My exposure to the silent-era comedians courtesy of Mother’s Pizza led me to research and seek out the great silent clowns, as Walter Kerr called them.
Charlie Chaplin: the superstar of the silent era. His movies seem dated now (theatre-style compositions, a wide maudlin streak), but he is still an important teacher. Chaplin used characters to create comedy rather than stringing together a series of gags (pay attention, Mike Myers), and he spent his career trying to find the perfect blend of comedy and tragedy.
Buster Keaton: a man before his time. Watch any of his shorts or features and you’ll see the roots of modern comedy filmmaking, with the naturalism and cinematography of our movies today. Watch his masterpiece, The General—there’s not a wasted frame in that tightly controlled, well-told story, and the film ranks as one of the best ever made. Where Chaplin’s tramp instantly mastered any task thrown his way, Buster’s poor sap would struggle before mastering anything.
Harry Langdon: the man-sized infant. His comic persona was that of a baby trapped in a grown man’s body, and he puts it to good use by putting that character into unsavory places as often as possible. He was the master of making the little things bigger than the big things. A glance, a stunned stare held for a beat—Harry was the master of understatement, but he made every gesture and beat stronger for it. Watch The Strongman if you can.
Harold Lloyd: the go-getter. It’s possible to watch the development of Harold Lloyd’s “glass character” through the surviving shorts. By the time he’d fully developed the character, he was creating great comedy that rivals that of Chaplin and Keaton. He was the king of the “thrill comedy,” with Safety Last being his finest effort.
Laurel & Hardy: two gods of comedy, no waiting. Most people have seen the duo’s sound-era shorts, but they did quite a few silents as well. I’ve seen parts of their silents in some of the Youngson re-releases. The characters are overgrown children, polite and well-meaning, but placed in their well-crafted stories they fail time and time again. The Music Box is one of the best comedy shorts ever made, but any of their shorts are gems. I love Towed in a Hole and Me and My Pal. Stan Laurel was a great craftsman, writing and editing their output. Their later features aren’t as good as those shorts are, but they are still a lot of fun. Laurel & Hardy took action and reaction and set them to a comfortably slow pace, allowing the gags to build on each other, with some of the finest physical comedy on film.
Interestingly, these great clowns, all long-gone, have official websites. There is hope that future generations will know their work.
Showing posts with label Hardy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hardy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Finally something in the can!
We finally have something in the can!
After all these months of moaning about preproduction and rewriting, we actually went out with camcorder and director in hand and shot stuff.
This past Saturday (May 12), Mullet and I were joined by Andrew Currie, esteemed grad of the Second City mainstage company, one half of the Devil's Advocates, blogger extraordinaire, and producer of the late Second Cine video show which played a couple of videos we did. AC is also a graduate of the Canadian Film Centre, so he actually knows what he's doing.
This was our first experience with a pro, and it was a good learning experience for us.
We shot it on location on a side street one block north of Queen West, between Spadina and University. Behind the Rivoli, really. In fact, we used their garbage cans for a few shots, much to the dismay of some tired-looking cooks and a bemused manager. The street had these great alleys and laneways, strewn with garbage, brilliant and mundane graffiti, and that big city grunge that can't be craeted by art directors (unless they have a lot of money or use the real thing...).
AC wanted to work chronologically as he was basically editing in camera with minimal coverage. He didn't need the slate as he'll be editing it himself, but I did grey-card the first tape just to make sure I can get colour-balance done later on. I brought along my usual continuity log sheets, but they weren't needed, either. This was one difference between how AC shoots and how we did it, but with a 5-page script, I guess the usual slate/log stuff is probably borderline overkill. We have shot stuff without logging it or slating it, like our Aristocrats DVD contest entry which was 5 takes of the same story with 2 cameras, so I only changed the take number on the slate to mark the start and end of each take.
We did a number of takes for each set up until he got one good one and one safety in the can. This is basically what we do, so this was nothing new --though he did apologize when making us do another take when hunched over or fumbling through garbage (not necessary --we've made ourselves do a lot worse for a lot more takes...). With the lines being minimal and me not having to do more than perform, I was more focussed on the performing than I usually am, so I believe I sucked less than usual.
