June 2010 Archives
FTI spoke with Chris Kenworthy, co-writer, producer and director of The Sculptor, about his inspiration and processes during production for his latest film.
What was the original inspiration for the film?
Probably the poets, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. What happens when two extremely talented people try to live a creative life together? And what happens when you throw the occult into the mix? Ted and Sylvia were quite heavily involved in the occult, and one of their friends went so far as to say that it was black magic that killed Sylvia. We had no desire to write a film about Ted and Sylvia, because you couldn't do justice to them in two hours, but we took some of their intensity and some of their history, and used that as a starting point.
Atmosphere is really important to the story, could you tell us about how the cinematography and sound have contributed to the rural gothic Australian claustrophobia of the film?
The Australian landscape is often shown as open all the way to the horizon, but I wanted to show that you can feel quite smothered and trapped out there. The sense of claustrophobia was largely created by using locations that had some sort of wall around them, such as a wall of rock or a wall of trees.
For the night scenes, the idea was always to have a smooth roll-off into complete darkness. When you're outside at night, that's often your experience. You can see some things clearly, but there's a lot of complete darkness in the spaces, and that's frightening.
Good sound design was important to the whole film, but at all times it was used to illuminate the story. I never want atmosphere for the sake of atmosphere. Everything has to make sense in terms of story.
What brief did you provide your Production Designer, given the importance of design to the story?
I started talking to Emma Fletcher eighteen months before the shoot, but there wasn't a brief so much as an ongoing discussion about source material, colour and texture. I created some pre-viz images for her, but after that I preferred to let her create and then I'd choose what suited the film. I went in to the workshop most days during pre-production and she always had something good to show me. I once told Emma I wanted some of the sculptures to be really big, and she took me literally. Some of them ended up being massive. They took weeks to create, transport and assemble, even though they're only on screen for a few seconds.
In terms of your film making process, are there any techniques that you rely on? Do you find these are project specific?
So far, I've never had a project specific technique. I always choose the lens, and I choose where the camera goes. Some directors leave this to the DP and concentrate on performance. But I think it's my job to get the best performance from the actors, and find the best way of capturing it.
Mark DeFriest once said to me that when you're almost done with one set-up, you have to start planning the next one in your head, so nobody's waiting around when you call cut. It's really good advice, although it takes a lot of concentration to watch one take while blocking the next shot with another part of your brain.
How hard was it to produce the film as a privately funded production?
In many ways it was easy, because it took just six months to raise the money, which is really quick. On the other hand, no matter how much money you have, you're always fighting the clock and the budget. In that sense, it was like any other movie.
There was a lot of pressure, but the pressure didn't come from it being privately funded; it came from being producer and director on the same job. You have to be incredibly disciplined with time and money, but still find the space to be creative. And you have to live off three hours sleep a night.
You have a take in the film lasting a full 3 minutes that was not planned. Could you tell us how this came about?
We'd spent hours on some really technical shots, and the actors were bored and drained. I think everybody knew that we'd just spent nine hours working on a scene that was never going to make the cut. We had to do something to get inspired again, so I decided to shoot one of the key scenes in a single Steadicam shot before the sun went down. The actors weren't expecting that scene for another few days, but they rose to the occasion and didn't miss a single line. You've never seen such energy and commitment on a set, and it was just what we all needed.
Were there other elements in the film that were created during the shoot?
New elements were brought in all the time, whenever they met the needs of the story. Directing is about harvesting all the talent on set, rather than ordering people around, so you talk to everybody and listen to their ideas. The little details that are added on the day can make all the difference to a scene.
What was the original inspiration for the film?Probably the poets, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. What happens when two extremely talented people try to live a creative life together? And what happens when you throw the occult into the mix? Ted and Sylvia were quite heavily involved in the occult, and one of their friends went so far as to say that it was black magic that killed Sylvia. We had no desire to write a film about Ted and Sylvia, because you couldn't do justice to them in two hours, but we took some of their intensity and some of their history, and used that as a starting point.
Atmosphere is really important to the story, could you tell us about how the cinematography and sound have contributed to the rural gothic Australian claustrophobia of the film?
