Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Buy a Camera and Make Your Own Movie By Scott Shaw

By Scott Shaw

Recently, a guy contacted me and wanted to fly me into his city to make a Zen Film. He explained that he really needed my sensibilities in a movie he hoped to create. Initially, I thought that might be fun. Working with an entirely new and unknown group of people who were into Zen Filmmaking. But, then I started to see the flaws in this guy’s hopes and ideology. Though Zen Filmmaking is entirely about freedom—about simply getting out there and doing it, I was being asked to come to a city I had never been to and basically do everything. I mean everything. I decided to pass on the offer and I suggested to the guy, “Why don’t you buy a camera and make your own movie.”
In today’s world, you can literarily make a movie with your phone. I have. Or, you can use any number of relatively inexpensive cameras that are on the market. The fact is, it is very doable if you have the focus and the dedication.  But, I believe that is the issue, the focus and the dedication. There are a lot of people who want to DO but very few people who will DO.
Sure, I have my advice for budding filmmaking. …Like don’t try to mimic what has already been done. Make your own movie, using your own cinematic philosophy, and so on. But, it can be done. And, it can be done relatively cheaply.  Not like in times gone past.
This all kind of struck me as interesting when I gave that guy the advice, “Why don’t you buy a camera and make your own movie.” That was something I had said to someone else, way back in the way back when, under entirely different circumstances.
The story, I was making a movie and this guy/my friend (I surmised) was helping me out. He was an actor. I had met him working on the set of someone else’s film. And, like so many others, he wanted to break into the Hollywood game. Me, being me, I was charting my own course to achieve that goal.  In any case, we were filming one day and I was realizing that we were running late and we were having some technical issues and we should not film this girl he was crushing on very hard that day. He completely freaked out and started yelling and screaming. This obviously really messed with my small cast and crew. It wasn’t that I was not going to use the girl. It was just that I realized her scenes would be better filmed at a better location I had in mind and on a different day. In any case, we finished the day. Once home, I left him the message, “Why don’t you buy a camera and make your own movie.”
Though he apologized, we finished the movie, and remained in contact over the next several years; I knew I could never trust him again. That style of reactive behavior is just not healthy for the emulation of art: cinematic or otherwise.
Certainly, on sets, I have seen this style of behavior before and after that occurrence. But, it is just not good. It poisons the fruit. I mean, in worse case, if you are not liking what is going on, leave. I know I have done that. I have done that even in the case of one big A-film I was cast in and on a TV series. …That one was an interesting one… I was cast to do a role in the last (short-lived) sitcom that the great actor James Garner was doing. In any case, we were on the set, we had done the rehearsals, and then Garner shows up. We started to do rehearsals with him and what an asshole! I mean this guy was a total jerk! That was sad because I had always really liked him as an actor. We shot the scene as Garner continued to go off at me and everyone else. They called lunch. I left and never came back. The production company claimed I ruin the story by leaving. My agent got really pissed and dumped me. But me, good or bad, I stood my ground. I didn’t throw a fit. I just left. …And, you wonder what happened to my career in the A-Market. There’s your answer. :-)
Anyway… That’s just kind of a side note to the story and the point of all this. If you want to make a movie, why don’t you buy a camera and make your own movie. Use your phone. Use whatever it is you have. Get out there and film something everyday. It doesn't have to have story structure. Lord knows, my films don’t. All it has to have is you doing something. Film it, take it off of your phone or your camera, edit it if you want, and make something! Make art!
This is the same with any art you desire to create. Do it! Draw, paint, write.
Art is based in one person doing one thing. Again, do it! Because if you don’t, all your life will be left with is all of those artistic projects you envisioned in your mind but never created.

Copyright © 2019—All Rights Reserved
 
Originally from the Scott Shaw Blog

Sunday, March 10, 2019

How To Cast Your Movie By Scott Shaw

By Scott Shaw

            Casting an actor for your film is one of the most important elements to the success of your project. In fact, it may be the most important element because it is an actor who will portray the message you are attempting to convey to your audience.
            People come here to Hollywood, California from across the globe chasing the dream of becoming a movie star.  Certainly, there are actors everywhere, but Hollywood is the home of the movie industry.  As such, this is also the focal point of where people direct their hopes on achieving acting success.
            As someone who grew up in Hollywood, I believe I have a unique perspective of the film and television industry.  Throughout my life I have been surround by those who have made-it in the industry, and those who wish that they could have.
            Very early on in my life I came to realize that what may be defined as talent has very little to do with whether or not a person will make-it in the industry. Industry success is based more upon luck and being in the right place at the right time, as opposed to being in the wrong place at the wrong time; i.e. making bad career choices. But, more than anything else, industry success is based upon karma or destiny.  This being said, everybody comes here to Hollywood believing that they will be the one that will, “Make-it!”

