Film Authorship: Exploring the theoretical and practical sides to authorship in film production

David Tregde

  2  

Table of Contents Literature Review Introduction ..........................................................................................................................3 Auteur Theory ......................................................................................................................4 Writer Theory .....................................................................................................................15 Collaborative Theory .........................................................................................................18 Breakdown .........................................................................................................................25 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................28 Case Study Preproduction .....................................................................................................................31 Production ..........................................................................................................................37 Postproduction ...................................................................................................................40 Reflection ...........................................................................................................................42 Appendices: Production Documents Voice of Blood script ..........................................................................................................44 Crew List & Duties ............................................................................................................65 Location Contact Information ............................................................................................66 Production Schedule ..........................................................................................................67 Costume Breakdowns ........................................................................................................68 Prop List .............................................................................................................................69 Equipment List ...................................................................................................................71 Shooting Schedule .............................................................................................................72 Shot List .............................................................................................................................73 Score and Audio Mixing Notes ..........................................................................................76 Budget ................................................................................................................................78

Literature Review

“Authorship does matter,” says Janet Staiger, because it addresses the issue of causality

behind a motion picture (Gerstner and Staiger 27). When addressing the responsible parties for a

film, it is important to know why such analysis is needed. Whether it be an issue of credit when

it comes to major awards or discovering the reason why a production failed, it can be paramount

to know who is responsible for the creation of a film. Film authorship theories fall into one of

three categories: auteur, writer, or collaborative. Classic auteur theory has commanded much of

film scholar debate since the 1960s. Although outcries against auteur theory have been

published since 1963 (Gerstner and Staiger 9), writer and collaborative theories have not been

given the same serious thought (Kipen 17). While critics and scholars can debate for eternity on

topics of authorship, the real issue is what filmmakers actually practice during production

(Tomasulo 114). An examination of film authorship should cover the evolution of authorship

theory from the 1960s to the present.

Feature films are never made by a single person. From the writer to the director to the

studio executives, many ideas and hours of hard work go into collaborating on a film production.

It is important to know that one theory of authorship will not answer the question for all films.

However, opening the discussion and studying films and filmmakers will make the reality of

theory more visible (Tomasulo 114). In addition, instructing future filmmakers in the processes

of established craftsman and artists in the industry can “confirm the value of theoretical inquiry”

through the practice of theoretical concepts (Tomasulo 116). Studying the work of filmmakers is

one way to improve the production value of a film. In this sense, the study and application of

film theory will also inform and improve a production.

  4  

Due to the nature of the filmmaking process, film often aligns with a more collaborative

form of authorship than other artistic media. While some films are recognized for their directing

or writing style, their true authorship lies in the intentionality of the collective that produced the

final product. The art department’s contribution is arguably no less important than camera

department’s in bringing the story to the big screen. Even the director’s and producer’s power

on set may be debatable considering the impact of actor input, assistant director’s duties, and

technicians’ crafting. Therefore, the following essay will examine major authorship theories,

building towards a collaborative theory of authorship.

Auteur Theory

At its heart, auteur theory promotes the director as the author of a motion picture

(Gerstner and Staiger 8). Behind every movie lies a director with a vision. The director gives

the motion picture “any distinctive quality it may have” (Grant 31). Many motion pictures are

extensively guided by a director from script to completion and are considered the work of that

director. Concept artist Syd Mead said, “The director is God in film” (Dangerous Days). For

instance, Alfred Hitchcock’s films are recognizable not only for their story and stylistic elements

but also for his standardized production method (Carringer 374). Hitchcock is “universally

acknowledged as the world’s foremost technician” and his form “does not merely embellish

content, but actually creates it” (Truffaut 17). It is this combination of high technical skill and

artistry that makes an auteur. Hitchcock was known for creating detailed storyboards for each of

his shots and both experimenting with and implementing filmmaking and storytelling

conventions.

When French New Wave critic Francois Truffaut published the auteur theory in the

Cahiers du Cinema in 1954, it took the world of film criticism by storm (Grant 55). The origins

  5  

of auteurism can be traced to the article Truffaut wrote titled “A Certain Tendency in French

Cinema” (Caughie 23). In this article, Truffaut explains where he believes American filmmakers

have succeeded where the French have not. The French critics for the Cahiers were concerned

with not only elevating film itself as an art but also naming American filmmakers as artists. At

the time, auteurism was a uniquely American trait from the French critics’ perspective. The

French critics became particularly interested in American filmmakers because of their focus on

visual narrative and strong heroes (Hess 52). Two strong film genres coming from the U.S. at

the time were film noir and westerns, both of which display independent and masculine heroes.

It was the way American directors rose above and beyond the genres that fascinated their

European counterparts (Hillier 32). What fascinated the French critics was when an American

director took a genre movie with a basic story and created compelling characters with an

interesting story that amounted to more artistically than its parts would lead a viewer to believe.

The critics often discusses this in reference to noirs and westerns where the protagonist became

more than the independent macho personality so cliché in both genres.

According to Truffaut, an auteur transforms the film into something personal, “an

expression of his own personality” (Caughie 23). Jacques Rivette made a similar argument,

saying that an auteur, rather than being at the mercy of a good or bad script, can take the material

and turn it into his work (Hillier 38). The original French version of auteur theory was the idea

of making a film distinct to the director by infusing ideas of his own into the characters and story

beyond what the script required. Jean-Luc Godard, in his article “Sufficient Evidence,” shows

that despite the “conventional scenario” of a film, an auteur will probe stereotypes and

archetypes to turn them into “living beings” (Hillier 48). This is why the French critics were so

obsessed with filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock because of his tendency to add personal

  6  

expression throughout his filmography (Truffaut 314). In fact, Truffaut’s idolizing of Hitchcock

lead him to conduct an extensive, in-depth interview with the filmmaker and publish it as

Hitchcock. Truffaut holds that a filmmaker, like any artist, fundamentally tries to show his

audience how to understand themselves through artistic expression (Truffaut 20). Rather than a

theory of authorship, Truffaut’s auteur theory argued that a director is an artist rather than a

technician (Hess 50). His interviews with Hitchcock revealed the director to be a deeply

emotional man who “feels with particular intensity the sensations he communicates to his

audience” (Truffaut 15). This would make Hitchcock more than a craftsman or technician and

elevate him as an artist. Alexandre Astruc wrote a later article addressing the “camera-stylo” as

he termed it, which compares the director’s camera to an author’s pen (Caughie 24). This

comparison led to the idea that a director is the sole authorship force behind a film. In addition,

the interpretation of Truffaut’s and Rivette’s articles spawned the idea that only auteurs or

cineastes (one who has a passionate interest in cinema) were capable of making a film truly their

own. Other directors were unable to disguise the fact that authorship lied elsewhere, for

example, directors who are heavily influenced by the writer of the script or the studio that

financed the project (Caughie 24). These directors would not be considered auteurs by the

French critics.

In conjunction with the destabilization of the studio system and a greater emphasis on

directors rather than studios, auteur theory came to command major attention in film theory for

the better part of the last several decades as well as dominate critical and public notions of film

authorship (Grant 111). Due to improved international relations after World War II, the French

were introduced to a whole body of American cinema at one time, and they quickly embraced

the American individualism portrayed in films by Howard Hawks, Orson Welles, and John Ford

  7  

(Hess 51). American film critic Andrew Sarris whole-heartedly adopted auteur theory and wrote

extensively on the topic, interpreting it for the American world of film theory and progressing

auteurism to the narrow, director-focused theory for which it became known (Caughie 9).

Charles Eckert argues that works by Sarris and Peter Wollen would have been a “mere eddy” in

auteur criticism if other critics and theorists had not clung so whole-heartedly to their assertions

(Grant 103). The Cahiers had to devote a lot of time and space “dissociating from the excesses

committed in its name” (Caughie 23)

Critics in film theory seek to give credit to the creator of the emotional and psychological

impact of a film (Macgowan 308). Auteur theory gave critics a way to associate film authorship

to a single entity. The moments, scenes, and sequences that impact the audience are the work of

the director because he is responsible for working with the talent, cinematographer, and editor to

tell a story which he sees in his head. Allowing the director to see his own version of a scene

could let him create a more artistically personal film, which the French critics relished. The

auteur critics also emphasized performers’ performances over acting ability noting the director’s

likeness to a psychological therapist who was able to tease out the performances like confessions

in group therapy (Hess 52). He is the conductor that approves the artistry of all the separate

pieces involved in the production (Grant 191).

Because of the popularity of auteur theory and directors proving their ability to make

money through control and personal expression, studios began to give their directors more

control over their films after the 1950s (Grant 186). Because of this industry-wide shift, auteur

theory began to evolve with the industry. Instead of an auteur’s status being defined by

“overcoming barriers to personal expression,” a director’s auteurism became defined by the

nature of that expression: the director’s auteur thumbprint (Grant 187). For example, the films of

  8  

Terry Gilliam show his obsession with the themes of reality and fantasy. Production designer

Benjamin Fernandez for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote said the film is “his [Gilliam’s]

vision. There are so many things fixed in his mind” (Lost in La Mancha).

One should consider the director in discourse concerning his work in order to find the

truth behind critics’ assumptions of his decisions and actions (Grant 30). The traditional, “low

tech” method for auteur analysis involves examining a director’s work “until patterns begin to

emerge” (Kipen 51). The Hollywood auteur filmmaker “existed once discovered by the rigorous

critic” (Gerstner and Staiger 9). Auteur analysis relies heavily on the subjective observations of

the critic through extensive viewing of the filmmaker’s work. Sarris held that auteur theory

served two purposes: to classify films and to give them value as works of art (Caughie 27).