Mullet was good, too,
After all these months of moaning about preproduction and rewriting, we actually went out with camcorder and director in hand and shot stuff.
This past Saturday (May 12), Mullet and I were joined by Andrew Currie, esteemed grad of the Second City mainstage company, one half of the Devil's Advocates, blogger extraordinaire, and producer of the late Second Cine video show which played a couple of videos we did. AC is also a graduate of the Canadian Film Centre, so he actually knows what he's doing.
This was our first experience with a pro, and it was a good learning experience for us.
We shot it on location on a side street one block north of Queen West, between Spadina and University. Behind the Rivoli, really. In fact, we used their garbage cans for a few shots, much to the dismay of some tired-looking cooks and a bemused manager. The street had these great alleys and laneways, strewn with garbage, brilliant and mundane graffiti, and that big city grunge that can't be craeted by art directors (unless they have a lot of money or use the real thing...).
AC wanted to work chronologically as he was basically editing in camera with minimal coverage. He didn't need the slate as he'll be editing it himself, but I did grey-card the first tape just to make sure I can get colour-balance done later on. I brought along my usual continuity log sheets, but they weren't needed, either. This was one difference between how AC shoots and how we did it, but with a 5-page script, I guess the usual slate/log stuff is probably borderline overkill. We have shot stuff without logging it or slating it, like our Aristocrats DVD contest entry which was 5 takes of the same story with 2 cameras, so I only changed the take number on the slate to mark the start and end of each take.
We did a number of takes for each set up until he got one good one and one safety in the can. This is basically what we do, so this was nothing new --though he did apologize when making us do another take when hunched over or fumbling through garbage (not necessary --we've made ourselves do a lot worse for a lot more takes...). With the lines being minimal and me not having to do more than perform, I was more focussed on the performing than I usually am, so I believe I sucked less than usual.
Mullet was good, too,
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Final 3 Scripts Are Done
April is coming to a close, and the need to start prepping for our May-June shoots is growing. I’m moving this weekend, so I won’t be able to do much for a few days, likely the first week.
The 3 scripts we’re going with for May-June are called “Can,” “Drugs,” and “Dressing Room.” We both feel these are the strongest scripts out of the 12 I wrote. The other 9 go back into the trunk for now.
“Can” is mostly physical, not much dialog, and should be a lot of fun to make. A very simple story with clear character motivations, and the only prep involved is the acquisition of some props. There are no other actors, only one location, so it’ll be a less-than-one-day shoot, to be sure.
“Drugs” is the most elaborate, and it will require us to find a choreographer, which is new to us. There are 3 other characters, so we’ll have to do some casting, and there are some props to prepare. We’ll likely need to shoot it in June as it’ll need the most prep time to get ready.
“Dressing Room” (a working title given our preference for one-word titles) will likely be shot in my apartment given that most of the action takes place in a dressing room. Some exteriors and other locations are involved, but there is only one role to cast, and I have most of the props in my collection.
“Can” and “Drugs” are pretty much ready, although I never lock a script until after we’ve shot it. We’ve always shot the same way: the first few takes we stick to the script pretty closely (maybe changing a line if it doesn’t work), then do a few alternate, improvised takes just in case we come up with something better. And we do run into the problems that plague all who try to capture moving pictures: problems with locations (unexpected background noise for dialogue scenes, construction, accidents, etc.), actors not showing up (emergencies, miscommunication, etc.), lines that made sense and read well earlier not making sense or reading poorly on shooting day, etc., etc. So we’ve rewritten before and between takes. I try to remember to go back to my computer and lock the original shooting script and do a transcription of the finished short, just to see how much we “drifted” during production and post-production. Again, if something works better than what’s there, there’s no sense in staying with what’s written.
Between packing boxes, I went through all 3 scripts to start working out the directing beats. Where does the scene change? Where does the emotion of the scene change? Where do the characters change their emotions and when do those emotions blow up? Action-Reaction. I’ve ignored all that sage advice from writing teachers, books, etc., and I think I’ve paid for it with mediocre results in the past. Hopefully, by doing my homework, I’ll be much better prepared for the next 3 shorts, and, hopefully, these shorts will turn out much better than previous efforts.