Casting
            From a filmmaking perspective, it is you, the filmmaker, who must put out a casting notice, go through all of the headshots that you will receive, decide which ones to call in, and then finally decided upon which talent to cast for your film.  And, I use the term, “Talent,” very loosely.
The problems with casting a film are numerous.  At the root of many, if not most, of these problems is the actor. This problem begins with a headshot.
As someone who has cast numerous films and has looked at literally millions of headshots, I can tell you, ‘What you see is not what you get.’
One of the most common things that people do is to send out a headshot that makes them look beautiful. This is based on several factors. It may be that the photo was takes ten years ago.  Or, it may be that the photograph is highly retouched.  I believe that the primary reason this problem arises is that people, (meaning actors and actresses), actually believe that they look better than they truly do. When they see a great photograph of themselves they think, “That is how good I really look. If this photographer can make me look this good, than certainly a director can.” But, anyone who has made a film knows, this is not the case. A film and/or particularly a video camera are very unforgiving. Though lighting can be adjusted and even diffusion filters used, doing all of this takes a lot of time and energy, which equals a lot of money. And, a lot of money is something that most independent filmmakers do not have.
This “Beautiful Headshot” scenario is particularly the case with actresses.  I cannot tell you how many times I have called an actress into an audition and could not even confirm, with one-hundred percent certainty, that the person sitting in front of me was the individual in the photograph.  I commonly say to them, “I would really like to meet the girl in this picture.” But, for the most past, they are so vain that they do not even get the joke.  In some case, in my earlier days, I have simply torn up their headshot right in front of them. The point being, never trust a photograph.

Training
            The second problem you many encounter, while casting a movie, is the training an actor has undergone.
Here in Hollywood, and the surrounding area, there are literally thousands of acting coaches. People come from all over the globe to study with these people in hopes of landing a role in a film. The problem is, who are these acting coaches?  With very few exceptions they are people who have come to Hollywood and have attempted to make-it. When they did not, they somehow landed a gig teaching acting.
Ask yourself, how many famous actors are professional acting coaches?  And, the few one-time successful actors who have become acting coaches are those who fell away from favor in Hollywood and could no longer get roles. As such, they are left without any other skill than to train other people in how to act.
The main point to understand is that acting is not about learning to act.  Acting is not about studying. Acting is about being natural.  This is particularly the case of acting for the camera. So, for all of these people who pay all of this money to be judged in a class by other wanta-be actors, they are only lying to themselves if the think acting training is any more than a way to fill someone else’s pockets with cash and waste a lot of time.
This being stated, I cannot tell you how many times a person’s acting coach or their ongoing acting training has gotten in their way of their actually being in a film. There has been times when I cast an actor or actress for a film and later they tell me that they cannot show up on the day of the shoot because they cannot miss their acting class. Yes, it is hard to believe. But, this has happened to myself but to numerous other filmmakers I know, as well.
You ask, “Why?” Because their acting coaches are very vehement about them never missing a class or postponing a scene study they are set to present with their acting partner. But, more than this, most acting coaches are simply jealous of anyone who has actually been offered a role.  From this, they talk their student out of accepting it.  They do this by convinced them that they have the potential to be a Big Star.  Therefore, why should they appear in an indie film?  Of course, those people who have listened to their instructor and passed on the roles offered to them in indie films have never gone on to anything expect pay their acting coach more money. But, these are just a couple of examples of how acting training negative effects an actor’s potential and how it may effect the outcome of your film.

Never Acted Before
            Here in Hollywood and in other cities, as well, there is the major problem of people auditioning for a part in an indie film who have never acted in front of the camera before but they have been an extra on a major movie or television set. On these sets, they see the massive number of crewmembers doing things, the name-actors being led in from their trailers to the set. Plus, the food is great and the atmosphere is electric with high-budget film energy. They think this is how all movie sets are supposed to. But, to the independent filmmaker, we know this is not the case.
            This being said, it is very important to weed out those ‘A-Picture Dreamers’ from the ones who actually want to act.
            It is essential to understand that it is not a bad thing to bring a person onto your set who has never acted before. In fact, from personal experiences, I have gotten some great performances from people who can simply be themselves in front of the camera but never had any intention of becoming a professional actor. On the other hand, there are those who are locked into the ideology that all movie sets are major productions—where the actors will be pampered and catered to.
            The reason that you do not want to cast someone like this is that they will simply be disappointed once they arrive on your set.  This disappointment will be obvious and it may spread to your other cast members. And, negativity spreads on a movie set very quickly. Therefore, you really need to watch out for this type of person and keep them off of your set.
The simplest remedy to find out an actor’s expectation, if you are thinking about casting them, is to ask, “What sets have you been on?” If they tell you about a student film they were in or an indie project, then you have no worries. They will be fine on your set. On the hand, here in Hollywood, it is very common that a person will have been an extra in a film and or on T.V. and they will list these roles on their resume. But, being an extra is not being an actor. If their resume is made up of several of these productions, then you know you may have a problem.  Now, this is not to say that a person who has been on a large set will not be willing to work in the indie market. But, this is simply a warning that you must talk to them about their expectations to alleviate any on-set misconceptions that may bring your production to a halt. 