Observing whether or not a film was created by an auteur could determine whether the film fit

into high or low art categories, in Sarris’s opinion.

Truffaut began in this way and went on to interview the legendary Hitchcock to uncover

the director’s methods (Truffaut 17). Hitchcock shares intimate details about each of his

significant productions, such as The Lodger (1944), which Hitchcock himself recognizes as the

first “true ‘Hitchcock movie’” (Truffaut 43). Hitchcock was able to have the genre of suspense

“more or less” to himself because he was one of the few to follow the rules of the genre (Tuffaut

194). This includes suspenseful diversions to throw the audience off from the true reveal and

coincidences that bring characters and plot elements together, like in the films North by

Northwest (1959), Vertigo (1958), and Psycho (1960). Because of this, Hitchcock carved a

definite auteuristic thumbprint into his own films and cinema as a whole, establishing himself

within Sarris’s pantheon of directors (“Sarris Categories”). Sarris looked at many of

Hollywood’s top directors and classified them as he saw fit, with Hitchcock, John Ford, and

  9  

Charles Chaplin at the top. Truffaut notes that those elements of Hitchcock’s style that put him

at such a high place artistically are summed up in Hitchcock’s need to “charge the screen with

emotion” (Truffaut 314). This driving desire lead Hitchcock to obsessively remove flaws from

his stories and created a drive to improve. This “filtering process” incidentally expressed a very

personal vision and “instinctively imposes” Hitchcock’s inner ideas on the audience (Truffaut

314). This, it can be said, is what makes each of Hitchcock’s films so similar and so different

simultaneously. At a young age, Hitchcock’s father had him placed in jail for “five or ten

minutes” to teach him what was done to children who misbehaved (Truffaut 25). This would

later lead Hitchcock to tell stories with so many characters wrongly accused of crimes (The 39

Steps (1935) & North by Northwest).

James Naremore examines the films of Stanley Kubrick across genres and decades to

draw conclusions about the filmmaker’s authorship (On Kubrick 1). Kubrick was able to

exercise large amounts of control over the final edits of his films due to early successes,

including Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960). Even before he was making successful

big-budget films, Kubrick would take as much of the production work on himself as he could—

from cinematography to editing—to maintain his vision throughout the filmmaking process (On

Kubrick 52). Spartacus being the exception, Kubrick desired and exercised sole artistic control

over his films. This stemmed from his feeling that his films should be his vision from start to

finish. In Killer’s Kiss (1955), Kubrick decided to do all sound in post-production because the

boom microphone interfered with the interior lighting he designed (On Kubrick 245).

Kubrick heavily involved himself in the scripting of his films to insert his ideas into the

story as much as possible (On Kubrick 123). Most of his projects originated from existing

material or a story Kubrick himself wanted to see made “cinematic” (On Kubrick 80). Kubrick

  10  

often told his interviewers, “that he considered the average talking picture uncinematic” (On

Kubrick 56), so Kubrick focused much of his energy on writing action sequences and allowing

writing partners to fill in with minimal dialog. Kubrick was constantly rewriting screenplays

during production to fit the film as it flowed during production. However, Kubrick’s controlling

desire led to him offending writing partner Jim Thompson by giving him little credit on the

projects he contributed to (On Kubrick 68). Kubrick often butted heads with the Production

Code Administration over approval of his screenplays. Many of Kubrick’s films contain graphic

sexuality or violence, which at the time of their production, was unfamiliar to the audience. He

was able to negotiate his way through to tell the stories the way he wanted (On Kubrick 54).

Kubrick was very much a revisionist with his genre movies. From The Killing to The

Shinning (1980), he played on genre clichés and premises before betraying them with twist or

non sequitur endings. Paths of Glory takes a war epic and turns it on it’s head by removing the

patriotism and heroism most often found in other World War films (On Kubrick 82). While

designed as a star vehicle for Kirk Douglas, the movie took a negative approach to the Allied

powers—specifically the French—and ended “morally ambiguous” (On Kubrick 83). The

Killing is more “slyly cruel” than an ordinary thriller (On Kubrick 75). Kubrick also uses

standard camera movements combined with unconventional lens choices to create “especially

bizarre” visuals (On Kubrick 71). Even Kubrick’s work on the horror classic The Shinning took

horror conventions and ideas from the originating novel and perverted them (On Kubrick 188).

Kubrick opened with the idea of a psycho killer gone crazy from cabin fever, but the ending

opened the audience to the idea of a supernatural force guiding the killer. This played off the

cliché notion of a killer and gave him a deeper motivation for killing.

  11  

Edward Gallafent links the works of Quentin Tarantino by themes, style, and storytelling

devices (Gallafent 1). For example, Tarantino ends most if not all of his films with “less than

happy” endings (Gallafent 5). Key examples include Reservoir Dogs, where each of the main

characters suffers a bloody and violent death, most of which we see on screen. In Pulp Fiction,

Vincent is gunned down after overcoming a bulk of his conflict in the film (the non-linear nature

of the film means his story continues within the context of the film). In Inglorious Basterds

(2009), several of the main characters die in a shootout and the remaining characters are mostly

killed off by the end.

Tarantino takes advantage of the ability of the filmmaker to modify the flow of time in

Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), and the Kill Bill (2003, 2004) movies (Gallafent 4).

In Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino skips over the main events of the story to cut straight to the

aftermath. Then, through a series of conversations and flashback sequences, the audience pieces

together A) how the group came together, and B) what happened between the opening scene and

everything else after the opening credits. Tarantino specifically creates this disorientation to

replicate the characters’ experience (Gallafent 15). To further emphasize the non-chronological

order of his films, Tarantino employs chapter numbers and titles to separate sequences from one

another (Gallafent 103). Pulp Fiction is famous for its multiple storylines colliding in unlikely

places with each chapter giving us a little more information about each character, albeit out of

order. Tarantino takes the storytelling style he established in Pulp Fiction and refines it in Kill

Bill Vol. 1 and 2. Following one former assassin, the audience is given slices of her life; it is

only in Vol. 2 that the viewer really understands the motivations and trials Beatrix faced.

Of course one of the most popular of Tarantino’s signatures is his pervasive use of

gratuitous violence (Gallafent 38). Aaron Barlow notes specifically that film is not real life and

  12  

the actions and consequences portrayed in movies are not reflective of reality but are rather

influenced by it (155). The violent ear-cutting perpetrated by Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs is

still one of Tarantino’s most-discussed violent moments, but, ironically, the actual act is never

shown on-screen. Tarantino’s character-specific choices for violent acts serve to develop

character and move the story forward. For example, Freddy/Mr. Orange’s cold gunning-down of

Mr. Blonde after torturing the cop tells us a lot about Mr. Orange before he reveals that he is an

undercover police officer (Gallafent 44). This act, when compared to his thoughtless execution

of the woman who shot him, shows the audience a character that doesn’t apologize for his

actions (Gallafent 45). When the audience finally sees Mr. Orange’s transformation into a

criminal, they learn he is now consumed with survival. The “joke” he learns to tell to get in with

the gang parallels his own story with a pension for cold, calculated survival. Another interesting

use of violence occurs in Pulp Fiction when Jules and Vincent murder three men in the second

sequence. To highlight the professionalism and sociopathic nature of the two men, once they kill

a character, we don’t see that character again (Gallafent 47). Once they have killed, Jules and

Vincent no longer care about the victim; they have written off the body as an item of furniture.

Furthermore, before the murders occur, Jules and Vincent take time to “get into character.” This

acts to prepare both the characters and the audience for what is to come, while the audience may

not know exactly how events will take place (Gallafent 46). Rather than explosive, angry, and

passionate violence in Reservoir Dogs, this scene slowly and carefully crafted. Whether it’s

done in gangster or kung fu style, Tarantino’s violence is always stylized and may or may not

have an overt point that some critics search for (Barlow 157). However, many of the focused

acts of violence in Tarantino films reveals elements of his characters we would not otherwise

see.

  13  

James Swallow conducts a similar analysis of the films of David Fincher. Fincher’s

trademark look “remains emblazoned on every frame of the film he shoots” (Swallow 175). This

is everything from the muted and dark tones on screen to his often-violent characters. Fincher

himself cites Alfred Hitchcock as a major influence on his work, and his work in suspense and

mystery serves as evidence for this claim (Swallow 191). Since making controversial and

blockbuster hits such as Se7en (1995), Fight Club (1999), and academy-award-winning The

Social Network (2010), Fincher has become one of the “boldest directors of the decade”

(Swallow 114). Fincher is as unafraid to tackle violent or controversial stories as he is to

embrace new technologies and techniques in filmmaking.

Fincher is well known for his dark and violent films (Swallow 13). The perverse and

over-the-top violence in Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) are

Fincher signatures as much as his exploration of the darkness within his human characters.

Fincher pushes his heroes to the point of no return to exact violence from them. These three

movies revolve around violent protagonists stuck in violent situations. The perpetual cycle

serves to lead the characters to an eventual low point causing them to act in ways not before

explored.

However, even from its beginning, the auteur theory faced opposition. More recently,

theorists have delved into the cultural context in which the French New Wave critics birthed the

auteur theory in order to explain the original idea as well as revise it for contemporary critique

(Naremore 14). Specifically, post World War II, Europe was flooded with American films, so

the French were exposed to a cornucopia of American filmmaking. The French critics’

fascination with American films has been attributed to their lack of exposure during the years of

the war.

