And at a time when special effects dominate the industry, when movies are routinely budgeted over $100 million dollars and when egomaniac directors routinely go over schedule and over budget (that’s you, hack Scorcese), it’s refreshing to see a filmmaker like Eastwood confident and competent enough to make modestly budgeted films ahead of schedule and under budget with an emphasis of story over effects.

So how does Clint Eastwood do it? Well, for starters, he’s been directing for a long time so he has both confidence and experience in his craft. It also helps that he worked in television where the quick production schedules and limited budgets necessitated that a director work quickly and efficiently. The other thing that Eastwood does is his homework. He knows exactly what he wants and needs when he arrives on the set. That way he doesn’t have to waste time figuring things out on the set.

For the next few posts, the Moose will write about some of the various directing techniques that Clint Eastwood uses and how you can use those techniques to better your filmmaking.

The first technique that the Moose would like to talk about is simple enough. Find and trust great material. Of course, this sounds more like common sense than a specific filmmaking technique, but you’d be surprised at how often people ignore this technique. When you’re looking for material to direct, make sure that they story is solid. Any problems that you find in the script when you read it will be there when you shoot it. Make sure the script is sound and all your problems have been worked out before you begin production.

Now here’s where people fall off of the good material bandwagon. When the script is good, leave it alone. When Paul Haggis turned in his first draft for Million Dollar Baby, he expected Eastwood to give him some notes and was prepared to do a rewrite. But Clint Eastwood liked what he read and knew that the story was solid so he started preparing to shoot Haggis’s first draft. In Hollywood, this is the exception, not the rule.

Typically, the standard operating procedure is to rewrite, usually by committee, until you drain all the life out of a story. Oftentimes actors and directors will sign onto a project after reading a great script. The producers and the director take the script through several rewrites (the development process) until the script no longer resembles the story that attracted the director or the actors in the first place. But Clint Eastwood knew that Paul Haggis’s script was solid and had all the story elements that he liked from the source material. Therefore, a rewrite was unnecessary.

Find good material, and then trust your material when you find it.  Simple, but easier said than done.

While I have fallen victim to this tendency myself and have plenty to say about it, I thought I would share a little gift with you, loyal readers. Knowing that I’m a big fan, a friend of mine sent me a memo that Pulitzer Prize winning writer David Mamet sent to the writing staff of his show on CBS The Unit.

Here is that memo, retyped for you typos and all, from David Mamet talking about the essence of screenwriting and the difference between drama and non-drama.

TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DRAMA AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR.
WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF INFORMATION INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:
THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION.
YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL.
THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:
WHAT IS DRAMA?
DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE
THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, ACUTE GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?

2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?

3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER.
APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS
DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE
DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS,
REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR
TYPEWRITER. YOU THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY
SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE
TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT
ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD
FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE
THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING
TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB
(THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB.
HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE
ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS YOUR JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR
ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,
TO FAILURE – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE,
WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE
EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STAND
ALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS
EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF
WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”

AND I RESPOND “FIGURE IT OUT” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM”.

WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS
HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT
HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO
SUGGEST TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS
INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE
INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES BUT YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.

HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND
VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE
DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM
THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE:
THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero
HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE
DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE
DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN
TRUTH, YOU ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS.
ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A
CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT
IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE
AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN
MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. MOST TELEVISION
WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE RADIO. THE CAMERA CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS DOING -
LITERALLY. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT
MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,
INDEED, OF SPEECH. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM -
TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN
YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO START.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT.
IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE,

DAVE
MAMET SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS
YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT
Questions OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I
BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)

“Y’know, I grew up in a different generation. I grew up after World War II, and boys did different things in those days. You went camping. You went hunting. You boxed. And the image of a writer, to someone starting off in those days, was not some schmuck who went to graduate school. It was Jack London, Nelson Algren, Ernest Hemingway. Especially coming from Chicago–a writer was a knock-around guy. Someone who got a job as a reporter or drove a cab. I think the reason there are a lot of novels about How Mean My Mother Was To Me…is because the writers may have learned something called ‘technique,’ but they’ve neglected to have a life. What…are they gonna write about?”

The Moose is a huge fan of Mamet and his work and am very excited to see his next movie, Redbelt, described by Mamet himself as an American samurai movie in the tradition of Kurosawa. While I can’t stand Kurosawa, I think it will be interesting to see how Mamet tackles the martial arts genre.

I read the script and found many things to like. The story is not as good as House Of Games, The Spanish Prisoner or Heist but it is still better than most scripts I have read. I will say that, from reading the script, it seems that Mamet suffers from the same idealized notions of martial arts as other white men who idolize Asian martial arts. You can read the screenplay for Redbelt here: Redbelt script.

Redbelt opens in Los Angeles and New York on May 2nd and everywhere else on May 9.

More trailers can be found here: Redbelt trailers.

Let me start off by saying that these are not the five worst directors working today (although most of these directors do suck). Rather, this is a list of the five most overrated directors who have earned countless awards and accolades and can seemingly do no wrong in the eyes of critics and fanboys.