Very Average
            Probably, the most damning of all elements to any film’s production is an actor’s ego. Everybody comes here to Hollywood assured that they will be the next Big Star. They all believe that they have the looks, the talent, and the drive to become successful.
            This world has become celebrity obsessed. Everywhere, the life of the famous is broadcast, written, and spoken about. Due to this fact, actors believe that they have the potential to come to Hollywood and become just as big as the biggest name.  “If they can do, so can I.” I have heard that statement so many times from so many wanta-be actors and actress that I cannot even count the number.
            But, none of them ever do make-it.  Why?  Because they are very-average.  They are just like everyone else who comes to Hollywood. They look the same, have the same hairstyle, wear the same trendy clothing, study from the same acting teachers, and go to the same headshot photographers.  But, they all go home never having done anything in Hollywood but to be an extra and show up to auditions with headshots that don’t look like themselves, spouting the promise, “I am great actor.”
            The ones I have known that have made-it in Hollywood, (to whatever degree), are the ones that have had their own style and their own identity.  They created their own niche for themselves by being who they are and not defining themselves by whom they studied with or circulating beautiful headshot that they look nothing like.

Casting the Actor
            We, as filmmakers, are always dependent upon the actor. We are also dominated by what is available. Meaning, we can only create our cast from the available options we are presented with. So, what is the answer?

1. Don’t trust the headshots.  Tear ‘em up if the actor or actress comes to you and looks nothing like their photo.

2. Forget about where they studied—as ‘The Studied’ bring far too many preconceived notions and other nonsense to your set.

3. Cast people you like. People you wouldn’t mind hanging out with.

4. Never become friends with your cast. At least not while you are filming. Why? Because then the relationship becomes convoluted and they may expect more than you are willing to give.

5. Always tell actors what to expect on your set. Tell them where you will be filming, how large is your crew, what kind of equipment you are using, and how many actors they will interact with. With this, you prepare them for what is to come and they will not surprise you with an attitude of discontentment.