  14  

Even the critics themselves tried to separate themselves from the more radical adherents

to the theory. André Bazin, a critic with the Cahiers du Cinema, wrote, “The evolution of

Western art towards personalization should definitely be considered a step forward, but only so

long as…[it] doesn’t claim to define culture” (Caughie 26). Bazin hoped to correct for the

outbreak in director-centrism that sprung out of the Cahiers love for American directors. Rather

than push to extremes in the way Andrew Sarris did, the Cahiers critics chose to instead attribute

directorial genius to other factors including industry environment and historical contexts

(Caughie 27). As mentioned previously, Sarris argued that auteur films gave them more value

within society than other films. Bazin argues the theory should not be used in this way because

it perverts the entire idea the creators had in mind. However, Sarris’s notion became more

popular in the public eye when used on popular and well-known directors, such as the ones

analyzed previously.

Critic and theorist Pauline Kael wrote that Sarris’s breakdown of the auteur theory in

“Notes on Auteur Theory” (1962) relies on “incongruous premises and incorrect assumptions”

(Grant 54). Kael considered Sarris to “lack rigor” and be “undisciplined” (Gerstner and Staiger

9). Some theorists hold Sarris in a similar position to the French New Wave critics with their

star-struck criticism and Sarris’s unwavering dedication to the Hollywood director. Many critics

agree auteur theory to be fraught with logical problems (Kipen 63). For example, auteurism

unnaturally elevates the director’s place within production and judges films based on their

director rather than as an individual artistic work (Gerstner and Staiger 39). Even the original

writers of auteurism did not intend it as theory of cinema; this was an interpretation perpetrated

by Sarris (Grant 76). In fact, Thomas Schatz claims auteurism “would not be worth bothering

with if it hadn’t…effectively [stalled] film history and criticism in a prolonged state of

  15  

adolescent romanticism” (Braudy and Cohen 524). Graham Petrie says auteurism evades “all

the sordid and tedious details of power conflicts and financial interests that are an integral part of

any major movie project” (Grant 110). On a movie set, the director’s word is art, but the

producer’s word is law. The producer keeps a film on budget and on time, if he’s doing his job.

The director works for the producer unless they are the same person. Therefore the producer

curbs the director’s vision—his authorship. It is “naïve and often arrogant” to assume the

director is the only author that matters in the filmmaking process (Grant 112).

Eckert complains there is “so much oversimplification, obtuseness, and downright

unfairness running through the whole debate” (Grant 103). Historically, critics have attempted

to design formulas and methods with which to recognize auteurs separately from others.

However, these methods “dumb down” the art into a matter of numbers and tally marks that

destroy the purpose of analysis: to better appreciate the artistry present. Eckert holds that while

coding as part of a “careful, logical system” can assist the critic in his research, there are too

many variables to simply lay conclusions down as immutable law (Grant 105).

Writer Theory

With the supremacy of the director in the construction of a film generally held and

popular notion, auteur theory ignores the writers, the studios, and the collaboration that goes into

completing a motion picture project. David Kipen considers his Schreiber—Yiddish for writer—

theory to be worthy of the same consideration as auteur theory because it considers the party who

creates rather than tells the story (17). In The Schreiber Theory (2006), Kipen lays out one of the

most “radical rewrites” of authorship theory (19). Irving Thalberg said, “The writer is the most

important person in Hollywood” (Kipen 13). Since Andrew Sarris’s “Notes on Auteur Theory”

  16  

(1962), anti-auteur critics have espoused screenwriters as the authors for their contribution to

conception and drafting of the story (Kipen 29).

In the silent film era, a director’s power over story was unquestionable due to a lack of

any real screenplay (Macgowan 307). Early screenwriting obviously drew from theater, but it

was also influenced by cartoons and slideshows (Azlant 228). In 1889, the Biograph studio

separated writing as its own “branch of production” (Azlant 230). Around the turn of the

century, filmmakers began to move beyond simple outlining to a more complex narrative

structure (Azlant 231). For the first time, filmmakers began to see writing the story as an

integral part of the filmmaking process. One of the first screenwriters, Roy McCardell, was paid

a “princely sum” of $150 per week: an average $125 more than the average newspaper man

(Azlant 233).

A narrative film must begin with a screenplay (Hatfield 2). Simply put, one cannot build

a skyscraper without a blueprint. So who writes the story? As basic as it may sound, the

individual or group who put the words to paper create the story. A writer is the architect of the

movie, while the director and his crew are the foreman and construction workers. Buildings are

credited to their architect, not their builder. A critic cannot assume the director’s contribution is

“automatically of major significance” (Grant 111). The original French auteur critics began to

find more interest in a film’s script than its direction once they began making films of their own

(Grant 112). As they began writing and directing their own productions, the critics saw the

importance a script had on the outcome of a film. Kipen even gives credence to director John

Huston for his great understanding of novellas as premiere works from which to adapt films and

names him a “schreiberist” filmmaker for his credit as a writer-director (Kipen 26).

  17  

In response to Sarris’s pantheon, critic Richard Corliss created his own list of great film

writers. Corliss surveyed writers’ works for “themes and idiosyncrasies” that made each writer

unique (Kipen 27). These “schreiberist” writers include classic names like Ben Hecht, with a

filmography including Scarface (1932), His Girl Friday (1939), Monkey Business (1952) and

Academy Award-winning Underworld (1927). Hecht infused his “trademark cynicism and racy

vitality” in all of his work (Kipen 27). Hecht worked repeatedly with director and producer

Howard Hawks because of their similar view on character and cinematic language (Liukkonen).

Hecht would go on to work uncredited with Hawks on other projects. Hecht recognized the

writer’s place in Hollywood movies when he said, “Writing a good movie brings a writer about

as much fame as steering a bicycle. It gets him, however, more jobs” (Liukkonen). Hecht’s

opinion represents the position of a writer in director-focused Hollywood.

However, writer theory breaks apart on the issues of creative control. Once a script is

sold, the writer loses control of the final outcome of their idea. Directors are free to rework, edit,

and interpret a screenplay “nearer to their heart’s desire” (Macgowan 307). Writers often have

no control in the interpretation of their story (Sellors 266). In Blade Runner, once Ridley Scott

was given the script, he was able to ask for rewrites and edits that fit his vision rather than the

writer’s (Dangerous Days). Scott and producer Michael Deeley brought on another

screenwriter—David Peoples—to continue work on Hampton Fancher’s original script. They

wanted to simplify a concept that had become too “cerebral” (Dangerous Days). Fancher was

adamantly against going “commercial” with Blade Runner, but he admits that the movie would

not have happened unless he gave up control (Dangerous Days). Unless the writer is also

director, he is at the mercy of the director to carry out the vision of the screenplay. As

mentioned previously, Kubrick exerted heavy control over his screenplays, even to the point of

  18  

discounting writing partners like Jim Thompson (Naremore 68). Another key example is The

Searchers (1956), written by Frank Nugent and directed by John Ford. There are “sharp

differences between what is in the screenplay and what we now see on screen” because Ford’s

directorial vision took control of the process from the outset (Eckstein 3). “Crucial scenes” were

deleted from the script on set and new ones were added (Eckstein 4).

Corliss notes that screenwriters suffer from being credited for no work, not being credited

for work, and multiple writers being credited for the same work (Kipen 28). This confuses the

idea of writer authorship because it becomes harder to analyze writers as authors when there is

no consistency to their credited contribution. While Kipen claims “collaboration doesn’t

preclude analysis,” it makes it significantly more difficult to “give credit where credit is due”

(Kipen 29).

Collaborative Theory

Paul Sellors claims authorship—whether for novel, film, or fine art—is an issue of

intention (264). He argues the causal party behind the communication of the media in question

is the author. This concept is not exclusive to a single person, but rather, it can be applied

broadly to the studio, the director, and the writer if they all play a part in producing the final

product. The contributions of the cinematographer and the editor also cannot be ignored in

bringing the moving image to the screen (Grant 111). Films are not created by a single

consciousness (Grant 193). They come together as part of the collective effort by artists and

technicians. Collective authorship comes from group intentionality moving towards a common

goal (Sellors 268).

Sellors concept of authorship comes from studies across media and disciplines that avoid

the complications film authorship presents (263). To Sellors, the author intentionally creates an

  19  

utterance (Sellors 264). He defines utterance as an action of expression or communication. As

applied to filmmaking, movies communicate a story. Therefore, the author(s) of a film is the

party(s) who possesses the most intentionality behind the making of a film. Sellors then presents

the issue of control: whether or not intentionality covers control. Sellors believes an intentional

party will exert control in a production, and therefore, control does not need to be explicitly

stated in defining authorship because it is implied (266). As to issues of lost control, Sellors

concedes we are unable to add mechanisms to evaluate to what extent control was lost (266). A

studio executive’s power over a production is less tangible than an art director’s. In instances

like Alien 3 where Fincher lost control of the final outcome of his film, his authorship is

diminished due to the studio exerting control and intentionality over him (Swallow 60). On the

other hand, as mentioned previously, Kubrick was known for overstepping his writing partners

who made major contributions to his work by reworking their ideas enough to make them his

own (Naremore 68). Because anecdotal evidence can indicate issues of control versus

intentionality, it increases the difficulty in assigning authorship because of the varying and

disparate inputs a film can have.

