELILAH
I wasn’t planning on it.
INT. CHURCH SANCTUARY - NIGHT
Allen stands in silence. He loosens his tie. Kent enters
chewing on a toothpick, disturbing the silence.
ALLEN
I’m in a real spot here, Kent.
Kent chews tooth pick.
ALLEN
I think I can protect you. I just
need you to let me handle it.
15.
KENT
I’m not going to do that.
ALLEN
You’ve killed the goose. There are
no more golden eggs.
KENT
You talk like him now?
ALLEN
You’ve got to let me help.
KENT
I don’t need you.
ALLEN
Yes you do. You’ve gotten yourself
so deep into this mess you can’t
get out on your own.
KENT
I took care of the problem. What’s
the big deal?
ALLEN
The big deal is you killed a man
because you made a bad deal. You
made a stupid deal, and now you’re
gonna have to pay for it unless I
help.
KENT
(Half-mumbled)
Well you’re the only one who knows
about the deal.
ALLEN
What?
KENT
I know what I’m going to do.
ALLEN
What, Kent? What’s your master
plan?
Kent draws his gun and FIRES, narrowly missing Allen. Allen
takes cover behind a pew, drawing his own gun. He starts to
cock it, but stops.
16.
ALLEN
Kent! I’m not going to do this.
Allen stands, removes the clip from his gun, places both on
the ground. He crosses to center aisle, looking down each
row of pews to see nothing. Kent fires one shot in Allen’s
back. Allen falls to the ground. Kent plugs two more
rounds into Allen’s barely living body. He stands over his
brother.
INT. EMPTY BAR - DAY
Kent enters, forcefully chews toothpick. Boss sits, hands
folded on table.
BOSS
Where’s Allen, Kent?
KENT
Haven’t you heard from him?
Boss shakes head.
BOSS
Neither has Isabel.
KENT
I’m sure it’s nothing.
BOSS
I wish that were true.
Boss nods to DARK FIGURE behind Kent. Dark Figure pistol
whips Kent on the back of the head, knocking him
unconscious.
INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT
Kent fades in and out of consciousness to the sounds of a
buzzing noise.
Kent finally wakes, he feels a dull burning in his neck. He
is shirtless, tied to a chair, his neck wrapped in plastic
wrap. He grunts, unable to form words with his thick,
semiconscious tongue. He struggles half-heartedly at his
bonds.
BOSS
"For whatever one sows, that he
will also reap."
17.
KENT
What?
BOSS
You stole from me, Kent.
KENT
Never took anything.
BOSS
You stole from me when you killed
that dealer. Johnson.
KENT
I would never--
Boss leans down into Kent’s face.
BOSS
And then you killed your own
brother.
KENT
How--
BOSS
One thing I learned early on is you
never do your own dirty
work. That’s why I’m in charge,
Kent. I know how things work.
KENT
I’m sure there’s something I can--
BOSS
NO! There’s nothing you could
offer me that could replace what
you’ve taken. From me or from
Isabel. I don’t think she’ll ever
forgive me for putting Allen in
danger.
KENT
What are you going to do?
BOSS
I wanted to shoot you in the back
like you did to your brother,
but Isabel wouldn’t let me. So I
came up with an alternative.
18.
Boss unties Kent. Kent sits up, reaching for his neck,
which is wrapped in plastic wrap. He pulls off the wrap,
wincing in pain. The boss holds up a mirror to reveal the
words "Brother’s Keeper" tattooed on either side of Kent’s
throat
BOSS
People can forget their
mistakes. But you’ll remember what
you’ve done. You killed your own
flesh and blood.
Kent looks at the Boss: anger, frustration. The Boss turns
his back, puts his hands behind him.
BOSS
A queen bee brought an offering to
the Mother Nature. She promised
the queen anything in return. The
queen bee asked for a stinger that
would kill anyone that got in her
way. Nature gave her this gift,
but told her that using this
stinger would mean risking her own
life. Because once used, the
stringer would remain in the victim
and she would die without it.
(Beat) Death comes home to those
who desire to kill.
Kent puts his head in his hands.