Copyright © 2006 – All Rights Reserved

Zen Filmmaking and What is a Zen Film By Scott Shaw


By Scott Shaw

I am often asked the question, “Just what is a Zen Film?” Numerous people have contacted me regarding this question and I have read a number of attempts by people to write a formalize definition, defining what is a Zen Film—some have been good while others have placed far too much analysis into the process. But to answer, I think, first-and-foremost, it is essential to note that the ultimate understanding of Zen is that there is no absolute definition, no one truth.  This is the first clue into what is or is not a Zen Film.
At the root of a Zen Film is the understanding that, “The stories have all been told.” I say this over and over again but people still don’t get it.  So, let me explain…
Think about it, every story throughout humanity has previously either been written about or filmed. Certainly, there are some very specific variants of life-stories that may seem a bit more unique than others, but these minor unique variants are not the only time that these life events have occurred.
Take a look at the bible.  Every storyline is in that ancient text—from romance to horror, onto science fiction. It is very hard to find any story of humanity that is not alluded to in the bible.
But, why does this matter?  And, how does this help to define a Zen Film?
Filmmakers, from the dawning of the craft foreword, have attempted to tell a story. Many become very adamant about how essentially important their film’s story is. They equally believe that their film’s story must be told. So, they go and make a movie.  Maybe it is good, maybe it is bad, but it is certainly not a story that has never been told before.
You ask, “Why is this important in defining a Zen Film?”  Because Zen Filmmaking is about freedom.  A Zen Film is about freeing yourself from as many constraints as possible. Why?  Because then the filmmaking process becomes much more spontaneous, natural, and artistic.  And, when freedom is allow to exist, then true ART is embraced.
Which brings me to the concept of art.
There are beautiful paintings that have been created since the dawning evolution of humanity where the artists has studied for years, refined their techniques, and then spend weeks, months, even years creating a singular piece of art. Are these pieces of art beautiful? Well, if you like that style of art, then yes they are.
Now, here arises one of the key concepts of what is a Zen Film. Just like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder.
To some, classic art is the only art.  But, to others, this style of art is has all been seen before.  It has become old and expected.
In regards to filmmaking, the same understanding applies. So many filmmakers, especially on the independent level, attempt to create a film that looks much bigger than its budget—they attempt to mimic what has been done before.  Though they most probably believe that they have a unique story that deserves telling, what they are doing is no more than retelling the same story that was most probably better told in a previous film that had a much higher budget.
Let’s think about this. What if you release yourself from this whole process? What if you remove the obstacle of a highly developed story that took you months or years to write?  What if you remove the need for training and retraining and simply step into the arena of filmmaking and create?  What occurs? Art is occurs.
Now, I am not saying that everybody will appreciate a film created in this style—created from a mindset of freedom. But, you can find mistakes in even the most expensive films if you look for them and certainly those films are criticized, as well. So, a Zen Film as it is created with art as its core can be expected to find criticism, but the filmmaker maintains the mindset that this is all part of the package and welcomes it as it simply reveals the limited understanding of those individuals applying said criticism.
A Zen Film embraces art at its most elemental level. Is everybody going to like it? No. Does everybody like the paintings of the abstractionists or the neo expressionists? No, they don’t.  Art is in the eye of the beholder!  So, to make art, you will find your critics. But, who are these people that are criticizing the filmmaking of others?  Are they artists?  Are they making films? Most probably not.
From a personal perspective, as an artist, someone who paints, I can tell you that no painting ever turns out exactly like you expected. This is the same with film. Many filmmakers have a concept locked firmly into their mind and they write and rewrite, film and refilm, attempting to get an exact mental image on film.  But, it will never happen. What will happen from following this process of filmmaking, however, is a lot of anxiety, frustration, and discontentment. Each of these things can cause a filmmaker to toss in the towel and never complete their film.  So, stop it! Allow your mistakes to become part of your film.  Because, in fact, there is no such thing as a mistake, it is simply the perfection of the way it turned out. Remove expectation from your life and your film and you become free.
This brings me to the next point in detailing a Zen Film. Trust the magic.
What is the magic?  The magic is allowing things to happen that are unexpected.  The magic is allowing the greater good of art and the positive forces of the universe to bring you things that were never expected: be these people, locations, or ideas to help you make your film the most perfect and complete that it can be.
Remove yourself and your desired outcome from the equitation. Turn off your controlling ego. Let your actors act, as they will. Let your crew do what they do. And, be open to new inspiration and change and you will encounter elements in your filmmaking process that will astonish you. This is a Zen Film.
Finally, as alluded to in the beginning, there is no absolute definition as to what is or is not a Zen Film. A Zen Film is based in freedom, not definition.  A Zen Film is based in art, not structure.  It is what comes out at the end of a particular films evolution when you simply allow the natural process to take its course and you allow your film to be.
Freedom is Art. Art is Zen.

Copyright © 2010 – All Rights Reserved.
 

Friday, December 21, 2018

Cinematic Enlightenment By Scott Shaw


By Scott Shaw

When I discuss filmmaking, and particularly Zen Filmmaking, I often reference the term, Cinematic Enlightenment. From this, I often receive the question, “What is Cinematic Enlightenment?” I believe for the true filmmaker they already know the answer to that question. But, for the novice or the non-filmmaker, they wonder what I am speaking about. To explain…
As a filmmaker, you are constantly attempting to capture that perfect image. The ideal representation of what you are seeing with your eyes. You want to bring what you are physically viewing, via the pathway of your mind, and capture it in a filming format that then perfectly presents that image to the viewer. This is a process of body, mind, and camera continuum. Much of the time these elements do not come to together to find a perfect harmony. Yes, as a filmmaker, you may adequately capture the image. But, it is only in those moments of interwoven camera, body, and mind perfection that the image is captured perfectly.
For many, in fact most, they do not understand that filmmaking is based in philosophy. They see it simply as a means of entertainment. Thus, a movie is just something that they like or they do not like. Some may even understand that filmmaking is an art form. Most, however, do not comprehend that true, actualized filmmaking is based in the unique philosophy of the individual filmmaker. As each true filmmaker possesses (or at least should possess) their own unique philosophy, this means that they interpret the filmmaking process by their own set of standards and guidelines. Thus, they seek a particular outcome for each scene that they hope to capture with a camera.
Just as in Zen Buddhism we learn that Satori (instantaneous enlightenment) happens in the mind of the individual in a moment of perfect realization, this is the same with Cinematic Enlightenment. It is the perfect combination of combining what the eyes see, with what the mind visualized the scene to be, and then perfectly capturing that scene and ultimately projecting it onto the screen. Thus, Cinematic Enlightenment is the filmmaker finding instantaneous perfection, realized in their own mind, via the medium of eye, camera, and mind coordination.
To conclude, just as it is understood in Zen Buddhism, there is no absolute pathway to achieving Nirvana and there is no one Enlightenment.  Enlightenment is realized by the individual in their own unique manner. Thus, there is no school for Cinematic Enlightenment and there are no techniques one has to practice to realize it. It is a natural process that the true filmmaker is allowed to recognize when they let go of their physical aspirations, they remove desire from the filmmaking equation, and they allow their body, mind, eyes, and the camera to form a cohesive unit that establishes a perfect reality that is allowed to harness an image, if only for a moment, and then project that image onto a screen. From this, perfect realization of the outside world blended in coordination with the internal world of the mind’s eye is realized and Cinematic Enlightenment is experienced.