Authorship comes from the “mutual interaction” between the world created and the

creators (Gerstner and Staiger 12). While the writers, directors, and producers create the work,

the cinematographers, editors, and animators create the world that we perceive as the work. It is

through this interaction that we view a whole, and it is this whole which is authored by the talent

and crew. Therefore, the perceived world of a film is a collaborative whole that is authored by

multiple artists and craftsmen. Films have many components that come together in “some

degree of coherency” (Sellors 268). This coherency is due to the audience’s perception of the

whole rather than the parts. Rather than simply observing a camera angle, wardrobe choice, or

  20  

an acting performance, the audience perceives the entire film as a single entity. This renders the

director-centric theory of coherency hollow because the director’s contribution is only part of the

whole we view (Sellors 268).

“The author is dead,” proclaims Michel Foucault (Caughie 282). Film is a primarily

collaborative medium, so it would seem odd that theorists are constantly searching for the

singular artist responsible for authorship (Gerstner and Staiger 5). Director-centric auteur theory

could not even hold up Truffaut’s own films. The realization of Tuffaut’s vision in Four

Hundred Blows (1959) “necessitated…the use of an experienced screenwriter, a leading

cinematographer, and a youthful surrogate [actor]” to bring Truffaut’s biographical story to

screen (Carringer 374). In fact, critics now recognize motion pictures having plural authors

rather than a singular artistic force (Carringer 374). One must suspend the idea of single

authorship in order to properly analyze a production from a collaborative standpoint (Carringer

377). This suspension allows the critic to explore performers, production staff, and even the

studio backing the project as co-artists for the motion picture. It also directly contradicts both

auteur and Schreiber theories of film authorship. However, collaborative theory prevents a critic

from falling into the dogmatic pitfalls and harsh criticism faced by Sarris for being too narrow

and simple in his assignment of authorship.

Collaboration theory also accounts for the contribution each artist or craftsman makes to

the film, including above-the-line (director, producer, leading actors) and below-the-line jobs

(grips, gaffers, extras) (Gerstner and Staiger 41). While certainly a motion picture’s personality

can be linked to its major creators—director, producer, leading actors—all those who contribute

play a part in its nuances that may go unnoticed by simple pattern analysis (Grant 80). While a

visionary director like Ridley Scott may draw up his own set designs and be integral in the

  21  

creation of those sets, he will certainly not build the entire set himself (Dangerous Days). The

producer can be considered the most responsible party in the production of a film because his or

her role demands gathering the cast and crew necessary to pull off the production (Movie Staff).

Once the necessary craftsman are in place, the producer becomes in charge of logistics rather

than storytelling; this role falls to the director and to whom he choses to delegate certain tasks.

However, the producer retains rights of the film; the crew does not (Movie Staff). The

production designer delegates set, costume, and makeup design to the necessary departments in

order to carry out the director’s and the producer’s vision (Movie Staff). The director of

photography oversees the camera and lighting crews and makes what the director sees in his or

her head work in the lens of the camera. Perhaps multiple writers collaborate on writing a film,

like Hitchcock’s Suspicion (Worland 7).

Like a sports team, a film crew creates a collective intention when each individual joins

the group with the same goal in mind (Sellors 268). This means that a film crew, including

craftsmen and talent, can become an “author” for Sellors’s definition of authorship. Their

intentionality renders them a “filmic author” capable of creating an artistic product. Sellors

concedes that not all roles will be included in collective authorship, such as catering services. A

member of collective authorship must be an “actual or potential member of a cooperative

activity” (Sellors 269). Not only this, but authorship is dependent on contribution. To determine

authorship in the collective, one must ascertain an individual’s contributions to the overall film

and how it relates to the final product (Sellors 270). This relates back to the earlier concept of

the interaction of the world created by the work and the work itself. While a single set-builder’s

contribution may be physically small, the set piece’s impact on the film may be significant,

therefore rendering the set-builder’s contribution to be significant. When one looks at Blade

  22  

Runner compared to the concept art created by Syd Mead, the similarities are instantly

noticeable, making Mead’s authorship contribution significant in the aspect of set design

(Dangerous Days). During the editing process of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Fincher’s

editors did a lot of work to clean the images up digitally by stabilizing shaky footage and

cropping frames to focus the image on particular characters (“In the Cutting Room”). The

editors were able to re-envision the look of certain scenes through digital tools that have “an

affect on the viewing of the movie” (“In the Cutting Room”).

Examples of collaboration in production abound. Specific examples include Martin

Scorsese’s recurring work with actors Robert De Niro [Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980),

Goodfellas (1990)] and Leonardo DiCaprio [Gangs of New York (2002), The Aviator (2004), The

Departed (2006)] (Schickel 137). For Scorsese, this collaboration comes from shared feelings,

personal and creative (Schickel 318). Scorsese says “we think similarly” and that’s what makes

working with them easy because they can tell stories together (Schickel 319).

Ridley Scott forged a similar relationship with Russell Crowe, casting him in Gladiator

(2000), American Gangster (2007), and Robin Hood (2010) (Parrill 154). Crowe consistently

turns in top performances for Scott, particularly in the hit Gladiator (Parrill 160). Scott’s work

with Rutger Hauer on Blade Runner shows the director’s ability to collaborate with actors as he

allowed Hauer to influence his character’s scripted lines as well as on-screen persona

(Dangerous Days). Scott also gave Edward James Olmos free reign to create and implement

what became city-speak in Blade Runner, even when producers and financers were unsure of the

choice (Dangerous Days). Terry Gilliam allowed actor Johnny Depp input on the script and his

character during preproduction meetings for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (Lost in La

Mancha).

  23  

Breaking down collaboration into more specific examples, one can look at Ridley Scott’s

Blade Runner featured in the documentary Dangerous Days (2007). Early in the documentary,

Scott says, “I’ll get what I want. If you’re with me, great. If not, too bad.” This perspective on

filmmaking is very auteuristic and director-centric. Because of his background in art direction,

Scott is known to micro manage his art department (Dangerous Days). However, Scott turned

over a bulk of the work to artists and craftsman to carry out his vision. The set designer was

informed by Scott’s designs and inspirations, but his drawings and creations were his own.

Similarly, Terry Gilliam worked closely with his production design team for The Man Who

Killed Don Quixote, but a majority of the physical labor was left to the artists (Lost in La

Mancha).

Of course, as we continue to break down the complexities of collaborative authorship, we

begin to run into similar problems faced by Schreiber theory. It is easier to point to above-the-

line cast and crew for authorship for their major contribution to a production rather than dig deep

into the credits to explain collective authorship. While collective authorship is much more

pleasing to a realist studying film, more specific authorship is needed to effectively discuss a

film in literature such as film reviews. Auteur and Schreiber theory present much simpler ways

of discussing authorship in the academic and public spheres because of their ease of

understanding and lack of need for empirical research.

Other Limitations

Schatz argues that films attributed to auteur directors are not “simply of individual human

expression” but a product of studio executive and key crew influences (Braudy and Cohen 525).

A film is a combination of talent, financial, and labor factors. Auteur critic Jean-Louis Comolli

notes even “independent” films are subject to these influences (Braudy and Cohen 688).

  24  

Therefore films will always be subject to financial backers’ desires for stories to be told. If

financiers don’t like a movie’s story, they will not fund it. This is inescapable. Sellors’s

argument of intentionality then shifts to the position of choosing the financiers as the “authors”

of a film, which few critics would recognize as an artistic force.

Just as unavoidable are the limitations of genre. Genres come from the action on which a

film concentrates most of its attention (Braudy and Cohen 556). Early gangster films were

defined as much by their genre as their writers and directors. The films followed given

conventions and clichés in order to appeal to an audience and access a certain world in which the

filmmakers wished to tell a story. Genre films have traditionally had very strong ties to the

studios that produce them, making authorship very muddy (Braudy and Cohen 526). Pierre Kast,

a contributor to the Cahiers du Cinema, says “the distributors really control production and they

display a complete lack of imagination (Hillier 32). Studio authorship is evident in 1930’s

gangster films predominantly produced by Warner Brothers (Grant 170). During this time,

Warner Brothers produced a vast majority of the gangster films made, so their studio executives

were able to control much of what went into the films to ensure they matched the studio’s brand.

During the same time period, MGM was well known for big budget musical and dramatic

productions. So, it is difficult to point to analyze authorship in this context because a major

contributing factor is the studio’s niche. The mass production of films by studios can create a

cookie-cutter effect which blurs the lines of authorship between the studio and film crews.

Another limitation is the lack of data concerning filmmaker intention behind individual

motion pictures. Noel Carroll wonders why critics would rather assume hypothetical theses

rather than ask an author his actual intentions (Grant 173). Critics chose to limit themselves by

not asking directors of their methods and concepts behind production. Truffaut and Schickel

  25  

sought to remedy this by conducting interviews of Hitchcock and Scorsese, respectively.

However, the depth of these analyses is rare, especially considering the number of directors in

the industry. The Director’s Guild of America represents over 15,000 “members of the

directorial team” (Director’s Guild of America). Comparatively, the amount of critical analysis

of their directing methods are scarce to none.

Breakdown

One cannot ignore a director’s imprint on a film, especially one so recognizable as

Hitchcock or Tarantino. Certain directors have indisputable visions for films and they become

works of that director. Auteur theory is acceptable in analysis of such directors. When

determining whether a director is an auteur, one examines his body of work to analyze trends,

devices, and commonalities in the director’s films. While this type of analysis is effective for

studying the director, it does not work for examination of a film from production, only

completion. To study a film itself through auteurism would lead to assumptions and guesses

rather than hard theory and evidence. Auteur theory also doesn’t account for a producer’s or

cinematographer’s impact on a film. Many other above-the-line collaborators are as much

responsible for a film as a director, depending on the production.

