S04.E05: Picture's Up

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

Remains Of The Shooting Day
Shouldn't we see more of Jason Mann not sucking? And other not-quite-burning questions about Project Greenlight.

[terrymct]

Because Jason is Matt and Ben's precious baby and they don't want to piss off Matt and Ben.

 

But what I don't get is why there is so much concern about multiple boom mics and shooting on film for a movie that's about licking assholes and drawing penises on a drunk guy's face.  It's not exactly high art. Can't they just shoot this in someone's basement like a low-budget porno?

 

 

I suspect that directors of porn movies know more about the business and craft of making movies than Jason does.

[pasdetrois]

What was going on with the cranky crew? It intrigues me that they were so direct, on camera, and that one of them really attacked the DP (or whatever he is) personally. I know they referenced safety, but did we see it?

[TVSallyS]

The camera crew fight was an odd narrative to include. I think they couldn't resist including because it was simply so heightened and dramatic. But they clearly didn't have time to edit in the remaining scenes that would've made it make sense. We had no idea who these people were and we had no idea what had led to their conflict. We also had no idea how it was resolved. And we had no idea if the conflict and it's resulting resolution had anything to do with Jason and his management style. From an editing perspective it was a poor choice and it was bad storytelling because it didn't fit into any story that they had been telling so far. The deleted boom mic scene fit sensibly into a narrative we had already been exposed to and it would've been better to include. I think somebody saw the footage and just couldn't resist the drama of a huge explosive fight right when the president was walking in so they thought including it would be dramatic.

[radishcake]

I think this might be part of the problem with Effie and her Girl Scout leader chirpiness. She's trying to "manage" the image she projects and so maybe goes overboard with the cheerful, gung-ho tone to counteract the fact that she's the one who has to say no to people a lot.

It smacks more to me of a survival mechanism so you don't shoot anyone. SERENITY NOW! 

[Milburn Stone]

So you can't just shout "choose a location now or we won't be ready". You must give the man details. Help him understand EXACTLY what will be sacrificed and why. If they had walked through the likelihood that all signatures would be gotten (and that he'd have to rewrite his whole precious script for day) back then, and been persuasive, he might have picked a location sooner. He hasn't ever worked within timelines and practical issues that he hasn't micromanaged entirely himself. Why can't they pick up on that and adopt a different approach to handling him?!...This time around, they did not appear to be TALKING TO HIM about the signature crisis. WHY???!! ...If there was a chance he was going to have to direct it all as daytime, he should have been told immediately at the start of the shoot so he could weigh the probabilities of getting the signatures and make an informed choice as to whether to start shooting day at the start or take the risk and push forward with night...How should the director not have been told, when he started shooting night, that they didn't know for sure yet he'd be able to continue shooting night???? He's not off base in being a little upset. 

 

You're absolutely right about all of this. It's what I was feeling as I was watching. And the reason I was feeling it is that I've been in exactly the same position as Jason--not being given the background on production decisions, and only being told when it's a "done deal" that I can't have what I thought I was going to get. It's how some producers work, unfortunately. So Effie is not unique in that.

 

I'm not sure why some producers work this way. Maybe because it makes their lives easier even as it thwarts the process. Maybe because they like the power of saying no. For all of Effie's stated "I'm just here to help Jason realize his vision," she does seem to take a certain delight in keeping him in the dark just enough to be able to spring her power trips on him.

 

Not that I hold Jason blameless. But in his naivete, he's not being well-served.

[Clanstarling]

You're absolutely right about all of this. It's what I was feeling as I was watching. And the reason I was feeling it is that I've been in exactly the same position as Jason--not being given the background on production decisions, and only being told when it's a "done deal" that I can't have what I thought I was going to get. It's how some producers work, unfortunately. So Effie is not unique in that.

 

I'm not sure why some producers work this way. Maybe because it makes their lives easier even as it thwarts the process. Maybe because they like the power of saying no. For all of Effie's stated "I'm just here to help Jason realize his vision," she does seem to take a certain delight in keeping him in the dark just enough to be able to spring her power trips on him.

 

Not that I hold Jason blameless. But in his naivete, he's not being well-served.

Well, to be fair, we don't know what explanations might be on the cutting room fair, as it were.

 

I'm not a producer, but I am in a similar position and it has been my experience that although I always explain the "whys," they are often not heard because the receiver just tunes out what he/she doesn't want to hear. It is frustrating as hell, and the reason I usually document them in emails. CYA.

[Milburn Stone]

Well, to be fair, we don't know what explanations might be on the cutting room fair, as it were.