Copyright © 2018

Saturday, December 8, 2018

Robert Z’Dar: End of an Era By Scott Shaw

 
Here is an article that I wrote about the passing of Robert Z’Dar back in 2015 that you may find interesting. This article can also be found in my book, Zen Filmmaking 2: Further Writings on the Cinematic Arts.

By Scott Shaw

Sadly, my Zen Filmmaking brother, the Jaw of Cinema, Robert Z’Dar passed away at the age of sixty-four.
I first met Z-Man, (as we came to call him), on the set of Samurai Cop. It was a strange meeting in that I knew him from A-films like Tango and Cash but was surprised to find him on this No-Budget set.
Samurai Cop was a film created by Amir Shervan. Shervan operated out of a junky, cluttered house on Beverly Blvd. in East Hollywood. He had called me in on the film, when I was first getting into the industry, because he didn’t like the swordplay in his film and wanted me to make the samurai work look more realistic. He also offered me a roll in the film, as well. The cast was all very nice.
The cinematographer on the film was a man named, Peter Palian. Previously, Palian had been the personal cameraman for the Shah of Iran. But, as history tells us, the Shah was deposed. Peter was one of those interesting people in that he always wore a leather sport coat, a dress shirt with an ascot tie perfectly tucked into his shirt. He had a perfectly trimmed goatee and smoked a pipe. I would periodically bump into him around Hollywood. Nice guy.
On the first day I was on the set, instead of filming we went and had lunch at a burger joint. There is where Z-Man and I sat down and talked. Immediately, I understood he was a great guy!
The problem was, at least in terms of the film, we ate instead of filmed. It was getting late. By the time we got up to steal the hilltop location in Silver Lake, we were losing the light. As the movie was shot on 16mm film, this was problematic. Though I tired to guide Z’Dar in proper samurai sword usage, there wasn’t time. Post that, I realized the film was just too clusterfuck for me to be a part of and I didn’t return.
Soon after that, Z-Man and I worked together on the film, Divine Enforcer. We were the bad guys. We had a big fight scene with a bunch of opponents. It was fun.
After that Z-Man and I would sometimes hang out at places like The Rainbow on the Strip in the late hours of the evening, throwing back a few. He would always ask, “You got any nose candy, Scotty.” The man did like his intoxicants.
Our paths, both as friends and as actors, continued to cross, whether it was on auditions on in films. He, of course, was the lead in Frogtown II. There were a lot of problems with that film. Not the least of which was the director, my Zen Filmmaking buddy, Donald G. Jackson. Sometimes he would get in a mood and treat the actors and crew very badly. This, when the fault was actually always with him. At one point Z-Man took his Texas Rocket Ranger helmet and threw it at Don.
Things also went sideways on my film, The Rock n’ Roll Cops, where Don was the executive producer and the cinematographer. This event is discussed in an article written about the film that made it into my book, Zen Filmmaking. To tell the story, Don was in a mood. He apparently knew he was going to be an asshole and hired a professional bodyguard to go out with us. There we were on the roof of a parking structure in Burbank, stealing the location. We had a lot of people with us, most of us with loaded guns. So, this was no joke and the vibes, due to Don’s behavior, were very tense. He was yelling and screaming at the second cameraman, just treating him like shit. I asked the guy why he didn’t leave. But, he wanted to be the, “Better man,” as he put it. At one point Don starts screaming at Z-Man. “I wish we could get a decent fucking actor on this set.” Z’Dar, always the gentleman, simply replies, “I take exception with that, Donny.”
And, this is the thing, Z-Man was a great actor. I think some people never understood that, all they defined him by was his face. But, he was a really good actor!
He was also the consummate professional. He could have kicked Don’s ass and I would not have stepped in. I doubt that Don’s paid-for bodyguard would have helped either as he got freaked out by all that was going on and eventually bailed. But, Z-man worked with us until the early morning hours of dawn, when he finally got paid his $300.00 and went home.
You can see Don’s obsessional camera work and Z-Man doing and redoing this one scene over and over again in the Zen Documentary, Cinematografia Obsesion, if you want to. Even after all this he remained friends with Don. I remember Z-man calling Don when he was in the last days of his life at U.C.L.A. Medical Center. Don apologized to him. Z-man told him not to worry about it.
Z-Man certainly etched his name into the world of Cult Cinema. I believe had he walked a slightly different path he could have maintained a career in the high budget market. But, he went astray of SAG. I don’t know if he ever resolved that problem. The thing is, SAG, now SAG/Aftra, controls the mainstream industry. If you are not a part of it, you cannot work. As they are a union, they do not let their actors work in nonunion films. Yes, one can follow the path of Financial Core status, but that is only limited SAG membership and there are many detriments to that status. Z’Dar got caught working nonunion. SAG, if they find this out, expect you to pay all the money you earned on any film to them, plus a fine. The last I heard Z-man never paid that. But, he did have a wide spanning career.
Z-Man eventually moved back to his home in the Chicago area. He had inherited his mother’s house. While in L.A., he, as many actors do, spent much of his time near penniless and couch surfing. Surprisingly, it was once he returned to the Midwest that he began to get tons and tons of work. I remember Joe Estevez telling me one time, “He owns that town.”
I believe with the passing of Z’Dar it again signals the ending of an era. I wrote about this maybe a year or so ago when I discussed the fact that no new Scream Queen were moving to center stage to take over for the aging girls of the previous era. This too is the case with Z’Dar. It is a signal. And, I guess that’s life, times and trends move on.
I look to the filmmaking that is going on, and yes there are tons of movies being made. But, few are following the path of true Cult Cinema. Some are imitation of, some are just bad movies, but few illustrate the market that Z-Man was one of the Kings of.
There are so many stories I could tell about Z-Man. But, I will leave it at this. You will be missed, Bobby. You were one of the greatest actors I have ever met and had the pleasure of working with.