In terms of authorship, Schreiber theory gives a voice to the much-ignored contributors to

Hollywood entertainment. Without screenplays, we would have no films. Writers begin the

process, and their script—their blueprint—provides then framework from which the production

is derived. However, in practice, directors are able to command rewrites and develop

interpretations that veer away from the writer’s intention. This dilutes the writer’s authorship by

subverting his vision with the director’s. While the writer’s contribution to story is indisputable,

the extent of his authorship can vary from project to project.

  26  

Collaborative theory offers the most practical, and perhaps most effective, answer to film

production. Collaborative theory seeks to share the burden of authorship across the major

players of the production. Considering film’s collaborative nature as an art form, it is a more

likely answer to the authorship question. Sellors’s methodology allows critics to measure

authorship by looking at intentionality of participants in filmmaking. Collective authorship can

be achieved when members of a production team share similar goals and intentions. Authorship

status is dependent on contribution as well as intentionality.

Each theory is credible in some way. It is perhaps best to say that while each production

is a collaborative work, a director may possess some auteur qualities or a writer some of the

strengths of a Schreiber. Authorship cannot be decided as a blanket industry standard. Rather, it

is a decision a critic can make while conducting analysis for each film he studies. Proper

determination of authorship should take place through research of the production through

interviews or study into how the film was made rather than an assumption based on qualities of

the film itself. The analysis proposed by Sarris is flawed due to its reliance on the subjective

view of the critic. One critic may see certain qualities while another critic may see things

completely differently. Film authorship should not be a passing commentary on certain

directors, writers, or studios. Rather, it should be an active study by critics and scholars to really

explain who is responsible for the making of motion pictures to create an accurate picture of

filmmakers and the industry.

As has been shown, each theory has it’s own drawbacks, including outside factors which

have yet to be addressed by any theory, such as genre or studio influence. Perhaps with the

movement away from auteur theory, critics will begin to explore the authorship influences of

these and other such forces on production. As can be seen by referencing the bibliography, the

  27  

resources referenced here span the decades from the 1960’s to the 2000’s. Critical film study is

very much alive, but it remains narrow in its focus and should expand its horizons to be more

scientific in its approach. Quantitative research into film authorship could raise film theory from

a place of more niche and theoretical study to that of a scientifically acceptable course for

determining authorship and cause in filmmaking. Barlow contends theory “is only valid as long

as it is useful,” meaning that a theory is just an idea unless it is put into practice (139). When

critical film theory passes into the sphere of implication, it is there we will see the marriage of

the academic and the practical.

  28  

Works Cited

Azlant, Edward. "Screenwriting for the Early Silent Film: Forgotten Pioneers, 1897-1911." Film

History 9 (1997): 228-56.

Barlow, Aaron. Quentin Tarantino : life at the extremes. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2010.

Braudy, Leo, and Marshall Cohen. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings. New

York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

Carringer, Robert. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” PMLA. 116.2 (2001): 370-

379.

Caughie, John. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul in

Association with the British Film Institute, 1981.

Dangerous Days: Making of Blade Runner. Dir. Charles de Lauzirika. Warner Bros. Pictures,

2007.

Director’s Guild of America. http://www.dga.org. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Eckstein, Aurther. “Darkening Ethan: John Ford’s “The Searchers” (1965) from Novel to

Screenplay to Screen.” Cinema Journal 38.1 (1998): 3-24.

Friedman, Lawrence S. The Cinema of Martin Scorsese. New York: The Continuum Publishing

Company, 1997.

Gallafent, Edward. Quentin Tarantino. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman, 2006.

Gerstner, David A., and Janet Staiger. Authorship and Film. New York: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Grant, Barry Keith. Auteurs and Authorship: A Film Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.,

2008.

Hess, John. “Auteur Criticism: A Film Maker’s Approach to the Cinema.” Journal of the

University Film Association 25.3 (1973): 50-53, 58.

  29  

Hillier, Jim. Cahiers du cinema, the 1950s : neo-realism, Hollywood, New Wave. Cambridge,

Mass: Harvard University Press, 1985.

“In the Cutting Room.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel

Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.

Kipen, David. The Schreiber Theory: A Radical Rewrite of American Film History. Hoboken,

NJ: Melville House Pub., 2006.

Liukkonen, Petri. “Ben Hecht.” http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bhecht.htm. Web. May 10, 2012.

“The Look of Salander.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel

Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.

Lost in La Mancha. Dir. Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe. United States: Docurama Distributed by

New Video Group, 2003.

Macgowan, Kenneth. “The Film Director’s Contribution to the Screen.” College English. 12.6

(1951): 307-314.

“Men Who Hate Women.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel

Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.

Movie Staff. Moviestaff.com. Web. 9 March 2012.

Naremore, James. “Authorship and the Cultural Politics of Film Criticism.” Film Quarterly.

44.1 (1990): 14-23.

Naremore, James. On Kubrick. London: British Film Institute, 2007.

Parrill, William. Ridley Scott: A Critical Filmography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011.

“Sarris Categories.” They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They? Web. 9 March 2012.

Schickel, Richard, and Martin Scorsese. Conversations with Scorsese. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, 2011.

  30  

Sellors, C. Paul. “Collective Authorship in Film.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

65.3 (2007): 263-271.

Spadoni, Robert. “Geniuses of the Systems: Authorship and Evidence in Classical Hollywood

Cinema.” Film History. 7.4 (1995): 362-385.

Tomasulo, Frank. “Theory to Practice: Integrating Cinema Theory and Film Production.”

Cinema Journal. 36.3 (1997): 114-117.

Truffaut, Francois. Hitchcock. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984

“Visual Effects Montage.” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Daniel

Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer. Sony Pictures Entertainment, 2011. Blu-Ray.

  31  

Case Study: Voice of Blood

This case study examines the production processes of a micro-budget short film that I wrote

and directed. It will also serve as a companion to the previous literature review as an example of

collaborative filmmaking by putting into practice the research I explored. Throughout the

production process, I took notes and wrote journals as blog entries discussing the different

meetings and events that occurred along the way in order to present an accurate picture here.

Some of the journals can be accessed on the blog site

http://davidtregde.wordpress.com/category/voiceofblood. This case study is intended to be a

record of a working example of the collaboration inherent in the filmmaking process.

Preproduction

Script

I began creating the concept for Voice of Blood in 2010. Following the idea that storytellers

tell the same stories over and over with slight variations, I decided to dig for stories in one of the

oldest texts I know: the Christian Bible. I studied some of the more classic stories like David

and Goliath and Jonah and the big fish. Some of these stories are so easily translated into

narrative that I could pick out the ideas and themes in many movies. So as not to tread a path

many have walked before, I started looking for more obscure stories. As I kept researching and

jotting down story ideas, I came back to one of the oldest stories recorded in the Old Testament:

the story of Cain and Abel. I was drawn to this story because of some of the baser emotions

involved. Cain is overwhelmed by greed and jealousy, so much so, that he murders his own

brother. I find this fascinating; what would drive someone to kill his own sibling? I wanted to

take this story and modernize it.

  32  

From the beginning, I saw this story as a classic gangster tale. Dr. Mike Frontani’s class on

Genres and Auteurs really influenced my desire to replicate a gangster film based on the genre

identifiers. Gangster films embody certain characteristics no matter the time period in which

they are made. Even when the film is revisionist (meaning it perverts or disregards certain genre

staples), there are certain elements that are always present. For example, Martin Scorsese’s The

Departed (2006) is considered a revisionist gangster film while Francis Ford Coppola’s The

Godfather (1972) follows classic genre guidelines. Concepts like betrayal and the gangster

causing his own demise are classic examples of the gangster genre that I tried to incorporate in

my retelling of this story. Similar to Little Caesar (1931), Kent (the character embodying Cain)

feels he is betrayed by the person he is closest to and is forced to act to save his livelihood.

In addition to the gangster pillars established above, I also screened a lot of classic and neo

noirs to study the sense of mystery and tension inherent in these types of films. Klute (1971)

and Drive (2011) were two major influences in both visual storytelling and atmosphere. I

wanted to keep certain elements in suspense until a reveal in the end. The “Dark Figure”

referenced in the script acts as a contract killer for the Boss, but we never see the character’s face

until the last scene of the script, so the audience is unaware of who is doing the Boss’s dirty work

and whom Kent will have to face in the end.

When the script was originally drafted, it had a lot of major plot holes and logical problems.

In addition, the characters were shallow and stereotypical. I worked with my good friend and

actor Will Daniel in order to fix the problems with the characters. We gave them more actions in

the script and designed stories outside of the scope of the script to give the characters reasons to

do the things they do. After some initial revisions, I passed the script on to screenwriter Paul

Castro. He assisted in eliminating some of the plot holes as well as tightening up the flow of the

  33  

script. Because of the length of the script, the rise and fall of action was important to keep the

audience interested. Unlike the short films I’m accustomed to producing, there are multiple

conflicts and multiple action sequences within the scope of Voice of Blood. Unlike “Adrift”

(http://tregdemedia.com/adrift/) or “Countdown” (http://tregdemedia.com/countdown/), Voice of

Blood would be close to 30 minutes of story with more of time to develop character. More

complex characters create a more interesting story if the story follows the proper rise and fall of

action in the proper proportions. Castro’s biggest influences would be the push and pull effect

different scenes have where the action builds, then releases in a slower scene, then builds again

higher before slowing down again.