The Australian landscape is often shown as open all the way to the horizon, but I wanted to show that you can feel quite smothered and trapped out there. The sense of claustrophobia was largely created by using locations that had some sort of wall around them, such as a wall of rock or a wall of trees.
For the night scenes, the idea was always to have a smooth roll-off into complete darkness. When you're outside at night, that's often your experience. You can see some things clearly, but there's a lot of complete darkness in the spaces, and that's frightening.
Good sound design was important to the whole film, but at all times it was used to illuminate the story. I never want atmosphere for the sake of atmosphere. Everything has to make sense in terms of story.
What brief did you provide your Production Designer, given the importance of design to the story?
I started talking to Emma Fletcher eighteen months before the shoot, but there wasn't a brief so much as an ongoing discussion about source material, colour and texture. I created some pre-viz images for her, but after that I preferred to let her create and then I'd choose what suited the film. I went in to the workshop most days during pre-production and she always had something good to show me. I once told Emma I wanted some of the sculptures to be really big, and she took me literally. Some of them ended up being massive. They took weeks to create, transport and assemble, even though they're only on screen for a few seconds.
In terms of your film making process, are there any techniques that you rely on? Do you find these are project specific?
So far, I've never had a project specific technique. I always choose the lens, and I choose where the camera goes. Some directors leave this to the DP and concentrate on performance. But I think it's my job to get the best performance from the actors, and find the best way of capturing it.
Mark DeFriest once said to me that when you're almost done with one set-up, you have to start planning the next one in your head, so nobody's waiting around when you call cut. It's really good advice, although it takes a lot of concentration to watch one take while blocking the next shot with another part of your brain.
How hard was it to produce the film as a privately funded production?
In many ways it was easy, because it took just six months to raise the money, which is really quick. On the other hand, no matter how much money you have, you're always fighting the clock and the budget. In that sense, it was like any other movie.
There was a lot of pressure, but the pressure didn't come from it being privately funded; it came from being producer and director on the same job. You have to be incredibly disciplined with time and money, but still find the space to be creative. And you have to live off three hours sleep a night.
You have a take in the film lasting a full 3 minutes that was not planned. Could you tell us how this came about?
We'd spent hours on some really technical shots, and the actors were bored and drained. I think everybody knew that we'd just spent nine hours working on a scene that was never going to make the cut. We had to do something to get inspired again, so I decided to shoot one of the key scenes in a single Steadicam shot before the sun went down. The actors weren't expecting that scene for another few days, but they rose to the occasion and didn't miss a single line. You've never seen such energy and commitment on a set, and it was just what we all needed.
Were there other elements in the film that were created during the shoot?
New elements were brought in all the time, whenever they met the needs of the story. Directing is about harvesting all the talent on set, rather than ordering people around, so you talk to everybody and listen to their ideas. The little details that are added on the day can make all the difference to a scene.
Future Shorts Australia had its premiere screening in Fremantle last week. Pink wigs and all, it was entertaining to see the opening night unfold. Held at the Fly By Night, the crowd was a unique mix of young and old, family and friends, filmmakers and film fans alike. 
Ladies of Future Shorts: Amberlee Hong, Ruby Coumans, Lesley Burnham.
You could sense between the flow of drinks and the social chatter, there was a buzz about the headlining Perth short film, 'It's Just Gary'. With an introduction from Future Shorts' Australian Program Director Amy Broadfoot, audiences could tell that the event - and future events - would be about showcasing the most innovative local and international shorts.
Musical guests Brash and Sassy entertained and opened the event with their electro 80s beats. The venue looked brillant, providing an intimate and casual atmosphere but with a quirky twist. Highlights from the night included Sons of Tu, a New Zealand war comedy perfectly illustrating that boys will be boys. The emotionally captivating animated documentary Slaves from Sweden, also made a powerful impact on the night. Not forgetting the old school arcade gaming film Pixels from the US, a quick short that became a memorable favourite.