BOSS
Killing family is bad
business. Always.
Kent buttons shirt.
BOSS
If any one of my boys sees you, you
won’t see the next sunset.
Kent stands.
BOSS
When we went to your place to
retrieve Baptiste’s money, it
wasn’t there.
The boss pulls a house key out of his pocket and places it
in Kent’s hand.
19.
BOSS
We will get the money back.
EXT. SMALL TOWN STREET - NIGHT
Delilah walks down street towards her car, hips swaying,
confident. Her purse is full of cash. Her eyes smile.
Dark Figure walks out of shadow, following behind Delilah
wearing a dark wool hat and large heavy jacket. Delilah
turns, worried look, speeds up her pace.
Dark Figure slowly draws gun. GUNSHOTS. Delilah falls to
the ground. Dark Figure takes Delilah’s purse.
INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT
Kent stands, grabs his clothes, exits. Boss sits with hands
folded on table. He lowers head, rubs temples.
INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT (LATER)
Kent frantically rushes in with duffel bag. He grabs bottle
of whiskey and a glass and quickly downs a drink. He grabs
his gun and stuffs it in his jacket.
A KNOCK at the door. Kent draws his gun, slowly approaches
the door and answers. Isabel stands, waiting like a marble
statue. She wears the hat and jacket we recognize from Dark
Figure. Kent lowers his gun.
ISABEL
You killed my knight.
Isabel pulls out a gun from under her jacket and FIRES into
Kent’s chest. He falls to the ground gasping as the world
slowly fades to black, holding his chest as his life
fountains out.
FADE OUT
INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT
ALTERNATE ENDING:
Boss is putting away materials from tattooing. Isabel
enters and drops Delilah’s purse full of cash. The only
light on them comes from directly overhead. Boss looks at
her then down at the bags. His eyes betray his deep pain at
dragging his daughter into the business.
20.
He reaches out and pulls her to him in a deep
embrace. Isabel looks straight ahead, empty and dark.
FADE OUT
Department Name Role DutiesProduction
Nicole TricheExecutive Producer(Honors Thesis Mentor)
"crucial…in ensuring that the project goesinto production." (Thanks Wikipedia)
Claire GambrellProducer/ProductionManager Keep schedule, manage daily budget
David Tregde Writer/Director/ProducerHiring/Casting, running tablereads/rehearsals, on-set directorial duties
Michael Tahan Assistant DirectorCall sheets, script supervision,set/cast/crew management
Mia Watkins Associate Producer Contact/secure locations, assist Producer
CameraKara Johnson Director of Photography Lighting/framing, camera operationJon Smith 1st AC/Key Grip Jib operator, lighting, etc.
Bryan Cross Best Boy (Grip)Assist with lighting/camera setups,equipment management
Art DepartmentBrittany Barbieri Production Designer Set/costume designTina Tozzi Makeup artist Actor makeup, tattoo/blood effects
Avery Ecker Prop/Costume SupervisorProp/costume management, setdecoration
SoundBen Soldate Production Sound Mixer On-set sound mixingMadeleine StokowskiBoom Pole Operator Sound recording
EditingMariah Czap Editor Final video editingBobby Watts Composer/Sound mixer Original music, sound mixing?