1. Martin Scorcese

The most overrated hack of them all, Scorcese is the king of cinematic masturbation and the “Look, ma, I’m directing” style of filmmaking. He represents almost everything that’s wrong with self-indulgent directing. The critics love him because of his ability to move the camera. If only he could move the audience. But then again, why bother telling a story when you can swoop through an overblown scene with a steadicam. Or get the brilliant actor Daniel Day-Lewis to do a Robert De Niro impersonation for over two hours opposite Leonardo DiCaprio. He finally won an Oscar when he took the depth and resonance out of the sublime Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs and remade it into the overblown, shallow snoozer The Departed.

2. Steven Spielberg

No one can deny Steven Spielberg’s talent. Then again, it takes a singular talent to reduce the Holocaust to a black and white cartoon like Spielberg did with Schindler’s List. I am constantly amazed by his ability to oversimplify and sanitize every story from slavery (Amistad) to terrorism (Munich) with his over reliance on sentiment and infantile moralism. Spielberg is the father of the modern blockbuster film and, while he may not have started the practice of lowest common denominator filmmaking, he certainly perfected it.

3. Quentin Tarantino

If you want a poster boy for self-indulgence, then look no further. For those of you who want to make movies the Tarantino way, follow this simple recipe:

1. Drink lots of coffee.
2. Watch 20 B-movies in a row without sleeping.
3. Write a script copying sequences verbatim.
4. Cut up script and rearrange the sequences at random.
5. Insert conversation you had with racist/sexist wino on the bus into script.
6. Record for 2 hours as you channel surf through white trash oldies radio. This will be your soundtrack.
7. Send script to Harvey Weinstein.
8. Get a big head (literarlly and figuratively).
9. Direct with big head firmly planted up ass. Tell actors to treat your dialogue like its from the Bible.
10. Make sure the running time is over 2 hours.
11. Go to imdb.com and look up obscure films. Claim them as your influences.

4. Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan is only on this list because of his tendency for lazy storytelling and his over reliance on narrative gimmicks. What do I mean by lazy storytelling? I mean that when encountered with a narrative problem, Nolan almost always takes the easy way out even if it changes the rules of the world he has set up. For instance, take Memento. Here we have a character who loses his short term memory only when it is convenient for the story. Numerous examples of this type of lazy storytelling abound in all of his films. While I believe that Mr. Nolan is a brilliant technician, he needs to stop being so damn lazy before he turns into David Twohy.

5. Paul Thomas Anderson

A Scorcese wannabe that has managed to capture some of Scorcese’s cachet with the critics and fanboys, Mr. Anderson has never met a long tracking shot he didn’t love. His movies are self-indulgent, pretentious and bombastic. You want to know how to make a movie filled with sex about the porn industry boring? Watch Boogie Nights. And what’s with the frogs in Magnolia? While I have not liked any of his movies to date, I do admit to wanting to see There Will be Blood as I am a fan of that setting and time period.

UPDATE: Just saw There Will be Blood. Still overrated. Read what I thought here: Cinemoose Review For There Will Be Blood.

There are plenty of great directors out there so I decided to narrow my criteria for this list down to the eleven directors that matter most to me and their influence on the world of cinema as a whole. These directors represent everything about movies that I love and aspire to in my own work.

In future posts I will elaborate about what I like and admire about each filmmaker, but for now it should be interesting to note that, with the exception of Clint Eastwood, all of these filmmakers are writers as well.

So here is my list of the eleven directors that matter and three films of theirs to watch.

1. Buster Keaton

Technically brilliant director, his films have stood the test of time and are as fresh and funny now as they were in his time.
Sherlock Jr., The Navigator, The General

2. Alfred Hitchcock

No one knew how to terrify audiences more than the Master of Suspense.
Notorious, Vertigo, North By Northwest

3. Orson Welles

Master filmmaker and manipulator, Welles was an independent artist before it was cool to be independent.
Citizen Kane, Touch Of Evil, F For Fake

4. Milos Forman

A gift with actors and stories about the unlovable and misunderstood.
Loves Of A Blonde, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Amadeus

5. Clint Eastwood

Dark, edgy and efficient, one of the best directors working today.
Bird, Unforgiven, Mystic River

6. Paul Verhoeven

Combining hyper-realism and symbolism, his films are intelligent, violent and always memorable. Don’t write him off because of Showgirls and see his Dutch Films.
Soldier of Orange, The Fourth Man, Robocop

7. Terrence Malick

Has anyone ever made more beautiful or intellectual films?
Badlands, Days Of Heaven, The Thin Red Line

8. John Carpenter

Master genre director who is unappreciated and ahead of his time.
The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, Christine

9. David Cronenberg

Constantly exploring the dark side of the human psyche. Be forewarned.
The Fly, Dead Ringers, Eastern Promises

10. Sammo Hung

Arguably the most influential director to come out of Hong Kong. Without him there would be no Jackie Chan, John Woo or The Matrix.
Eastern Condors, Pedicab Driver, Blade of Fury

11. David Mamet

Great dialogue, intelligence and insight into the masculine psyche through entertaining games of deception.
House Of Games, The Spanish Prisoner, Heist