Copyright 2015—All Rights Reserved

Thursday, October 18, 2018

I Make Weird Movies. What? By Scott Shaw


By Scott Shaw

I always find it interesting how in the Independent Film Industry people find easy targets for their criticism. This is especially the case in the No and the Low Budget Arena. This lack of understanding and appreciation goes hand-in-hand with something I have talking about literally forever whenever I speak with new filmmakers in my classes, seminars, or face-to-face. …You cannot become lost in attempting to imitate a film with a large budget when you have no budget. …You cannot expect your film to come out looking like a film with a million dollar budget when you have five dollars.
For the actual filmmaker, this concept is much more easily comprehended. For the viewer and the critic, not so much.
Most film viewers go into any film watching experience with preconceived expectation based upon what they have viewed in the past. Most of what they have viewed in the past is based upon a film with a substantial budget. Even most Independent Features are bankrolled with a fairly sizeable budget.  But, then there is the whole other area of the film industry, the area of the industry where people are making movies for the love of cinema. Though they may have no money at all, they make their movies anyway.
Now, at this level of the industry some people do attempt to mimic what they have seen in the High Budget Arena. Most fall very short of this. Of course, there have been a few films made with no or a very small budget that have broken though. The most obvious examples of this are perhaps the original Blair Witch Project and El Mariachi. But, it is essential to note, that the versions of these films that went to wide-release were not the original versions of these films. They had major dollars poured into them for reshoots, editing, and sound tracking before they found their way into the mainstream.
All this being said, the viewing of any cinematic project is about the viewing of that particular project itself and it should not be about comparisons. Yes, this is a philosophic concept that most people will never understand or put to practice. But, just because it is not understood does mean that it is not true.
From a personal standpoint, I’ve watched over the years as people have compared my features to other pieces of cinema. They have gaged my work in comparison to the works of other filmmakers. They have tried to make sense of my work by placing labels on it. But, by doing this, in and of itself, they have missed the point.  They have tried to place definitions and judgments on my work when they have not possessed the mindset to even understand it.
This does not bother me particularly. That’s just the name of the game in art. People gage things through their own level of realization. They want to find a reason to love or hate a project.
Also, this does not cause me to change. I mean, any artist who adapts their work simply because people criticize it is not an artist.
This being said, artists do evolve. I certainly have. My film work certainly has.
For example, I used to make abstract cinema attached to a verbally driven storyline. But, as I have long said, the stories have all been told. I don’t care about the stories. Leave that to the filmmakers with big bankrolls behind them. Though there may have been a subject matter in my films of the past, the story-driven dialogue was never the focus. And, this is where many critics got what I was doing all wrong. The words were just there as an abstract koan to take the viewer into the mind of Zen. The words never meant anything. They were nonrepresentational. They were just people taking about the nonsense that people normally speak of in life. I mean really, how much of what anyone says really matters?
But then, I left all that talking behind. I moved forward to focusing solely upon images.
The fact is, I have not made a dialogue-driven film since 2009. That’s almost ten years ago. Yet, most the people who talk about my Zen Films are not even aware enough to be aware of that fact. What does that say about them? Yes, I’ve made tons of movies since then, but they are all unspoken. They are simply non-figurative images moving across the screen. The reason? Again, to guide the viewer into the meditative mindset of Zen.
So, next time you see a film, especially an experimental film, try to move beyond what you already know—what you already think you know. Leave behind your judgment and maybe you can understand what the filmmaker was actually attempting to portray. Maybe you can encounter Zen.