“Dressing Room” is close to being finished, but it needs a new ending. The current one feels flat, but I can’t think of anything new. Mullet’s doing a read of all 3 scripts this week, so maybe he’ll come up with something better. I’ve used a similar ending in "Can," and I’d like to avoid using it twice on the same DVD. Maybe I won’t be able to avoid it –it is a classic comedy ending.
I call it the Laurel & Hardy ending, because, quite often, Ollie would chase Stan into the distance as the camera irised into black, but it’s used in a lot of other comedy, too. It dates back to the chase movies of the Keystone Kops and the earliest silent comedies. It got regular use on Gilligan’s Island and other TV classics I watched as a child. Today, it’s not as prevalent, but if I were to think for a bit, I’m sure I could come up with a few that work that way. It’s much stronger than some other often-used endings. So why am I trying to avoid a classic ending?
In 2 of these 3 scripts, Mullet is chased away by Miller. With Laurel & Hardy, Ollie is the dominant one, and Stan is really passive towards Ollie (most of the time). In our duo, it's not a pure Joey-and-Auguste relationship (or double-Auguste like L&H). Miller is in charge, but he's not completely in charge and Mullet is not afraid to attack him for any transgressions. Mullet is impulsive and aggressive at times, so the odds of him running away from Ed are not good. The odds of Miller running away from Mullet are about the same, and the most common result is hand-to-hand combat rather than running. So, for me as the writer, I don’t want to see Mullet run away from Miller very often –it’s not how the character would respond very often. Maybe in the larger scheme of 6-7 shorts on the DVD, it’ll make sense to have 2 end with the L&H ending, but I’d rather limit it to one.
I end “Dressing Room” with the L&H chase, but I can’t end with a fight –the audience wants to see how the fight ends and what the consequences are. I can’t think of any good comedy fading out on a fight. Maybe if it were set up as a punchline, like it was the 3rd fight as a result of some action (like the old Susquehanna Hat routine from vaudeville), but I haven’t written “Dressing Room” to have a payoff like that one.
Maybe I’ll try it out and see how it works….
Now an update on the producing side of things.
I’ve sent e-mails out to some potential directors, and I’ve heard from one who may be interested in shooting Can for us. If he agrees to do it, we’ll be really lucky to have him help out as he is an accomplished filmmaker and comedian known across Canada.
I haven’t heard from the other two people, but I don’t expect quick responses for e-mails asking for free labour. We have another person as tentative crew who has helped us in the past, but we won’t contact him until we have the schedule figured out.
The rest of our crew will likely come from Craigslist, which can give you a lot of responses but not much action. I may have to post an ad on the bulletin board at Ryerson U in the film dept to get some experienced hands.
Our next step is to find a choreographer for “Drugs.” We’ll try the friends and friends of friends route, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll post an ad on Craigslist. We’ve already got the 2 other roles in “Drugs” tentatively cast through Mullet’s involvement in Theatresports, so we should have enough time to interview choreographers, rehearse with the cast, and then shoot it.
Now, it’s back to the boxes…. God, I hate moving!
The 3 scripts we’re going with for May-June are called “Can,” “Drugs,” and “Dressing Room.” We both feel these are the strongest scripts out of the 12 I wrote. The other 9 go back into the trunk for now.
“Can” is mostly physical, not much dialog, and should be a lot of fun to make. A very simple story with clear character motivations, and the only prep involved is the acquisition of some props. There are no other actors, only one location, so it’ll be a less-than-one-day shoot, to be sure.
“Drugs” is the most elaborate, and it will require us to find a choreographer, which is new to us. There are 3 other characters, so we’ll have to do some casting, and there are some props to prepare. We’ll likely need to shoot it in June as it’ll need the most prep time to get ready.
“Dressing Room” (a working title given our preference for one-word titles) will likely be shot in my apartment given that most of the action takes place in a dressing room. Some exteriors and other locations are involved, but there is only one role to cast, and I have most of the props in my collection.