I spent the summer of 2012 in Los Angeles, California interning for a reality television

production company while simultaneously working on two short films (“Adrift” mentioned

above and “My Family Circus”—http://tregdemedia.com/my-family-circus/). The scripting

process of these two films would significantly influence later drafts of Voice of Blood by

maturing me quickly as a writer and storyteller. I also worked with screenwriter Nizar Wattad

on fixing more problems with Voice of Blood. As the story increased in complexity, the problem

became keeping it a short film rather than a full-blown feature. The story was growing out of

control for the time limit set by the Elon University School of Communications, and I was

having difficulty fitting the plot points necessary to move the story forward. Wattad suggested

creating more backstory for characters that would be briefly referenced in the film in order to

create deeper relationships on-screen without spending more time with the characters. Wattad

often said that characters’ stories precede and follow the story told in a film, and this will

influence the writer and the actors.

  34  

In the final stages of the script, the major changes would be to specific characters by making

their actions less cliché. Most importantly, Delilah began as highly sexual and shallow

character, who later became a major player in the script, rivaling Kent for most aggressive

actions without overshadowing him. Also, as locations were secured for filming, the appropriate

rewrites were incorporated so as to give the actors a sense of the space by reading the script. The

benefit of being a writer-director is that I can make this kind of changes myself without having to

go through the screenwriter and hoping he makes the changes I need. I’m also not stepping on

the screenwriter’s artistic toes by demanding changes.

Crew

The crew was hired in two stages. In the first stage, I contacted Claire Gambrell to produce

the project. Claire and I had worked together before on projects, and our working styles mesh

together well. Claire is also highly organized and calm on set, which is helpful when I get

anxious and things get out of hand. I also hired Brittany Barbieri as production designer.

Brittany and I had also worked on projects together, and Brittany is much more detailed oriented

with production details than I am. Her knowledge of fashion and design are invaluable and came

in handy later in preproduction. Mariah Czap was brought on as editor later in the first pass.

Mariah had been a major reader and contributor to the script, and with her knowledge of the

story and skills as an editor, I knew she would be a good addition to the project. I also knew that

if we were working in a Final Cut Pro X workflow, she wouldn’t object as this was her editor of

choice at the time.

The second round of crew hiring occurred after my summer in LA. In September of 2012, I

added Michael Tahan as assistant director after we worked together on “Adrift” and “My Family

Circus.” Kara Johnson was added as director of photography due to having worked with her on

  35  

previous projects and the display of her skills over the summer. Kara and I also share a visual

language after having taken several courses together, so I find it easy to communicate with her.

After working with music technology majors Benjamin Soldate and Robert Watts, I decided to

bring them on the project as sound mixing and scoring, respectively. Ben really showed his

talents by helping to save an otherwise doomed short film from sounding terrible. Robert wrote

original music for two films, one of which was dominated by the music, and his score improved

the storytelling immensely. Other crew members added in Fall 2012 are as follows: Mia

Watkins (location supervisor/associate producer), Jon Smith (1st assistant camera), Bryan Cross

(grip/gaffer), Tina Tozzi (makeup), Avery Ecker (wardrobe/prop supervision), William Simon

(script supervisor/set photographer), Brent Edwards (graphics/vfx), and Tyler Oberle (behind-

the-scenes videographer). After receiving a list of the locations, Mia called the locations and

scheduled meetings to discuss the project with the location owners and secure permission to film

at their sites. After receiving more details concerning shooting dates and times, Mia again

contacted the locations with specifics and secured the locations for the needed times. Tina

conducted a lot of independent research into makeup methods for the application of temporary

tattoos. She would report back with her findings to verify that she was looking in the right

directions with respect to the style and tone I had set up in the script.

Casting

Casting was also completed in two rounds. In the spring of 2012, Jordan Roman was cast

as Kent. After working with Jordan on “Countdown,” I knew I wanted to work with him again

because of his work ethic and his willingness to take direction. Molly is an outstanding actress

from the Elon University acting department. After seeing her work in LA, my decision was

further solidified. She takes direction well and is very good at doing her homework before

  36  

coming to set. The rest of the casting was completed by doing a series of screen tests with

various actors recommended to me. The cast is as follows: Jordan Roman (Kent), Logan Sutton

(Allen), Molly Dougherty (Delilah), Jennifer Roberts (Isabel), Dylan Moon (Johnson), and Kirby

Wahl (Boss).

The Boss was the most difficult to cast. Initially, I contacted a professional actor in the

area to play the Boss. He initially agreed to play the part despite not being paid because he was

interested in the story. However, in later meetings and readings with the actor, he revealed he

wanted to do major changes to the character that would create whole new storylines and plot

questions. He indicated he would reconsider his participation in the project if he wasn’t allowed

to make these changes. After letting him out of his verbal contract, I began looking at actor

professors from Elon to fill the part. Molly Dougherty suggested Professor Kirby Wahl. He

agreed to participate in the production with the condition of only having to be on set for one day.

Production Design

Our production design was established through study of our characters and of gangster

films. One of the locations we dressed ourselves was Kent’s apartment. His living arrangement

was based on Matt Damon’s character from The Departed. Over a series of meetings with the art

department, we established the look and visual style of the film based on concepts and designs in

other films and television series. Brittany created a wardrobe look book for each character based

on the films and influences discussed in our meetings. This look book was then used to acquire

costume elements for each character and to show the actors to give them an idea of their

character’s style. Props were purchased to compliment their characters. For example, Kent’s

gun is purposefully flashier than his brother’s to showcase his tendency to peacock.

  37  

To acquire the wardrobe and props we needed, we raised funds online using Indiegogo.

In total, we raised 750 dollars on top of the 1,000 dollar grant from Elon University. This money

was budgeted to cover the costs of physical items as well as purchasing food and reimbursing

travel costs. The support on Indiegogo mostly came from friends and family of the cast and

crew. For their generosity, our patrons were promised everything from credit as a “Special

Thanks” to posters and copies of the final film, depending on the size of their investment.

Production

Rehearsals

We held formal rehearsals twice before filming: one rehearsal per day of principle

photography. During these rehearsals, we analyzed and performed the scenes for the upcoming

day of production. These rehearsals were important for me as a director to get a feel for the

actor’s understanding of the character as well as establish their approach to delivery. We also

practiced blocking during these rehearsals. Since all of our filming took place on location, we

were unable to practice blocking in the intended locations, but this still allowed the actors to gain

a better understanding of my intentions for each scene. During both rehearsals, the actors asked

questions about my intentions as well as making suggestions for their characters. Particularly in

the second rehearsal, Dylan was worried his character would come off as comically weak if he

followed the blocking directions as written in the script. In order to make his character more

believable, we rewrote his and Jordan’s blocking to make his character more realistic. This kind

of input and collaboration strengthened the story and the characters to bring more tension and

realism to the scenes.

  38  

Principle Photography

Once on set, Claire Gambrell took over all producer duties, including keeping us on time,

managing expenses, coordinating travel and logistics, as well as keeping us on script and shot

list. Even when Claire had to leave for prior commitments, she left instructions and her

production binder with myself or another crewmember to keep us on track. This allowed me to

focus on the visual and acting components of each shot rather than the physical logistics of our

day.

Our first location proved to be one of our more challenging setups. We filmed in a restaurant

with multiple refrigeration units that proved difficult to remove from our soundscape. However,

under the owner of the location was very generous and did not charge us to use his space and

allowed us to unplug all refrigerators while we were filming. I constantly checked with sound

mixer Ben Soldate to make sure there were no audio issues. He would often tell me if we needed

to redo a shot because of the audio or he would let me listen to the take to determine for myself.

More often than not, I would default to his judgment due to his expertise with audio recording. I

also watched only a select few takes on camera and trusted camera operators Kara Johnson and

Jon Smith to tell me if a shot had to be redone. For more complicated or important shots, I asked

to be shown the take to make sure the shot fit with my concept for the scene.

As the day progressed, the crew began to communicate better. We began to set up and

shots and complete set ups faster and more efficiently. Especially when we began working on

more emotionally charged scenes, our crew efficiency helped the actors by not waiting too long

between takes and not causing setups to last too long. My previous experience has taught me

that dragging out emotional setups can be taxing and even detrimental to actors and their

  39  

performances. By time we wrapped for the day, we had a very efficient system for setup and tear

down as well as communication between crewmembers.

One specific example of my trust in the crew is allowing camera operator Jon Smith to

experiment with a first person point of view shot in one of our final and climactic scenes. To

achieve the style of this shot, Jon placed the camera over the actor’s lap. Then, with his eyes

glued to an external monitor, he acted out the movements of a man waking up from

unconsciousness. Jon took in a few deep breathes before lifting the camera as if the character

were raising his head. Then he focused the camera on the actor facing him as if the eyes were

shaking off sleep. Recently, I have become very interested in open-world, role player game

(RPG) style video games that allow you to interact with your world and other characters through

questions and answers and exploration. Whiles these video games tend to tell stories, their

stories are unconventional in that they rely on the decisions of a player. This introduces an

element of unpredictability into the outcome. More than that, these games are always played

from the first person point of view of your digital avatar. This really puts the player into the

perspective of the character, and that’s what we wanted to do for this shot. The choice for point

of view puts the audience much more in the scene than an over-the-shoulder shot, and Jon’s

input really helped make this scene more effective.