Copyright © 2018—All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

Avant-garde detachment on the rollers: the Zen film director Scott Shaw and Donald Jackson (Roller Blade Seven)


Here is an interestingly thoughtful article written about Zen Filmmaking, the Roller Blade Seven, Scott Shaw, and Donald G. Jackson. This article was written in Russian and is from a Russian website. The link is below. This is the Google Translation of the article. Nothing was changed or altered in any manner except the Roller Blade Seven photographs from the Russian website have been removed. 

Editor's note: We decided to take part in the action # avengarda month , which was launched by Moore (wonderful), calling all not indifferent "to give people anew to revel in the pleasure of the uncompromising and violent avant-garde of the last century, whether Dadaists, experimental cinema, difficult and unusual poetry, daring philosophy , crazy architecture, beauty of painting, outlandish fiction, shocking actionism or avant-garde music. "

Details of this wonderful action can be read on the site of Moor, and our first Chapaevsky blow in this direction will be a note of Dali Lama XXIII about such a phenomenon as a zen cinematograph (those who are already acquainted can start to whistle softly - but this is optional).

In the world there were many avant-garde movements that proclaimed a variety of ideologies - mainly, of course, declaring their main goal to change human nature, renewal of art and other such epic and pretentious things. But there are also a few creators who openly admit that they are engaged in art for entertainment, making it a priority to get pleasure from the process. Not particularly well-known in wide circles, but having its own face, the school of "Zen-Film Directing" is the brainchild of precisely such people.

The story of what was later christened "Zen Filmmaking" began in 1991, when Donald Jackson, an American producer and director who directed the continuation of his low-budget production films Roller Blade and Roller Blade Warriors, invited Scott Shaw, an actor, musician and script writer, engaged in martial arts, - to participate in the creation of this sequel, called the Roller Blade Seven.

Perhaps because the film's design can be briefly described as an action story about samurai and ninjas on roller skates, during the stage of putting into effect the script written by Shaw and Jackson, most of the actors hired by the authors completely failed to fulfill their hopes (and the author of these lines in something can understand them): in their acting out half-naked novices of the Order of Light there was no soul and fire, and the models of samurai swords dissected the air without sufficient enthusiasm.

After several days of shooting, Shaw and Jackson made a fateful decision, which instead of another boring exploit freak they came out two parts of a very unusual film, which on profile sites continue to receive almost exclusively, either as low or as high as possible.

Shaw and Jackson decided to abandon the script, replacing it with improvisation: they invented story collisions on the move, explaining the remaining actors the general outline of what is happening and the approximate content of what they should say, and then relying on their improvisational abilities. Soon Shaw, who had been fond of oriental mysticism all his life, realized that this was truly a Zen approach - so this method was given the name of Zen filmmaking; and so Shaw found a new occupation for himself, to which he continues to devote most of his life.

The principles of Zen-filmmaking, formulated by Shaw after working on many films, are as follows. First of all, the absence of a script is important. Shaw gives two main reasons for this approach. Clearly scripted scenario, in his opinion, deprives the creative process of freedom, restricts the creators of the film to make changes, guided by spontaneous glimpses of inspiration. In addition, when faced with the embodiment of his clear plan by other people, the author will almost inevitably be disappointed that his ideal plan can not come to life exactly as he wants. In the case of Zen-filmmaking, "what happens is what happens."

In addition, Shaw formulated six rules of Zen filmmaking:

+ Use any unexpected situation.