“Can” and “Drugs” are pretty much ready, although I never lock a script until after we’ve shot it. We’ve always shot the same way: the first few takes we stick to the script pretty closely (maybe changing a line if it doesn’t work), then do a few alternate, improvised takes just in case we come up with something better. And we do run into the problems that plague all who try to capture moving pictures: problems with locations (unexpected background noise for dialogue scenes, construction, accidents, etc.), actors not showing up (emergencies, miscommunication, etc.), lines that made sense and read well earlier not making sense or reading poorly on shooting day, etc., etc. So we’ve rewritten before and between takes. I try to remember to go back to my computer and lock the original shooting script and do a transcription of the finished short, just to see how much we “drifted” during production and post-production. Again, if something works better than what’s there, there’s no sense in staying with what’s written.
Between packing boxes, I went through all 3 scripts to start working out the directing beats. Where does the scene change? Where does the emotion of the scene change? Where do the characters change their emotions and when do those emotions blow up? Action-Reaction. I’ve ignored all that sage advice from writing teachers, books, etc., and I think I’ve paid for it with mediocre results in the past. Hopefully, by doing my homework, I’ll be much better prepared for the next 3 shorts, and, hopefully, these shorts will turn out much better than previous efforts.
“Dressing Room” is close to being finished, but it needs a new ending. The current one feels flat, but I can’t think of anything new. Mullet’s doing a read of all 3 scripts this week, so maybe he’ll come up with something better. I’ve used a similar ending in "Can," and I’d like to avoid using it twice on the same DVD. Maybe I won’t be able to avoid it –it is a classic comedy ending.
I call it the Laurel & Hardy ending, because, quite often, Ollie would chase Stan into the distance as the camera irised into black, but it’s used in a lot of other comedy, too. It dates back to the chase movies of the Keystone Kops and the earliest silent comedies. It got regular use on Gilligan’s Island and other TV classics I watched as a child. Today, it’s not as prevalent, but if I were to think for a bit, I’m sure I could come up with a few that work that way. It’s much stronger than some other often-used endings. So why am I trying to avoid a classic ending?
In 2 of these 3 scripts, Mullet is chased away by Miller. With Laurel & Hardy, Ollie is the dominant one, and Stan is really passive towards Ollie (most of the time). In our duo, it's not a pure Joey-and-Auguste relationship (or double-Auguste like L&H). Miller is in charge, but he's not completely in charge and Mullet is not afraid to attack him for any transgressions. Mullet is impulsive and aggressive at times, so the odds of him running away from Ed are not good. The odds of Miller running away from Mullet are about the same, and the most common result is hand-to-hand combat rather than running. So, for me as the writer, I don’t want to see Mullet run away from Miller very often –it’s not how the character would respond very often. Maybe in the larger scheme of 6-7 shorts on the DVD, it’ll make sense to have 2 end with the L&H ending, but I’d rather limit it to one.
I end “Dressing Room” with the L&H chase, but I can’t end with a fight –the audience wants to see how the fight ends and what the consequences are. I can’t think of any good comedy fading out on a fight. Maybe if it were set up as a punchline, like it was the 3rd fight as a result of some action (like the old Susquehanna Hat routine from vaudeville), but I haven’t written “Dressing Room” to have a payoff like that one.
Maybe I’ll try it out and see how it works….
Now an update on the producing side of things.
I’ve sent e-mails out to some potential directors, and I’ve heard from one who may be interested in shooting Can for us. If he agrees to do it, we’ll be really lucky to have him help out as he is an accomplished filmmaker and comedian known across Canada.
I haven’t heard from the other two people, but I don’t expect quick responses for e-mails asking for free labour. We have another person as tentative crew who has helped us in the past, but we won’t contact him until we have the schedule figured out.
The rest of our crew will likely come from Craigslist, which can give you a lot of responses but not much action. I may have to post an ad on the bulletin board at Ryerson U in the film dept to get some experienced hands.
Our next step is to find a choreographer for “Drugs.” We’ll try the friends and friends of friends route, and if that doesn’t work, I’ll post an ad on Craigslist. We’ve already got the 2 other roles in “Drugs” tentatively cast through Mullet’s involvement in Theatresports, so we should have enough time to interview choreographers, rehearse with the cast, and then shoot it.
Now, it’s back to the boxes…. God, I hate moving!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)