 

I'll give you an example to support my point about the "old boy/old girl network" in Hollywood conspiring against the new kid. It's contained within the deleted scene with Jason, Effie and the sound guy.

 

The focus of our conversation here has been the ridiculousness of Jason's idea of putting two mikes on a single boom--which was pretty ridiculous. But let's back up a step to why that conversation was happening in the first place. It was happening because HBO wasn't happy with the sound on the dailies. Well guess what? It's the sound guy's responsibility to make sure the sound being recorded is clear. He's sitting there with headphones on as the shooting is happening. His job not only includes making sure that the dialogue is being recorded, it very much includes making sure that it is adequately recorded. So how'd it happen that things got so far out of hand that HBO is hearing dailies with inadequate sound? Why did the sound man not speak up after the first take, if the dialogue sound wasn't up to snuff? I'll tell you why. Because he along with all the other "seasoned pros" has in it for the new kid who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. They regard him as an insult, an affront. He's not one of them. They're betting (with the odds on their side) that once this shoot is over they'll never see him again. And that's they way they like it. The sooner they send him back where he came from with his tail between his legs, the better.

 

Ironically, Project Greenlight purports to be a show (and a project) about supporting young filmmakers in realizing their dreams. In fact, it demonstrates more than anything how Hollywood chews up newcomers and spits them out.

 

None of which is to absolve Jason of his share of responsibility for the debacle.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Clanstarling]

I'll give you an example to support my point about the "old boy/old girl network" in Hollywood conspiring against the new kid. It's contained within the deleted scene with the Jason, Effie and the sound guy.

 

The focus of our conversation here has been the ridiculousness of Jason's idea of putting two mikes on a single boom--which was a pretty ridiculous idea. But let's back up a step to why that conversation was happening in the first place. It was happening because HBO wasn't happy with the sound on the dailies. Well guess what? It's the sound guy's responsibility to make sure the sound being recorded is clear. He's sitting there with headphones on as the shooting is happening. His job not only includes making sure that the dialogue is being recorded, it very much includes making sure that it is adequately recorded. So how'd it happen that things got so far out of hand that HBO is hearing dailies with inadequate sound? Why did the sound man not speak up after the first take, if the dialogue sound wasn't up to snuff? I'll tell you why. Because he along with all the other "seasoned pros" has in it for the new kid who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. They regard him as an insult, an affront. He's not one of them. They're betting (with the odds on their side) that once this shoot is over they'll never see him again. And that's they way they like it. The sooner they send him back where he came from with his tail between his legs, the better.

 

Ironically, Project Greenlight purports to be a show (and a project) about supporting young filmmakers in realizing their dreams. In fact, it demonstrates more than anything how Hollywood chews up newcomers and spits them out.

 

None of which is to absolve Jason of his share of responsibility for the debacle.

I'm in total agreement. The sound guy absolutely should have spoken up if there was an issue, regardless of his feelings about Jason. Certainly in most skilled professions there isn't a lot of tolerance for newbies who think they know more than they do (and who don't show an inclination to listen). Regardless, there's no justification for undermining the product. A bad result reflects poorly on everyone.  If his mentor had actually done any mentoring about the overall process - perhaps Jason would have had a more realistic outlook. Given who the mentor was, perhaps not.

 

I wasn't responding to the boom discussion at all. I was responding to the quote in your post which was all about location and how it was handled, with Effie being the "bad guy" on that front. I've been in her position many times, so I'm naturally inclined to take her side.

Edited October 15, 2015 by clanstarling

[Julia]

I'll give you an example to support my point about the "old boy/old girl network" in Hollywood conspiring against the new kid. It's contained within the deleted scene with Jason, Effie and the sound guy.

The focus of our conversation here has been the ridiculousness of Jason's idea of putting two mikes on a single boom--which was pretty ridiculous. But let's back up a step to why that conversation was happening in the first place. It was happening because HBO wasn't happy with the sound on the dailies. Well guess what? It's the sound guy's responsibility to make sure the sound being recorded is clear. He's sitting there with headphones on as the shooting is happening. His job not only includes making sure that the dialogue is being recorded, it very much includes making sure that it is adequately recorded. So how'd it happen that things got so far out of hand that HBO is hearing dailies with inadequate sound? Why did the sound man not speak up after the first take, if the dialogue sound wasn't up to snuff? I'll tell you why. Because he along with all the other "seasoned pros" has in it for the new kid who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. They regard him as an insult, an affront. He's not one of them. They're betting (with the odds on their side) that once this shoot is over they'll never see him again. And that's they way they like it. The sooner they send him back where he came from with his tail between his legs, the better.