Of course, the set was not without its problems. The second day of photography included

a lot of action scenes and long takes that we had not fully blocked out with the camera due to

scheduling conflicts. This meant that a few scenes required more time than scheduled because of

needing to redo takes. In the morning, this was not a problem because the cast and crew were

still energetic and excited. However, by the evening shoot, the day’s struggles had begun to

wear on us. We (particularly myself) became easily frustrated and concerned with completing

  40  

our shots on time. However, the camera and audio crews really came together and made some

compromises in order to capture our scenes. It was this collaboration that saved this day of

photography because if we had continued stubbornly in one direction, we may not have finished

on time.

Public Relations

During production, we had two set photographers. They took photos during set ups and

takes to be posted online later. Aside from adding a pre-designed watermark to the images

before posting them, the photographers selected which photos were posted to the film’s

Facebook page. They were given the simple instructions to not give away any major plot points,

which they had no trouble following. It became a challenge for them to take interesting (almost

teasing) photographers of the set without giving away too much information.

After production wrapped, public relations duties were turned over to Strategic

Communications student Trey Newstedt. Our photographers coordinated with Trey and myself

about specific dates to release photos in order to better control our Facebook page views so when

we released the film online it would receive more internet traffic. Trey was also took lead in

selecting photos for our posters and coordinating digital signage on-campus for our screening.

Postproduction

Editing

Our print takes were synced with their audio clips and transferred to editor Mariah Czap.

She then edited a rough cut together using the script and shot list as guides. I viewed the cut and

made some final suggestions before exporting the video. After exporting, this rough cut was sent

to composer Robert Watts and sound mixer Ben Soldate. Robert had already been working on

  41  

some melodies to use for the score, so he quickly threw together the score for Ben to mix with

the dialog and effects.

This rough cut was then shown to several communications school faculty members and

students for feedback. We received feedback via a Google form, which placed all the answers

together under their corresponding questions. Then, producer Claire Gambrell coded the

feedback based on our ability to complete it with our budget and time constraints (example, a

group of responses were coded as “if time allows” while others were labeled as “to fix in

editing”). Feedback ranged from cutting certain shots to reshooting entire scenes.

For multiple reasons including actors’ schedules and budget, we chose not to reshoot

anything but instead work with what we had. We chose to cut one scene and trim others. We

also significantly tightened up our dialog scenes while adding establishing shots to transition

between different sequences. To avoid having to coordinate with actors for dialog replacement

sessions, we corrected a lot of dialog problems by pulling audio clips from other takes that lined

up with our actor’s mouths. Again, the footage was passed off to the composer and sound mixer.

This time, Robert and I sat down together to listen to and discuss the score. He showed me some

new ideas and we discussed changes that needed to be made. Ben then mixed the score with

improved sound effects and audio filters, and the final product was ready for screening.

The film was screened on campus on April 25, 2013. It was then released online to the

video sharing sites Vimeo and YouTube. We used the film’s Facebook page and our personal

accounts to share the video and create traffic to it. The full film was also linked to previously

released materials so that if fans stumbled upon older material, they were directed to the full

film.

 

  42  

Reflection

Because of the nature the Honors thesis at Elon, I had to maintain a certain amount of

control throughout the process to ensure the appropriate use of grant money as well as ensure the

project was completed on the appropriate timeline. I acted as a producer throughout most of the

process while delegating duties to Claire to make sure everything got done on time. In

postproduction, in order to stay on schedule, I was forced to act as finishing editor while Mariah

was on vacation to ensure our picture locked version was ready for export to our sound team.

Preproduction was probably the most collaborative phase for Voice of Blood. It was when there

was the most input from parties other than myself. As we progressed into postproduction, the

process became less collaborative as I took more control to ensure we finished on budget and on

schedule.

All in all, the application of collaborative theory is imperfect in this instance. The above-the-

line staff (producer, director, etc.) exerted more decision-making control over the production

because of the need to stay within our budget and time constraints. At the same time, we tried to

incorporate the work and ideas of others as often as possible. The screenwriting process was in

particular especially collaborative because of the number of people who had input on the story.

In addition the art department had a lot of influence on the look of the film down to some

seemingly minor costume details.

Based on our experience on this set, I would conclude that practical film production is a

version of collaboration where authorship is shared, but unequally between crewmembers. As

noted in the literature review, authorship is based on intentionality, and the above-the-line crew

put more intentionality forth towards the completion of the production. Therefore, although we

aligned with collaborative theory, other auteur theory is not far from truth as the director perhaps

  43  

exerts the most intentionality towards the completion of a film. This is why the director is often

responsible for the success or failure of the film because he often makes important creative

decisions that guide the process. In the research and in the practice, directors make many of the

creative decisions and is seen by the crew as the decision maker. The producer also has similar

power in that he or she can say yes or no to the director on occasion as well as keeping track of

budget and time to constrain the director. These two positions hold the most power and therefore

authorship in the filmmaking environment.

Voice of Blood

By

David M. Tregde

dtregde@gmail.com

http://tregdemedia.com

FADE IN:

INT. EMPTY BAR - DAY

Dark wood and leather furniture. Well kept, but not

spotless. Light streams in through window with partially

open blinds. Ambitious KENT (late 20s)-dark hair, cold

eyes-and humble ALLEN (late 20s)-dark hair, soft eyes-sit

across from the formidable yet gentle BOSS (mid 50s) at

table. Kent and Allen wear dress shirts and ties. The Boss

is in full suit.

BOSS

You will be my go-to boys when I

need things done and done

well. When I need things done

clean. (Beat) Loyalty, that’s

something you can’t buy. Even if

you could, you wouldn’t want

to. Your father was a good

man. Loyal to his friends. I

expect the same from his sons.

Kent, Allen nod, stand.

ALLEN

We won’t let you down.

BOSS

Sit.

Boss waits for brothers to sit before proceeding.

BOSS

(To Kent)

Can I trust Allen?

KENT

Of course.

BOSS

(To Allen)

Can I trust Kent?

Allen hesitates for a split second.

ALLEN

Yes.

BOSS

If I find out you’re cheating me,

I’ll forget how much your father

did for me.

2.

KENT

You’ve got nothing to worry about.

Boss leans back, folds his hands over his stomach.

BOSS

A man was walking home on a

freezing cold night. He found a

stray dog, freezing to death on the

side of the road. The man felt

sorry for the dog and carried it

home with him. When he got home,

the man put the dog on the floor

near the fire. The dog turned to

the man’s wife and child with a

hungry snarl. The man promptly

buried a fire poker in the dog’s

skull.

Boss leans forward, places his still-folded hands on arm

rests.

BOSS

I’ve taken you into my home and

into my business. Don’t make me

regret it.

The Boss leans back, satisfied with his warning.

BOSS

Now, there has been word one of

Baptiste’s dealers likes to hang

out around 5th and

Williamson. Check it out. And if

he comes around, kindly let him

know he’s far from home.

EXT. ENTRANCE TO BAR - CONTINUOUS

Brothers exit front door. Allen spots self-assured ISABEL

(mid 20s) as he exits. She sees him, smiles. He reaches

out, grabs her hand.

ISABEL

How’d it go?

ALLEN

I can’t wait to show your dad what

I can do.

3.

ISABEL

You’re going to impress him. I know

you will.

Isabel kisses his cheek. They cross the parking lot

together.

ISABEL

Is Kent going to hold up his end?

ALLEN

Yea. Why?

ISABEL

I don’t know. He always just seems

to try too hard.

Allen stops.

ALLEN

What do you mean?

ISABEL

He always has to be better than

everyone else. Especially you.

ALLEN

Well, we’re working together, so we

should be fine.

ISABEL

Okay. Good.

EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - LATE AFTERNOON

Brothers lean against wall. Kent, Allen see shaggy JOHNSON

(20s) approaching on sidewalk corner. Kent taps his brother

and crosses to Johnson with Allen in tow.

KENT

What are you doing here?

JOHNSON

You guys like to party?

Kent steps uncomfortably close to Johnson. He reaches

inside Johnson’s jacket and yanks out a paper bag.

JOHNSON

Piss off. Who do you think--

4.

ALLEN

You’re a long way from home, buddy.

JOHNSON

Fine, I’ll go. Just give me my--

KENT

Uh uh. Call it an insurance policy

against us breaking all the bones

in your body.

Johnson makes another lunge for the cash bag. Kent whips

out a folding knife, bringing it to Johnson’s face.

KENT

If you’re not gone before I take my

next breath, I’m going to take your

face as a souvenir.

Johnson throws up his hands defensively and backs away. He

is compromising, not frightened. The brothers retreat down

the alley. Allen points to the bag of cash.

ALLEN

What are you gonna do with that?

KENT

Take good care of it.

ALLEN

But...stealing from Baptiste?

KENT

Not stealing from him. Stealing

from his idiot dealer.

ALLEN

Okay. Just--

KENT

Be cool, okay?

Kent’s phone RINGS. He checks it, answers.

KENT

Hey sexy. (Pause) What’s up?

(Pause) Are you free later? (Pause)

Swing by my place around 7.

ALLEN

Who was that?

Kent looks at his brother as if Allen should already know

the answer.

5.

KENT

Delilah.

ALLEN

She’s a nice girl. You should take

her out sometime.

KENT

When I need advice from you, I’ll

ask for it.

ALLEN

I’m just saying. Might be nice to

get out. Spend some of that money

you just got.

KENT

Oh, I know how to spend my

share. Don’t worry about that.

The brothers turn, look out at the alley.

INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT

One lamp lighting mostly bare room. Couch, floor neat and

sterile with pillows, blankets, magazines. Kent and

manipulative DELILAH (late 20s) sitting on couch, rigidly

cuddling. Kent wears white t-shirt, dark jeans. Delilah

wears skinny jeans, red top. Light flickers from the TV.