The night ended a little awkwardly, and perhaps a closing message or response would have rounded off the night perfectly. Despite this, the premiere of Future Shorts Australia left the audience with plenty to talk about. The films were a brilliant mix of comedy and conflict, animation and live action. If you missed the event last week, make sure you check out the encore screening on June 29, 2010.Future Shorts Australia can be found on Facebook.
Revelation screens the world premiere of low budget WA production, A Day at the Oasis, on Sunday 18 July. Writer and producer Tim Beckett and director and co-producer Tim Lethbridge talk to Anomie about their understated comedy.
Tim Lethbridge with Cleighton Siva (DOP) and Peter McIntosh (Sound Recordist)
The awkward and painful humour of honestly observed life is done particularly well in many Australian films; do you see this film as particularly Australian?
TB: Yes, I hope that the film and the characters come across as being authentically Australian. We were trying to capture a certain type of social environment, where everybody knows each other, but are still emotionally isolated from each other. There is also a lot of stoicism amongst the characters, which I think is also typically Australian.
At the same time, I would like to think that the characters, and their stories, are universally relatable. The characters face issues which are common to everyone, not just Australians, and not just country people. And I find the response to emotional isolation especially interesting.
TL: I didn't specifically set out to make an "Australian" film, but I did want to portray characters that could be believed, even in the more absurd moments, and the best way I could do that was to use my own experience - which of course is as an Australian. On the other hand, my wife is German, so I briefly considered setting Oasis in post-war Berlin, but it was ultimately decided that the more subtle humour (read: wind-up sex-toy gag) might be lost in translation.
You shot 11 minutes a day, over 9 days on one camera. What was the production process like?
TB: The production process was very fast, but we didn't feel like we were under excessive pressure on too many occasions, because we always knew that would be the case. It was aided by a very efficient cast and crew, a very motivated First AD, and Tim Lethbridge's meticulous planning.
TL: I turned up on the first day of filming with a very specific plan - and promptly abandoned it.
TB: We did a technical rehearsal a few months earlier, to figure out the most efficient way to get the coverage we needed. Tim Lethbridge then developed a shot list for each scene, and we re-shot each scene from as many angles as we needed.
TL: In essence, we blocked each scene, worked out the shots we needed and set the camera rolling. We didn't have time to do anything too complicated, and I'm glad that we didn't. Oasis was never going to look like a Hollywood movie. It was all about the characters, and that was what I devoted most of my attention to. As long as we captured the moments where the actors nailed it, I was happy.
Why did you write these characters?
TB: For me, the writing process began with the concept of the dismal attempt at speed-dating in the bush. With that concept in mind, and knowing the types of issues I wanted to explore, I just wrote the characters that I wanted to see reacting to that situation. Prior to introducing the characters, I did not have any pre-determined plan of how they would develop. Once I had a good understanding of who the characters were, I just tried to stay true to those characters.
The most important thing for me was to (try to) get a good blend of characters. I wanted them to be different people, with different needs, but with the same sense of isolation. It was never meant to specifically be about country people or the desire to find a mate.
Tim Lethbridge with Lachlan Palmos (Steven)
What particularly excited you about the characters to make you come on board as director?
TL: I liked the fact that they were all so different but seemed to complement each other so well. Although the script changed enormously from the time I first saw it, the characters actually changed very little - they took on their own lives from a very early stage and from there it was just a matter of giving them the best material to work with.
While always a character based comedy, was the script written and developed for a DYI production budget or was it re-written to the more manageable shooting schedule of one location once you knew you were self producing?
TB: I wrote the film with the vague idea of self-producing, so I chose a concept that would make that possible. Having said that, once it came time to actually make the film, we made quite a few small changes to make the shooting more manageable. In particular, limiting the number of locations made a big difference. Almost the entire film was shot in and around one location.
TL: I admire Tim for his ability to do that - most of my scripts require budgets that would put Avatar to shame.
What stories or films inspire this film?
TB: I am inspired by a wide variety of films, but I am particularly obsessed with comedy. In relation to this film, it is (in some ways) similar to films like Best in Show, or even a TV show like The Office. We didn't use the mockumentary format, but I think that the pacing and character presentation is similar. It is not a film about big moments, it is meant to be more understated and observation.