Ironically, Project Greenlight purports to be a show (and a project) about supporting young filmmakers in realizing their dreams. In fact, it demonstrates more than anything how Hollywood chews up newcomers and spits them out.

None of which is to absolve Jason of his share of responsibility for the debacle.

I'm in total agreement. The sound guy absolutely should have spoken up if there was an issue, regardless of his feelings about Jason. Certainly in most skilled professions there isn't a lot of tolerance for newbies who think they know more than they do (and who don't show an inclination to listen). Regardless, there's no justification for undermining the product. A bad result reflects poorly on everyone. If his mentor had actually done any mentoring about the overall process - perhaps Jason would have had a more realistic outlook. Given who the mentor was, perhaps not.

I wasn't responding to the boom discussion at all. I was responding to the quote in your post which was all about location and how it was handled, with Effie being the "bad guy" on that front. I've been in her position many times, so I'm naturally inclined to take her side.

And you know, I saw that, and it didn't register, but you're right. I work in the equivalent of a craft position, and it's about the work, not about the (almost always less experienced) people who we frequently have to tell what to tell us to do. I can only posit, because I see this kind of a lot, that if someone convinces us that they have the ear of upper management and they're going to make us pay for challenging the way they're doing things (or, in Jason's case, making him lose film by slowing him down) most people are going to be inclined to let them hang themselves.

Edited October 16, 2015 by Julia

[STOPSHOUTING]

Do we even want to live in a world where jokes about asshole-licking are filmed with the cold emptiness of digital, instead of the rich texture of film?!?

 

This is pretty much exactly what my husband and I said to each other watching the episode last night. No wonder the Farrley Brothers were on board; this make's Dumb and Dumber look like high art! 

 

Stop talking about how "Ben shots all his movies on film" as if, A), you're best friends and B), you've made ANY Academy Awarding-winning films, let alone two, or, you know, made a freaking film before, period. For fuck's sake, Damon and Affleck, no matter what you think of them personally, won an Oscar for their FIRST FILM. I not only don't see Mann and his penis-face comedy in that class, I don't even see it in the same school, city, country or, perhaps, universe. #GetOverYourDamnSelf

 

That someone can be so mind-boogingly pretentious about a movie that appears to revolve mostly around dick and feces humor -- always signifiers of quality -- would be laughable if everyone didn't seem to be taking him so seriously.

 

Also, if this is the script that blew everyone away, and got them to shelve the one they already had purchased and planned on shooting, how big a steaming pile of poo must Another Pretty Woman have been? Don't get me wrong, it did sound like dog shit, from what little we heard, but since Mann's film features actual scatalogical humor prominently enough we've seen it in the trailer, I'm struggling to be convinced they traded up, British accents aside.

 

On the other hand, while my hate for Mann remains fierce, my respect for Effie is returning. She's handling all the, 'No-no-no' and, 'Aww, hell, no' work which, unfortunately, is the line producer's lot, with aplomb, making her earlier blow up with a name as big as Farrley, on camera no less, even more confusing. Lord knows dealing with this prissy prima donna (Mann) and his shitshow of an unprepared production can't be a joy. Surprised we didn't see more of Effie pushing the location manager, RE: signatures, though maybe that occurred off camera. 

 

Where they're shooting is the rebuilt PickFair, correct? Not sure who owns it now, but Pia Zadora's gazillionare husband bought it for her in the late 1980s and then they completely rebuilt it, destroying almost all of the original house, which was one of Old Hollywood's most iconic, without informing the city, and then later blaming, alternately, "termites" and "ghosts." Which is both a fun fact, and super ironic given Mr. Authenticity's acceptance of something built circa 1990.

 

By the way, now that I've determined that Jason Mann was the life model for Jack Skellington in Nightmare Before Christmas, that is the only thing I can see when I watch this show ...

 

 

 

It's eerie, right? Just me?

Edited October 16, 2015 by STOPSHOUTING

[blixie]

Haha that's amazing, and yes I think I've been scanning for who he reminds me of, but Jack is far more charming, if equally egotistically misguided.

[TVSallyS]

The one thing that does irritate me about Effie is her repeated use of these phrases like "nothing but love, but...." Fyi. Love isn't something you have to announce. If you feel grace and compassion towards the people you work with, it shows when you act that way. People constantly including disclaimers like that are basically saying "you just ticked me off and I'm about to say something that will sound like I don't love you, but I am going to just tell you before I speak that there is nothing but love, so you can't accuse me of being unloving, no matter what I say." Drop the disclaimer and just talk in a diplomatic way. And then take responsibility for what you say and how you say it. Disclaimers don't change what actually happened in a conversation, so they are just irritating.