Special Projects
Tyler Oberle BTS VideographerDocument our on-set activites andinteractions
Will Simon Set Photographer Production/set photos, poster images
/RFDWLRQ &RQWDFW�,QIR $UHD�5HDVRQ�IRU�XVH 3LWFK/RFDWLRQ5HVSRQVH
-D]DEHOV�-D]]�%LVWURKWWS���MD]HEHOVMD]]ELVWUR�ZHEV�FRP�FRQWDFWXV�KWP %DU�VFHQHV�ZLWK�PRE�%RVV
(PSKDVL]H�WKH�VWXGHQW�ILOP�DVSHFW��ZH�GRQW�KDYH�PRQH\�WRUHDOO\�SD\�IRU�WKH�VSDFH��DQG�ZH�NQRZ�WKH\YH�ZRUNHG�ZLWKRWKHU�VWXGHQW�ILOPPDNHUV�� <HV
(ORQ�&RPPXQLW\�&KXUFK KWWS���ZZZ�HORQFRPPXQLW\FKXUFK�RUJ� &OLPDFWLF�VFHQHV�EHWZHHQ�WZR�EURWKHUV (PSKDVL]H�WKH�%LEOLFDO�DOOXVLRQV�EHLQJ�PDGH�
<HV��MXVW�FKHFNZLWK�WKHP�RQ�ZKDWGD\�ZHUH�FRPLQJ
$OO�WKDW�-$6 KWWS���DOOWKDWMDV�FRP�$ERXW8V�KWP6RPH�VFHQHV�WR�RFFXU�EHKLQG�WKH�VWRUHLQ�WKH�DOOH\ZD\
(PSKDVL]H�WKH�VWXGHQW�ILOP�VLGH���:H�DUH�PRUH�RU�OHVVDOHUWLQJ�WKHP�WKDW�ZH�ZLOO�EH�VKRRWLQJ�EHKLQG�WKHLU�VWRUH�IURQWVR�LWV�QRW�D�VXUSULVH���(PSKDVL]H�WKDW�LWV�LQ�-DQXDU\�DQGSUREDEO\�DW�QLJKW� <HV
0LOO�3RLQW�$SDUWPHQW�%XLOGLQJ������$SW������ .HQWV�KRPH <HV
&/7�(;7(5,256 <HV
Month Day Cast Crew Action DetailsDecember ALL Questions ASK ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE
22 David T., Jon S. Reserve equipmentI will reserve normal equipment. Jon will reservejib asap for Jan. 12
29 David T., Jon S. Reserve equipmentI will reserve normal equipment. Jon will reservejib asap for Jan. 12
January 1
David T., Michael T.,Claire G., Mia W.,Will S., Kara J.,Benjamin S.,
Call sheets,questions, prep
Create call sheets to send to cast/crew for Jan.5th. Specify costumes/equipment needed. Notewhat times certain actors will be called. Checkequipment, procedures.
4 ALL ANY/ALL Rehearsal Rehearse scenes for next day. Location TBD.5 ALL ALL Day 1 of filming See shoot schedule6 Michael T., David T. Call sheets Call sheets for day 2 of filming.
11 ALL ANY/ALL Rehearsal Rehearse scenes for next day. Location TBD.12 ALL ALL Day 2 of filming See shoot schedule
13Jordan R., LoganS., Dylan M. ALL Day 3 of filming See shoot schedule
19 TBD TBD Reshoots Only if needed. Please keep open if possible!
Characters
SceneWardrobeNumber Kent Allen Delilah Boss Isabel Johnson [Props]
1 1
Colored shirt, brighttie Plain shirt, striped tie Suit, blue tie
2 Same + winter jacket Same + winter jacketDress, boots,winter jacket
3 2Jeans, t-shirt, leatherjacket
Jeans, button down,jacket
Jeans, boots,hoodie, winterjacket
Paper bag, money,butterfly knife
4 (No jacket)Red top, darkpants
5 3Jeans, skinny tie,jacket
Same, differentshirt
6 Same, different shirt Same Kent's gun
7 4 Flashy button downRed dress, blacktights Money
8 5 Button down or polo Jeans, purple top?9 6 Flashy button down Blue shirt, loose tie Dark suit, purple tie Toothpick
10
7
Dark t-shirt, wool cap,leather jacket
Red or black top,jeans
Money, Kent's gun,toothpick
11Wool cap, scarf,hoodie, jacket Same as usual
12 Blue or purple top1314 Both guns, toothpick
15
8
Leather jacket, flashyt-shirt
Light/grey suit,purple tie
Black wool cap,black overcoat
16 (Shirtless) (Tie loosened)
17Red jacket, blacktop, black jeans
18
19 Add jacket, hat
Duffel bag, surplusclothes, bottle, glass,Kent's gun Isabel'sgun
20
Scene # Description Set Props Character Props Notes Links1 Empty Bar/Boss intro Christmas lights Cuff links (Boss)
2 Entrance to bar/parking lot Allen's car
3 Kent and Allen threaten Johnson Paper bag
Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers
Folding knifeTactical foldingknife/Butterfly Knife?? http://www.amazon.com/MTECH-USA-MT-343B-Tactical-Folding/dp/B001F4SK3Y/ref=sr_1_7?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-7http://www.amazon.com/United-Cutlery-UC8007-Rescue-Folder/dp/B00436Y4KE/ref=sr_1_12?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-12http://www.amazon.com/Black-Tom-Anderson-Kult-Folder/dp/B001CPEZ62/ref=sr_1_14?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-14
Cell phones
4 Kent and Delilah reveling in riches LampCouch pillowsBlanketMagazinesLarge TV
5,6 Kent and Johnson make a deal Toothpick
Kent's GunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274
7 Delilah schemes(same as previousapt scene)
Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers
8 Kent and Isabel's date Coffee cupsgeneric-style cups withlids
9 Boss get's wise Toothpicks
10 Kent decides to change the deal.(same as previousapt scene) Paper bag
Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers
11 Kent murders Toothpicks
Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274
Driving gloves Like the gloves in Drive
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004C443RG/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&psc=1&s=apparel
12 Isabel meets Allen at the church
13 Kent makes another choice(same as previousapt scene) Cell phone
14 Kent kills again Toothpick
Driving gloves Like the gloves in Drive
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004C443RG/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&psc=1&s=apparel
Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274
Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574
15 The Boss takes charge Henchman pistolUse black gun I alreadyhave
dark wool knit capdark wool jacket
16 The Boss gives Kent the lowdown plastic wrap tattoo makeupChair
17 Delilah's downfall Fake money
Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574
dark wool knit capdark wool jacket
19 Kent's escape attempt(same as previousapt scene)
duffel bagwhiskey bottledrinking glass
Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274
Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)
http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574
dark wool knit capdark wool jacket
20 Alternate ending purse
Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers
dark wool knit capdark wool jacket
PURCHASESFake MoneyGlovesHand mirrorLarge, black jacketSet propsToothpicks
Dept. Elon Television 1/4/2012 1/11/2012 Tregde Media
Camera
T3i (50mm f1.4, Rode mic, kit lens) X X T2i (50mm f2)2 Tripods X X Zacuto Z-finderPocket Dolly X XIndie Dolly X XVarizoom shoulder rig X XGlideCam X XVideo monitor X XSlate X XJib
Lighting
Rifa X X Can lightsKino Flo X X China ballSports Com light kit X XFlag Bag X XReflector Kit X X
Sound
3 Zoom recorders X X Mic stand2 Sennheiser boom mics X XRode boom mic X X2 boom poles X X2 lav mics X X2 Xlr cables X X
Misc.
4 sandbags X X Gaff tape2 C-stands Velcro ties2 extension cords X X2 LED light panel X
BTS
Panasonic X XBattery X XPanasonic charger X X
Scene Time Description Characters LocationCostume Notes
Day 1Saturday,Jan. 52012
1 8:00-10:00 Opening Scene at bar Boss, Allen, Kent J Wardrobe 19 10:00-11:00 Boss demanding change in tactics Boss, Allen, Kent J Wardrobe 6
15 11:00-12:00 Kent is rendered unconscious at bar Boss, Kent, Isabell J Wardrobe 82 12:00-1:00 Allen, Isabel leaving bar Kent, Allen, Isabell J Wardrobe 1
16,18 3:00-5:00 Kent wakes in Boss's garage Boss, Kent R Wardrobe 820 5:00-6:00 Alternate Ending Boss, Isabel R Wardrobe 819 8:00-10:00 Kent's death Kent, Isabel M Wardrobe 8
[2NDUNIT]DAY 1JAN. 52012
5 3:00-4:00pm Allen sees/chases Johnson Allen, Johnson B Wardrobe 2
[2nd UNIT] Dir: Michael Tahan; Camera: Jon Smith; Sound: Ben Soldate; AP: Mia Watkins
Day 2Saturday,Jan. 122012
3 9:00-10:00 1st interaction with JohnsonKent, Allen,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 2
6 11:00-12:00 Kent Protects JohnsonAllen, Kent,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 3
12 1:00-2:00 Allen & Isabel in church Allen, Isabel ECC Wardrobe 714 2:00-5:00 Shootout in church Kent, Allen ECC Wardrobe 719 6:00-7:00 Pickups: Isabel & Kent Kent, Isabel M Wardrobe 8
4 7:00-8:00 Kent and Delilah 1 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 27 8:00-8:45 Kent and Delilah 2 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 4
10 8:45-9:30 Kent and Delilah 3 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 713 9:30-10:15 Kent and Delilah 4 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 7
[ 2NDUNIT]Day 2SaturdayJan. 12,2012
8 11:00-12:00 Allen and Isabel coffee scene Allen, Isabel ETCS Wardrobe 5
[2nd UNIT] Dir: Michael Tahan; Camera: Jon Smith; Sound: Ben Soldate; AP: Mia Watkins
Day 3SundayJan. 13,2012
11 6:00-8:00pm Johnson's deathKent, Allen,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 7
Simultaneous 2nd Unit scene in downtown Burlington.