I like stories that blur the lines between good and bad, and success and failure. I prefer stories that focus on smaller accomplishments or victories, because life is like that. I don't have an interest in writing a character that wins everything, or becomes the hero. If you like a character, then it should be enough for an audience to watch them pursue whatever is important to that character, even if it would seem unimportant in any other context.
TL: My favourite movie of all time is the Iron Giant. It is an utterly perfect example of taking a simple, beautiful story, having faith in it and not being afraid to put it out there in all its glory. With this in mind, I think one of the strengths of Oasis is that it doesn't try to be anything it's not. There were a few drafts (and I freely admit to being responsible for some of these) where we tried to over-complicate things, and the fact that we ended up going right back to the core was a big factor in the final product working as well as it did.
In a more specific sense, I always tried to keep in mind the great comedies and the way a single raised eyebrow or a moment of hesitation could be funnier than the joke itself. Shows like Arrested Development, The Simpsons, Bugs Bunny, all of the D-Generation's work, Blackadder, The Young Ones and a hundred more were the fabric on which I worked.
What do you attribute to the way that the film works? Do you think there's an intangible magic in film making?
TB: I like to think that the film has benefited from the circumstances in which it was made. Because it was an independent, self-produced film, we were able to make the film as we wanted it. Hopefully, that gives the film a sense of individuality, because we were not forced to follow certain film conventions, or please anyone other than ourselves. I also think that, because it was such a challenge to get the film made at all, there was a great sense of purpose and dedication from everyone involved. Without that, it simply would not have happened. So, hopefully, the tone of the film is reflective of the intimacy and distinct personality of the atmosphere in which the film was made.
For me, making the film was very life-affirming. I was told that it was overly ambitious, which may have been right. But the generosity, commitment and resourcefulness of people amazed me.
TL: I really don't know. Luck? I had no idea if it had worked until the audience started laughing in the preview screening. There are all sorts of things I could point to that I think we did well, but we also did a lot of things badly that I could have blamed had it been a disaster.
I do think that we approached it the right way. The actors all played it straight, which I think is a prerequisite for a good comedy - it makes the good jokes even funnier, and the bad ones can slip under the radar as if they were never intended to be jokes in the first place. We weren't precious about anything - nothing was too sacred to be changed if it wasn't working and everyone was prepared to be criticised. That helped a lot.
In the end, it was a lot of fun - hard work, of course, but still fun. If I had to come up with one reason why it was successful, it would be that we had fun making it, and that makes it fun to watch.
Tim Lethbridge with Cleighton Siva (DOP) and Peter McIntosh (Sound Recordist)The awkward and painful humour of honestly observed life is done particularly well in many Australian films; do you see this film as particularly Australian?
TB: Yes, I hope that the film and the characters come across as being authentically Australian. We were trying to capture a certain type of social environment, where everybody knows each other, but are still emotionally isolated from each other. There is also a lot of stoicism amongst the characters, which I think is also typically Australian.
At the same time, I would like to think that the characters, and their stories, are universally relatable. The characters face issues which are common to everyone, not just Australians, and not just country people. And I find the response to emotional isolation especially interesting.
TL: I didn't specifically set out to make an "Australian" film, but I did want to portray characters that could be believed, even in the more absurd moments, and the best way I could do that was to use my own experience - which of course is as an Australian. On the other hand, my wife is German, so I briefly considered setting Oasis in post-war Berlin, but it was ultimately decided that the more subtle humour (read: wind-up sex-toy gag) might be lost in translation.
You shot 11 minutes a day, over 9 days on one camera. What was the production process like?
TB: The production process was very fast, but we didn't feel like we were under excessive pressure on too many occasions, because we always knew that would be the case. It was aided by a very efficient cast and crew, a very motivated First AD, and Tim Lethbridge's meticulous planning.
TL: I turned up on the first day of filming with a very specific plan - and promptly abandoned it.
TB: We did a technical rehearsal a few months earlier, to figure out the most efficient way to get the coverage we needed. Tim Lethbridge then developed a shot list for each scene, and we re-shot each scene from as many angles as we needed.