[STOPSHOUTING]

The one thing that does irritate me about Effie is her repeated use of these phrases like "nothing but love, but...." Fyi. Love isn't something you have to announce. If you feel grace and compassion towards the people you work with, it shows when you act that way. People constantly including disclaimers like that are basically saying "you just ticked me off and I'm about to say something that will sound like I don't love you, but I am going to just tell you before I speak that there is nothing but love, so you can't accuse me of being unloving, no matter what I say." Drop the disclaimer and just talk in a diplomatic way. And then take responsibility for what you say and how you say it. Disclaimers don't change what actually happened in a conversation, so they are just irritating.

 

It is, indeed, an annoying affection and, I agree, basically confirms the opposite of the sentiment expressly spoken. Like, "Duly noted," which was, at least, her own, "Nothing but love," is definitely an euphemism for, "shut up and fuck off."

[lidarose9]

And you know, I saw that, and it didn't register, but you're right. I work in the equivalent of a craft position, and it's about the work, not about the (almost always less experienced) people who we frequently have to tell what to tell us to do. I can only posit, because I see this kind of a lot, that if someone convinces us that they have the ear of upper management and they're going to make us pay for challenging the way they're doing things (or, in Jason's case, making him lose film by slowing him down) most people are going to be inclined to let them hang themselves.

 

We can't know what happened off camera. There's probably a chain of command where lowly sound guys report problems to someone higher up the ladder, who funnels feedback to an AD or producer. That sound guy may have done that and the message never got delivered to Jason, or Jason got the message and figured he'd fix problems in post-production, or whatever. It's impossible to know.

 

What I do know, though, is when faced with similar situations, this is where it pays to have a good working relationships with your various team members. People are a lot more willing to speak up when they know they will be heard. People are a lot more willing to make exceptions when you need a favor if you haven't been a total asshole to them ten minutes earlier. Prima donna behavior at the top ensures a certain amount of conflict trickling down. It could be that sound guy had reported the problem multiple times and was elated that the HBO people were confirming his feedback, and was utterly flummoxed that somehow now it was his fault. You can be sure he will not stick his neck out again to make a fuss about a problem. (I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying this or something like this wouldn't surprise me.) 

 

I've also been the producer's shoes where you get tired of having to justify every decision, when after a certain point, you need people to just say "OK" and take your word for it. It's a huge waste of time to constantly stop everything and go through all the reasons why X is a bad idea, especially when minutes count. Sometimes you just wish people would give you credit for knowing your job. Again, Effie or Marc or the Location Manager may have told Jason about the night shoot issues back when they were looking for locations, and he decided it was more important to get the location he wanted or just figured he'd ask Matt and Ben to get the neighbors to sign.

 

I also have to say, it makes me grit my teeth when I see stupid little arguments derail the shooting day. Why don't they take the non-time-sensitive issues offline and discuss after the shooting day is done? Instead whole rooms full of people stand around watching two people in a pissing match for 15 precious minutes. This is a major leader fail.  

[Clanstarling]

The one thing that does irritate me about Effie is her repeated use of these phrases like "nothing but love, but...." Fyi. Love isn't something you have to announce. If you feel grace and compassion towards the people you work with, it shows when you act that way. People constantly including disclaimers like that are basically saying "you just ticked me off and I'm about to say something that will sound like I don't love you, but I am going to just tell you before I speak that there is nothing but love, so you can't accuse me of being unloving, no matter what I say." Drop the disclaimer and just talk in a diplomatic way. And then take responsibility for what you say and how you say it. Disclaimers don't change what actually happened in a conversation, so they are just irritating.

Bless her heart. I'm sure she's worked and worked to try to soften her words, and chose an unfortunately grating phrase. It's a no win situation. One person's diplomacy is another's lack of clear direction. Clear and concise is one person's nirvana, and another person's "what a bitch."  Navigating all the different personal relationships and personal attitudes and responses is herding cats. i can count on a few fingers hand the number of people I know who are able to be both direct, clear, and non-offensive. It is a rare talent. (I do not count myself as one of those people.)

[Milburn Stone]

We can't know what happened off camera. There's probably a chain of command where lowly sound guys report problems to someone higher up the ladder, who funnels feedback to an AD or producer. That sound guy may have done that and the message never got delivered to Jason, or Jason got the message and figured he'd fix problems in post-production, or whatever. It's impossible to know.