17 6:00-7:00pm Delilah's death Delilah, Isabel B Wardrobe 8
LocationLegendJ Jazabel'sR Roussel ResidenceM Mill Point ApartmentETCA Elon Town Center alleyETCS ETC streetB Downtown Burlington
ECCElon CommunityChurch
Scene Framing Equipment Description1 EST W Glidecam Push in on bar
1A CU-MIndie or PocketDolly
MASTER: Slow dolly back from the back of the boss's headto reveal the two brothers.
1B CU-MIndie or PocketDolly
Slow dolly back from boss's face to reveal back of brothers'heads
1C MCU Tripod Two shot of brothers' reactions, standing1C-a CU Tripod Kent's response + reaction shots1C-b CU Tripod Allen's response + reaction shots1D CU Tripod Boss from "Can I trust Allen?" through end of scene
2A W-M TripodMASTER: Brothers exit. Camera pans as Allen approachesIsabel.
2B M-MCU TripodAllen/Isabel leave previous frame to enter this one. Theyapproach camera.
2C MCU Glidecam Track backwards with couple
3A W Tripod Brothers leaning against wall3B W Tripod Shot down alley as Johnson passes entrance3C M Shoulder rig Shoulder tap and follow brothers as they pursue Johnson.3D MCU Shoulder rig On sidewalk, pan and follow brothers to Johnson.3E-a CU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage3E-b CU Shoulder rig Johnson's dialog coverage3F CU Shoulder rig Kent taking cash. Follow-tilt with knife (do as pickup)3G M Shoulder rig Same setup as 3D. Brothers approach camera3H-a CU Shoulder rig Kent's coverage from phone call3H-b CU Shoulder rig Allen's coverage from phone call3J M Shoulder rig Same setup as 3D/3G. Brothers turning down alley.
4 EST W Tripod Static, tilt down on upper level apt. complex4A-a M Pocket Dolly Push in on the back of Kent and Delilah's heads4A-b M Pocket Dolly Push in on Kent, Delilah. Hold thru Kent's shrug.4B-a MCU Tripod Delilah's dialog coverage thru "This is ridiculous"4B-b MCU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage "There's plenty of nice..."4C-a CU Tripod Delilah's dialog coverage from "I hate that stupid rule."4C-b CU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage "The two families..."4D MCU Tripod Two shot from "I promise"
5A MCU Shoulder rig Allen walking into frame, reaction to Johnson, pursuing.5B M Shoulder rig Johnson dealing, seeing Allen, taking off. down street.5C W Shoulder rig Across the street of the chase.
6A MCU Shoulder rig Outside alley, panning with Allen as he runs into Kent6B-a CU Shoulder rig Allen's dialog coverage6B-b CU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage6C M Shoulder rig Follow Kent into alley; Johnson's reveal.6C-a MCU Shoulder rig Johnson's dialog coverage6C-b MCU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage6C-c CU Shoulder rig Kent showing gun6C-d CU Shoulder rig Hand's shaking
7A MCU Tripod Overhead of money poured on table
7B MCU TripodTwo-shot of Kent/Delilah dialog. She pushes him out offrame.