TL: In essence, we blocked each scene, worked out the shots we needed and set the camera rolling. We didn't have time to do anything too complicated, and I'm glad that we didn't. Oasis was never going to look like a Hollywood movie. It was all about the characters, and that was what I devoted most of my attention to. As long as we captured the moments where the actors nailed it, I was happy.
Why did you write these characters?
TB: For me, the writing process began with the concept of the dismal attempt at speed-dating in the bush. With that concept in mind, and knowing the types of issues I wanted to explore, I just wrote the characters that I wanted to see reacting to that situation. Prior to introducing the characters, I did not have any pre-determined plan of how they would develop. Once I had a good understanding of who the characters were, I just tried to stay true to those characters.
The most important thing for me was to (try to) get a good blend of characters. I wanted them to be different people, with different needs, but with the same sense of isolation. It was never meant to specifically be about country people or the desire to find a mate.
Tim Lethbridge with Lachlan Palmos (Steven)What particularly excited you about the characters to make you come on board as director?
TL: I liked the fact that they were all so different but seemed to complement each other so well. Although the script changed enormously from the time I first saw it, the characters actually changed very little - they took on their own lives from a very early stage and from there it was just a matter of giving them the best material to work with.
While always a character based comedy, was the script written and developed for a DYI production budget or was it re-written to the more manageable shooting schedule of one location once you knew you were self producing?
TB: I wrote the film with the vague idea of self-producing, so I chose a concept that would make that possible. Having said that, once it came time to actually make the film, we made quite a few small changes to make the shooting more manageable. In particular, limiting the number of locations made a big difference. Almost the entire film was shot in and around one location.
TL: I admire Tim for his ability to do that - most of my scripts require budgets that would put Avatar to shame.
What stories or films inspire this film?
TB: I am inspired by a wide variety of films, but I am particularly obsessed with comedy. In relation to this film, it is (in some ways) similar to films like Best in Show, or even a TV show like The Office. We didn't use the mockumentary format, but I think that the pacing and character presentation is similar. It is not a film about big moments, it is meant to be more understated and observation.
I like stories that blur the lines between good and bad, and success and failure. I prefer stories that focus on smaller accomplishments or victories, because life is like that. I don't have an interest in writing a character that wins everything, or becomes the hero. If you like a character, then it should be enough for an audience to watch them pursue whatever is important to that character, even if it would seem unimportant in any other context.
TL: My favourite movie of all time is the Iron Giant. It is an utterly perfect example of taking a simple, beautiful story, having faith in it and not being afraid to put it out there in all its glory. With this in mind, I think one of the strengths of Oasis is that it doesn't try to be anything it's not. There were a few drafts (and I freely admit to being responsible for some of these) where we tried to over-complicate things, and the fact that we ended up going right back to the core was a big factor in the final product working as well as it did.
In a more specific sense, I always tried to keep in mind the great comedies and the way a single raised eyebrow or a moment of hesitation could be funnier than the joke itself. Shows like Arrested Development, The Simpsons, Bugs Bunny, all of the D-Generation's work, Blackadder, The Young Ones and a hundred more were the fabric on which I worked.
What do you attribute to the way that the film works? Do you think there's an intangible magic in film making?
TB: I like to think that the film has benefited from the circumstances in which it was made. Because it was an independent, self-produced film, we were able to make the film as we wanted it. Hopefully, that gives the film a sense of individuality, because we were not forced to follow certain film conventions, or please anyone other than ourselves. I also think that, because it was such a challenge to get the film made at all, there was a great sense of purpose and dedication from everyone involved. Without that, it simply would not have happened. So, hopefully, the tone of the film is reflective of the intimacy and distinct personality of the atmosphere in which the film was made.
For me, making the film was very life-affirming. I was told that it was overly ambitious, which may have been right. But the generosity, commitment and resourcefulness of people amazed me.
TL: I really don't know. Luck? I had no idea if it had worked until the audience started laughing in the preview screening. There are all sorts of things I could point to that I think we did well, but we also did a lot of things badly that I could have blamed had it been a disaster.