+ If you can not waste time, money and energy to create large-scale scenery - do not waste it. Instead, find picturesque places and shoot there.

+ Just act! In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred everything will pass without problems.

+ Let your creative vision always be more important than the plot. For many directors, the starting point is a "good script", which they are trying to turn into a film, but everything written in the script can not be realized if the budget is not particularly large.

+ Zen filmmaking is a spontaneous process. Zen teaches that the attainment of enlightenment, satori, is possible only when the ordinary mind stops its activity: it is just as impossible to achieve Film Enlightenment by building its film according to scenarios and clear plans - there will always be a gap between the desired and the real.

+ Zen-filmmaking assumes rejection of expectations and desires - so any result becomes perfect.

Another important feature of Zen movies is editing: in the era of video clips, any footage suits, if you apply imagery to it. Shaw warns, however, that the spontaneity of the Zen film process does not mean ease, and compares it to sit-down zazen meditation: just as it is difficult for people to truly realize that they are already enlightened and possess the nature of the Buddha, it's not easy even when shooting a film, just letting it take place. In general, the ideology of Zen filmmaking can be characterized as the elimination of the maximum possible number of obstacles in the filming of the film - and the author's expectations are among the obstacles; The film process should become free and natural.

Guided by these principles, Shaw and Jackson constructed two parts of the film from the footage, the Roller Blade Seven (for which there is not a very distinct translation from the nineties with the appropriate nasal dubbing) and Return of the Roller Blade Seven, which the author of these lines believes, perhaps , their most outstanding achievement.

How does Zen look from the outside? Of course, to some extent both parts of the film resemble something like the movies of the studio Asylum, where the emphasis is on the savagery, to some extent - the actor's cabbage or the LARP session. But thanks to many factors, the story of the travel of the unruffled action-hero Hock, played by Scott Shaw himself, into the Roller Zone and about battles with weird villains looks like an excellent example of surreal cinema.

Roller Blade Seven and Return of the Roller Blade Seven from ordinary low-budget thrash movies are distinguished by easy and unconstrained "dreaminess" and unpredictability of what is happening, which is strengthened by the hypnotic soundtrack (the author of which is again Shaw) and a very unusual montage: for example, some action - scenes are shown many times from multiple angles at different speeds with small variations, which makes the banal fights turn into a fascinating spectacle reminiscent of duels of wizards, where everything is not what it seems.

Roller Zone with its inhabitants, moving almost exclusively on rollers and skateboards, is perceived as a psychedelic limb, the land of the dead, who have not yet realized that they are dead - the old rocker who played himself asks a gentleman in a cylinder in the middle of the desert where he can find Buddy Holly. Here are representatives of the forces of Light and the forces of Darkness, starting negotiations with a polite exchange of courtesies, several minutes send each other three letters, sitting at the table. Here against the background of the American flag raves about the skateboard villain Pharaoh, chained to a wheelchair.

In addition to Jackson and Shaw, obviously enjoying filming in their own film, other actors, some of whom are very famous - like Frank Stallone, Sylvester Stallone's younger brother, or Karen Black, portraying a fortune teller who shares a mushroom trip with Hock and his mentor, "Father Donaldo." Return of the Roller Blade Seven is compositionally more meditative and more saturated with fan service: oh yeah, sometimes boobs are shown here, like in the co-operative cinema of the nineties, so that the viewer does not relax.

Try to believe the author of these lines, who watched a lot of bad and boring low-budget films: both parts of the Roller Blade Seven only formally belong to the "next thrash of the nineties", and (unlike some Samurai Cop, just made fantastically bad) thanks to the creators' love they blossom real art - and their example is able to inspire and teach something new. However, no, never believe anything on what is written "Zen", check everything yourself!

I focused on two of the most outstanding, in my opinion, Zen works of Shaw and Jackson. However, Shaw has shot many more films, both alone and in collaboration with the now deceased Jackson; many movies are not so easy to get, but you can order through his site. Also, this site is full of notes on many aspects of Zen philosophy - and as the Real Zen Master, Shaw appears as a figure that is difficult to say if he is serious when he is shooting films such as "Beverly Hills Vampires-Bikers" or "Guns El Chupacabras ", or maybe all this is a grandiose rally or trolling ... If you are interested in this figure, you can undertake further research yourself .

In the future, perhaps, the author of these lines will finish the Russian subtitles to both parts of the film; but due to the general dream of what is happening, the translation here is perhaps no more important than in films like Jarmusch's "Limits of Control". Due to the underground nature of both parts of the Roller Blade Seven, the existing rips in the network, unfortunately, do not have a high image quality; However, when was the situation different with Enlightenment?

Dali Lama XXIII