8A M Glidecam Track backwards with characters.8B CU HH/Glidecam Isabel taking Allen's hand
8C MCU Tripod Couple sitting on bench to continue dialog
9A M Tripod Brothers two-shot, Kent chewing toothpick.9B MCU Tripod Tilt up from Boss's nervous hands on his dialog9C-a MCU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage. Tilt/pan when he leaves9C-b MCU Tripod Allen's dialog coverage9C-c MCU Tripod Boss's monolog9D MCU-M Shoulder rig Kent's last line, leaving
10A MCU Shoulder rigTilt up from Kent sorting bills to reveal Delilah rubbing hisback.
10B CU Shoulder rig Delilah's lips on Kent's ear
10C MCU Shoulder rigFollow Kent as he gears up to leave. Long take throughend.
11A M Shoulder rig
Follow brothers from sidewalk to alley, revealing Johnson.Allen turns to face alley. Kent approaches Johnson.Camera follows Kent.
11B M Shoulder rig
(Possible continuation of 11A) Two-shot with actors inprofile, moving camera to whichever actor speaks. Keepuntil Kent pulls pistol and shoots.
11C-a MCU Shoulder rigFranticly follow Allen as he runs up to Kent. Kent's dialogcoverage.
11C-b MCU Shoulder rig Allen's dialog coverage. Tilt down to Johnson's body at end.
12 EST W Tripod Static/tilt up on ext of church12A W Jib MASTER: Jib down as Isabel enters/approaches Allen.12B-a MCU Tripod Profile of Allen as Isabel sits. Allen dialog coverage12B-b MCU Tripod Isabel's dialog coverage12C MCU Tripod Two-shot from behind12D CU Tripod? Overhead of hands12E CU Tripod/HH Cross/Christ figure
13A M Shoulder rig MASTER: Follow Kent, move to Delilah on line. Long take13B-a MCU Shoulder rig Kent dialog coverage from text message thru end of scene13B-b MCU Shoulder rig Delilah dialog coverage from text thru end of scene
14A W Tripod Allen in aisle. See reaction to Kent entering14B-a M Shoulder rig Kent entering, dialog coverage14B-b M Shoulder rig Allen dialog coverage14C-a MCU Shoulder rig Kent dialog from "You talk like him now?"14C-b MCU Shoulder rig Allen dialog from "You've got to let me help"14D-a CU Shoulder rig Kent: "Well you're the only one who knows."14D-b CU Shoulder rig Allen: "What?"14E-a MCU Fig rig Follow gun as Kent whips it out and fires.14E-b MCU Fig rig Follow Allen as he dives behind pew, draws gun, line.14E-c MCU Fig rig Slow motion shot of 14E-b14F MCU Fig rig Allen coming out, line, search.14G M Fig rig POV of Allen's search
14H W Fig rigFocus on Allen, Kent stands in shot, fires. Allen falls out offrame
14J W Shoulder rigAt end of aisle, Allen's legs sticking out. Kent approaches.Fires into body.
15A MCU Shoulder rig OTS from Boss as Kent enters sits.15B MCU Shoulder rig Boss's dialog coverage15C-a CU Shoulder rig Kent dialog from "I'm sure it's nothing."15C-b CU Shoulder rig Boss dialog coverage
15D MCU Fig rig Follow shot of dark figure
16A CU Fig rig Shot of light going in and out of focus16B CU Tripod Kent's face. Slowly roll into focus. Kent dialog coverage16C M-MCU Tripod Boss steps into light. Dialog coverage16D M Tripod Profile two-shot when Boss leans down to Kent.16E ECU Fig rig Boss unwrapping Kent's neck. Don't reveal anything yet.16F CU Tripod Kent OTS as he holds up mirror and reveals tattoo.16G-a MCU Tripod Boss dialog coverage after tattoo reveal16G-b MCU Tripod Kent coverage thru end/scene 18.