I do think that we approached it the right way. The actors all played it straight, which I think is a prerequisite for a good comedy - it makes the good jokes even funnier, and the bad ones can slip under the radar as if they were never intended to be jokes in the first place. We weren't precious about anything - nothing was too sacred to be changed if it wasn't working and everyone was prepared to be criticised. That helped a lot.
In the end, it was a lot of fun - hard work, of course, but still fun. If I had to come up with one reason why it was successful, it would be that we had fun making it, and that makes it fun to watch.
The new Australian drama Animal Kingdom is a slow burning crime story that subjects its audience to serious amounts of suspense. It appears to be set during the height of the Melbourne Gang Wars. The Codys are under suspicion for a number of armed robberies and are being closely watched by some angry, bent coppers. The Codys develop a siege mentality and it's at this time that their nephew and cousin J is introduced to them.
J is Joshua Cody and his mother has just died. He needs a refuge and finds himself in the middle of the violence and madness of his criminal relatives. A lot of my discontent with this film had to do with choice of Frecheville as the lead character. He is mostly an observer and because of his recent tragedy he is almost silent with a grief he doesn't understand.
This makes J's character very much the mystery at the centre of the story. The Codys see him one way - as potential; a potential crim to help them with their illegal businesses; the police see him another way - as youthful informant who can help to bring the family to justice. Whatever J thinks is, for the most part, hidden from us. There is heavy use of voice over in the first few minutes, but mostly we have no idea what J is thinking or feeling. This makes his character less than compelling over the course of a feature film.
First time feature director David Michod has made a solid debut. The performances are uniformly excellent. However, the story telling is good in parts and muddled in others. On more than one occassion I found myself just drifiting with the story because the narrative force of the plot had disappeared. At this point, a grand and overpowering soundtrack usually did the emoting for me.
The film aims high. This is obvious in its frequent use of slow motion and in the analysis that J has of his uncles and his grandmother always 'living scared'. This is a critique of a certain mentality. The Codys are as flawed as the Soprano family and we are led to understand that despite their humour and loyalty, when cornered, the Codys will revert to jungle law. Which means no one, friends or family, is safe from them and their greed.
For audiences who like a crime drama with high production values, this film will deliver. I scored it 3/5.
Phil Jeng Kane
David Michod's directorial debut delves into the lives of a Melbourne crime family. Yes, another one.
Michod had already been working on the script for years before Underbelly hit the big time, and whilst this film has far more depth and layering than the television series, it has an episodic structure that impacts negatively on the tension required to sustain the drama.
When J's (James Frecheville) mother has a fatal heroine overdose, he is drawn into a criminal web led by grandmother Smurf (Jacqui Weaver), his three uncles and family friend Barry (Joel Edgerton). When J assists the brothers to murder two police officers, detectives waste no time in hauling the family in for questioning. Detective Leckie (Guy Pearce) sees J as the weak link in the family and tries to coerce him into betraying his family.
The casting of this film is superb - each performance is beautifully subtle and layered, Joel Edgerton was particularly electric as Barry Brown. Overall it's the length and structure of the film that lets it down.
Despite this, David Michod's directorial talent shines through and this is a fantastic first film. I can't wait for his next one. 3.5 out of 5
Liz Sideris
Phil Jeng Kane is a local writer who loves screen, loves prose and teaches storytelling because that's how he pays for his packets of mi goreng.
Liz Sideris was FTI's Screen Events Manager for the past two years, coordinating the WA Screen Awards, Bohemia Outdoor Cinema and FTI's regular schedule of events.
Liz comes from a production background having coordinated, cast and produced several productions for light entertainment and factual powerhouses such as Beyond Entertainment, Freehand Television and iTV.
Liz Sideris was FTI's Screen Events Manager for the past two years, coordinating the WA Screen Awards, Bohemia Outdoor Cinema and FTI's regular schedule of events.
Liz comes from a production background having coordinated, cast and produced several productions for light entertainment and factual powerhouses such as Beyond Entertainment, Freehand Television and iTV.