 

You're right that we can't know what happened off camera. That said, I have never been on a shoot in which the sound guy was having problems where the sound guy didn't announce that loud and clear. They tend to do that, for two reasons. 1) Their sense of professionalism, i.e. dedication to getting a clean recording; and 2) their not wanting to be blamed later when everyone hears the problem and they become one of those people who'll "never work again." Despite my never being the guy to whom the sound guy had to immediately report, I've always heard them call out a problem when they have one. They don't whisper. (Partly that's because they want to stay in place at their station for the next take. That requires them to call out from where they are rather than go over and speak softly in someone's ear.)

Edited October 16, 2015 by Milburn Stone

[Rlb8031]

When Jason said "the producer is supposed to make the director's vision happen" or some nonsense like that, it totally highlighted how he really thinks this whole is just to service his wants and needs.  Unfortunately, nobody has disabused him of that idea.  Nobody has told him that Effie is there to make sure they don't go over budget or get fined by the city or that the union guys walk off the set.  He just thinks she's there to talk the homeowner into letting 3 people roller skate through her house filled with priceless objet d'art.  

 

Effie knows she's not liked and doesn't care one bit.  She said she's the "no" person and that she's good at her job, which is all she cares about.  Also, from the parts I saw being filmed, this movie is going to be crude and really not funny.  

Jason said in one of the earlier episodes that his parents were very good to him and allowed him to pursue his art without bounds. I took that to mean that they funded a lot of his previous work, and that he never really had to worry about how much things costs. That coupled with his "everyone is supposed to figure out how to make what I want happen" attitude leads me to think that he's never been given any limits or boundaries either personally or professionally. The fact that he was going to stand in front of her and continue to film after 9pm (when the neighbors had already been calling the authorities seemingly to complain about the production), just indicated how little respect he has for other people's jobs and how much he thinks that he can do whatever he wants.

 

(PS. I'm calling bullshit on the will they or won't they be able to shoot at night. The footage was clearly edited together out of order to heighten the drama. When the location scout meets with Effie they have 14 of 26 signatures and she's confident they'll be able to get the rest. Ten minutes later in the episode they have 10 signatures and are unsure if they'll get the rest).

[Milburn Stone]

(PS. I'm calling bullshit on the will they or won't they be able to shoot at night. The footage was clearly edited together out of order to heighten the drama. When the location scout meets with Effie they have 14 of 26 signatures and she's confident they'll be able to get the rest. Ten minutes later in the episode they have 10 signatures and are unsure if they'll get the rest).

 

Good catch. I heard the same discrepancy, but attributed it to a different cause. Namely, I thought the location scout was BS'ing when she said she had 14, and that 10 was more like the truth. But I think your explanation is more likely.

[TVSallyS]

I also caught that they were moving backwards on the signatures, but since she never sounded certain, I interpreted it to mean she was likely an idiot who couldn't even say for certain how many signatures she had when this one task was the single most important issue for the movie. If they did reverse the order of something to create drama and make it look like they discovered they unfortunately had even less than they first thought, I would be steamed if I was her. Makes her look dumb.

[QuinnM]

I watched a 'behind the scenes' of one of the Hunger Games movies.  It is not shot on film because of course it isn't art, it's just a movie.  But what blew me away was they literally could take night to day.  They showed matching the lighting in the takes they wanted.  Then there was an entire sequence filmed in daylight that was changed to night.  (For you Hunger Games aficionados the scene where Peeta and Katniss meet between their two house for a Capitol broadcast was shot at high noon and ended up in the moving as night.)

 

So a lot of his issues might be non-issues if he was shooting digital.  But then none of us would know what an artist he was with film.  It would also mean that he had money for a second boom operator.  A boom operator that would not be needed if he was shooting the script that was presented.  I think lightning in a bottle requires a lot of time, money and boom operators.

[scrb]

Did any of the previous PG directors project this sense of entitlement like Jason?

 

Also, he was probably using a DSLR, not a film SLR, when he was shooting pics of that estate.  Hypocrite!

[biakbiak]

Did any of the previous PG directors project this sense of entitlement like Jason?

 

Also, he was probably using a DSLR, not a film SLR, when he was shooting pics of that estate.  Hypocrite!

All of the previous directors have been entitled asshole.

[Julia]

All of the previous directors have been entitled asshole.

Weirdly, Pete, the accommodating writer, was one of them. I guess life happens.