17A MCU Shoulder rigTrack back with Delilah. See panic in her eyes when DarkFigure appears
17B ECU Fig rig Overhead Delilah's purse filled with cash17C CU Shoulder rig OTS Dark Figure as it follows Delilah17D-a CU Sandbag Ground shot of Dark figure's steps coming to a stop.17D-b CU Sandbag Ground shot of purse getting picked up.
19A MCU Fig rig Quick and jerky. Whip between Kent and bag as he packs.
19B MCU Fig rigOTS follow as Kent rushes into kitchen, grabs whiskey. Seereaction of door knock.
19B-b W Fig rig Door
19C M Fig rigWhip up from Kent's drawn gun to his face as he slowlyapproaches door.
19D CU Fig rig Kent's hand turning door knob.19F-a MCU Tripod Isabel OTS of Kent lowering gun19F-b MCU Tripod Isabel dialog19G-a M Tripod Isabel drawing gun, firing.19G-b MCU Tripod Kent falling out of frame
19H M Tripod/Pocket dollyOverhead of Kent dying. Use pocket dolly as crane acrossKent's body.
20A W Tripod Boss sitting in chair. Delilah entering.20B W-M Tripod Boss OTS of Delilah approaching
20C MCU GlidecamCircle around from Boss's face to Isabel's. Alternately, dotwo shots on tripod.
Funder Amount Perk Method PerkClaire Gambrell $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 PosterPatty Gliniewicz $50.00 Co-producer Paypal Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJordan Roman $25.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJordan Roman $25.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/Preview
Mark Tregde $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy
John Tregde $35.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJonathan Tregde $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster
Total Raised $285.00Fees -$26.95
Sub Total $258.05
Don Schneider $50.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/Preview
Gregory Roman $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy
Keith & Loretta Jones $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster
Leslie Roman $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy
Curt Feldman $200.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit
Total Raised $465.00Fees
Sub Total $723.05
Elon UniversityHonors Program grant $1,000.00
Grand Total $1,723.05
Item/Description Price Date Store Method Purchaser Reimbursed? From? Legend50mm prime lens $107.00 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo ReimbursedZacuto z-finder jr $165.00 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo Not reimbursedGaff tape $14.49 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo Pending reimbursementWG 1911 Full size CO2 airsoftpistol, two tone $75.00 Airsoft GI Credit Card David Tregde YES IndiegogoTSD 1911 CO2 blowback (browngrip) $75.00 Airsoft GI Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo32GB Sandisk SD Card $29.88 11/8/2012 Best Buy Debit David Tregde YES IndiegogoButterfly trainer $33.52 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde NO HNRDinner meeting $20.73 11/28/2012 The Root Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo
Magic Bullet Cosmo $59.40 12/11/2012Red GiantSoftware Paypal David Tregde YES Indiegogo
Record Album Frames (8) $63.98 12/14/2012 Target Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRCouch pillows, heavy coat, etc. $13.90 12/15/2012 Goodwill Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRFollow focus/Jar grip $4.92 12/18/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde Out of pocketDriving gloves $24.99 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde Out of pocket HNRMakeup order $96.09 12/26/2012 FXwarehouse Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRMakeup sponges $11.00 12/26/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRProp Money $36.96 12/26/2012 eBay Paypal David Tregde YES HNRLens rentals (both weekends) $141.44 12/26/2012 Lens Rentals Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRDriving gloves $15.28 12/26/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde YES HNR
CO2 cannisters $21.99 12/26/2012Dick's SportingGoods Cash David Tregde YES HNR
Craft Services $88.92 12/26/2012 Sam's Club Credit Card Mark Tregde YES HNRCan light and batteries $11.99 12/26/2012 Harbor Freight Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRTies $4.27 12/29/2012 Goodwill Cash David Tregde YES HNRCostumes (Kent) $41.71 TJ Max Cash Jordan Roman YES HNRCraft Services $62.44 1/2/2013 Walmart Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRCorn Syrup $1.83 1/5/2013 Food Lion Cash Claire Gambrell Out of pocket HNRTravel Reimbursement $36.20 1/5/2013 YES HNRPizza $24.88 1/12/2013 Dominoes Credit Card David Tregde YESCostumes (Delilah) $49.99 1/21/2013 ModCloth Credit Card Molly Dougherty YESPostersBlu Rays
TOTAL EXPENSES $1,332.80
Indiegogo $723.05Grant $1,000.00
Total Funds $1,723.05
Scene Description Notes
General Gun shotsMake Jen's gun shot different from Jordan's. Don't want it toseem like they're using the same gun.
General Kent's GunMake Jordan's gun more of a "hand cannon" type with adeeper, more booming sound.
General Gun Shots
Make sure we can't hear any one say "bang" or any in-scene gun shots when we add sounds effects. It pulled meout when I watched the rough.
General Adding post audioCity b-roll and Delilah's (Molly) death scene need street/cityaudio added in post.
2 Allen & Isabel talkTry to remove the hum of the AC units. Noise filters shoulddo the trick
4 Kent/Delilah watching TVadd background TV noise. Doesn't matter what. justquiet/mumbling
11 Johnson's death sceneADR Johnson's lines so we can get his half of the mumblinga little better.
12,14 Church scenes foley door opening
14 Church shootoutWhen Allen pops the slide on his gun, add a shell casinghitting the floor
14 Church shootoutAdd 2 extra gunshots to Kent's first attack. Make it seem asif he took a few more shots.
14 Church shootout When kent kills Allen, add some shell casings dropping
15 Kent knocked outWhen Kent gets hit on the back of the head, we need asound effect like a thud and slight bone crunch maybe
16 Kent/Boss final sceneCan we add the low electric hum of a light that fades in andthen out as the dialog starts?
16 Kent/Boss final sceneADR Kirby Wahl saying "Brother's Keeper" that we can addover the mirror reveal.
18,19 Isabel shooting Kent ADR Jen saying "You killed my knight."
Scene # Description Notes Claire Notes
1 Boss lecturing brothers
Let first song start as just a single note. Add multiple noteswhen boss enters parable/monolog, then bring it back downinto next scene.
When the music stops, it feels toosudden for me, needs a smoothertransition into parable then outcompletely when he leans forward.
4 Delilah and Kent arguing in apartment
Music is a little too ominous. Save for the next scenebetween the two brothers. Do a simpler pad melody similarto the ending. <-- I agree with David
5,6 Kent and Johnson deal
Use the music from scene four with the percussion andeverything. This melody works great here. The piano bit atthe end feels too like. Just hold out the low ominous padlonger until the scene transition. <-- Again, I agree with David
7 Delilah and Kent sexy scene This scene is being cut. Don't worry about the music.
8 Isabel and Allen cute sceneGreat music. Start it a little sooner and then roll into the nextscene as you already do.
I really like how it carries over into thenext scene, but it could last in the nextscene a little longer. I would also likesome kind of tones or music when Kentstands from the meeting with the Bossand his brother just because he looksso powerful
11 Johnson's death scene
More upper register/violins in the strings section if possible?Maybe a solo vocal going "oo" or "oh" like from the Lord ofthe Rings (i'm a nerd)
I love this music - I don't know about thevocals in this song, not my personalfavorite (I think the strings are enough) -I think it could go even further into thenext scene as well
13 Kent and Delilah plotShort, but I will need a drone type thing here. The end willhave no audio, so i want it to build a little there as well.
14 Allen and Kent in the Churchlove the vocals, but hold them back until the line "What's yourmaster plan?"
Great, I really like this part - but it cutsout too quickly, smoother transition out.I also would like to see how it would beif music started once again as Kentwalked out of the church and into thenext scene
16 The garageMusic is great here. Entrance is awesome. Is it possible tomake the piano more "out of tune" sounding?
Love it, I would bring the percussion(snare sound) out some, it is reallygreat, then if it it possible to bring inmore drums like a timpani, in achroschendo to Delilah's death? Andthen have the sound drop out when shefalls? This is just something that I thinkwould be cool, but is of course, just asuggestion.
17 Delilah's death scene
could use something here that then melds into the endingsong. I'm not sure what. Something pad/electronicpercussion based like from "Drive" that can blend into theending.
Could also just make the ending startsooner?
I really like thissong, it is verypowerful andemotional and fitswell into the movie!
Recommended