KENT

You’re right. That extra 10 inches

makes a difference.

DELILAH

I told you. You’ll never be able

to watch on a little TV again.

KENT

Yea, well I’m not planning on

downsizing at this point.

DELILAH

Where do you want to go eat?

KENT

I don’t care.

DELILAH

You must have some idea what you

want.

Kent shrugs.

6.

DELILAH

There’s this new Japanese place on

10th I want to try.

KENT

I really shouldn’t be down past

7th.

DELILAH

Come on.

KENT

Delilah...I can’t.

DELILAH

This is ridiculous.

KENT

There’s plenty of nice restaurants

on this side of town.

DELILAH

I hate that stupid rule.

KENT

The two families get along as long

as we all stay on our own

turf. It’s for our own good.

DELILAH

It’s for your own good. I can go

wherever I want.

KENT

Let’s just go to Rico’s.

DELILAH

God, I’m so sick of this.

KENT

Well, what do you want me to do?

Quit? Yea, that’s a good idea.

DELILAH

Well something has to change--

KENT

I’m working on it, okay?

DELILAH

I’m not going to limit my life for

you.

7.

KENT

I promise. Sooner than later.

Delilah lays her head on Kent’s shoulder.

DELILAH

I don’t want to look back and ask

why we didn’t take any risks. I

don’t want to be stuck here

forever. We deserve more.

Delilah looks up to make sure Kent heard her.

EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - DUSK

Allen sees Johnson dealing to scruffy COLLEGE KID

(20s). Allen walks toward Johnson, but Johnson notices and

runs away. Allen pursues.

EXT. BACK ALLEY - DUSK (CONTINUOUS)

Allen rounds the corner, nearly running into Kent.

ALLEN

Whoa. Hey. Did you see, uhhh...

Allen looks behind Kent.

KENT

See who?

ALLEN

That dealer. That guy who we

scared off the other day.

KENT

Oh him? Nope. No one down there.

ALLEN

You sure? I could have sworn he--

KENT

Too young to be losing it, bro.

ALLEN

Guess I’m just paranoid.

KENT

Why don’t you head back. I’ll keep

an eye out for him.

8.

Allen retreats. Kent turns back down the alley. He

approaches Johnson behind a dumpster, pulling out a tooth

pick to chew on.

JOHNSON

I don’t know why you did that--

KENT

Because now you owe me.

JOHNSON

I don’t understand--

KENT

You keep dealing around here, and

it’s a problem for everyone. You

cut me in, and I’ll protect you.

JOHNSON

Screw you. I don’t need--

Kent opens his jacket to show his gun. Johnson looks.

JOHNSON

Be cool.

KENT

We can do this my way, or let the

bosses handle it.

Johnson looks away, frustrated.

KENT

It’s a good neighborhood. They

like to spend here.

JOHNSON

Fine.

Johnson shakes Kent’s hand reluctantly.

INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT

Kent pours money out of paper bag. Delilah sits on couch,

eyes lit, hungry. She grabs a stack of cash.

DELILAH

What do we do with it?

KENT

Whatever we want.

9.

DELILAH

Maybe a house? Over in Raintree?

KENT

We’re not there yet.

DELILAH

But we will be.

KENT

I’m good at what I do.

DELILAH

And you should be rewarded for

doing such a good job.

Delilah leans in and pushes Kent down on the couch.

EXT. LOCAL COFFEE SHOP - NIGHT

Allen and Isabel walk down street with coffee.

ALLEN

How many shots of espresso did you

get in that?

ISABEL

Don’t want to fall asleep on you.

ALLEN

I could always carry you home.

Isabel takes Allen’s hand.

ISABEL

You know what I keep thinking

about?

ALLEN

What?

ISABEL

That one time as kids when your dad

dropped you and Kent off at our

house. I was a princess and you

two were my knights. Remember

that?

ALLEN

Kind of. Yeah.

10.

ISABEL

I know it’s cheesy, but it would

still be nice to have a fairy tale

ending.

ALLEN

It is a little cliche, but it

sounds nice.

The couple walks hand in hand down street.

INT. EMPTY BAR - NIGHT

Boss folds hands. Kent chews on tooth pick.

BOSS

Years of peace. I don’t want to

start a war. This guy...what’s his

name--

KENT

Johnson--

BOSS

--just can’t take a hint?

ALLEN

Maybe this is a bigger move by the

Baptiste family?

BOSS

No, Baptiste has no idea. Says the

guy is acting all on his own. I

believe him.

KENT

If this guy is on his own, then he

isn’t protected by the family.

BOSS

(To Kent)

Take care of this. No mess. There

was once a man sitting

outdoors. An ant crawled up the

man’s leg and bit him. The man

slapped his leg trying to kill the

ant, but the ant had already

escaped. The man’s leg now stung

from both the bite and the

slap. Don’t overreact to a small

problem.

11.

KENT

You can count on me.

Kent smiles slightly, straightens jacket before exiting.

INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT

Kent thumbs through a stack of bills. Delilah sits next to

him, rubbing his back. Kent chews tooth pick.

KENT

Not sure how long we can keep this

up. Boss is getting suspicious.

DELILAH

(Whispering in his ear)

Whatever it takes, my hero.

Kent grabs his leather jacket, wool-knit cap, and his gun

before crossing to door. Delilah catches him at the door.

DELILAH

Be careful. I don’t know what I’d

do without you.

KENT

The hero always comes back.

EXT. 5TH AND WILLIAMSON - NIGHT

Kent and Allen approach the alley from the street. Johnson

stands with his back to them.

KENT

Let me handle this.

Allen turns to watch the alley. Kent grabs Johnson and pins

him against the wall, keeping his voice down. Allen starts

to slowly approach.

KENT

It’s getting too hot man. You need

to clear out of here.

JOHNSON

(Too loudly)

You said you’d handle this.

KENT

Shut up! (Beat) I will. You just

need to disappear for a while.

12.

JOHNSON

I was doing fine til you showed up.

KENT

Until I saved you, you mean. (Beat)

You’re mine.

JOHNSON

Nawww. You’re on you’re own. I’m

out. You can take your deal and

shove it. I’m gonna tell Baptiste

you made me deal over here--

On "made me," Kent whips out his pistol and FIRES into

Johnson’s abdomen before Johnson can return

fire. Allen rushes up as Kent fires three more

times. Allen grabs Kent’s shoulder and whips him around.

ALLEN

What are you doing?

KENT

Cleaning up.

ALLEN

Yeah. You’re mess. What deal did

you have with this guy?

KENT

Nothing.

ALLEN

You were letting him deal down here

and taking a cut, weren’t you?

Kent puts his gun in his jacket, adjust his hat.

ALLEN

I can’t believe you.

KENT

This is what it takes.

ALLEN

This isn’t what it was like with

dad.

KENT

Yea, well he’s dead, isn’t

he? Kind of hard to teach lessons

from the grave.

Kent storms off, leaving Allen with Johnson’s body.

13.

INT. CHURCH SANCTUARY - NIGHT

Allen sits, hands folded in prayer, forehead on the pew in

front of him. Isabel enters. Allen raises head.

ISABEL

What’s wrong?

ALLEN

Kent.

ISABEL

Is he okay?

ALLEN

It just wasn’t enough for him.

ISABEL

What happened?

ALLEN

I found out something today that’s

not going to go over well.

Isabel looks in his eyes, encouraging him to finish his

thought.

ALLEN

Kent. He protected one of

Baptiste’s dealers on our side of

town. Then he killed the guy for

threatening to tell Baptiste.

Isabel continues to study Allen’s face.

ISABEL

What are you going to do?

ALLEN

Don’t say anything to your

dad. I’ll fix this.

Isabel turns, looks straight ahead. She reaches over, grabs

Allen’s hand.

INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT

Kent paces in front of Delilah sitting on the couch.

DELILAH

What are you going to do?

14.

KENT

If you would just shut up for a

minute, then I could think. I

wouldn’t be having to deal with

this problem if it wasn’t for your

delusions of grandeur.

DELILAH

You did this. Don’t blame me.

Kent’s phone vibrates. He reads text.

KENT

Allen wants to talk.

DELILAH

Well at least one of you has

balls. What are you going to do?

KENT

Allen knows. A lot.

Kent pulls out toothpick and begins chewing

forcefully. Delilah stands beside him, runs her finger

along his shoulder and neck, addressing him soothingly.

DELILAH

We can run this town. You and me.

She leans forward and kisses his neck. Disinterest oozes

from Kent’s unwavered breathing. Kent crosses to door.

KENT

Don’t wait up for me.

DELILAH

I wasn’t planning on it.

INT. CHURCH SANCTUARY - NIGHT

Allen stands in silence. He loosens his tie. Kent enters

chewing on a toothpick, disturbing the silence.

ALLEN

I’m in a real spot here, Kent.

Kent chews tooth pick.

ALLEN

I think I can protect you. I just

need you to let me handle it.

15.

KENT

I’m not going to do that.

ALLEN

You’ve killed the goose. There are

no more golden eggs.

KENT

You talk like him now?

ALLEN

You’ve got to let me help.

KENT

I don’t need you.

ALLEN

Yes you do. You’ve gotten yourself

so deep into this mess you can’t

get out on your own.

KENT

I took care of the problem. What’s

the big deal?

ALLEN

The big deal is you killed a man

because you made a bad deal. You

made a stupid deal, and now you’re

gonna have to pay for it unless I

help.

KENT

(Half-mumbled)

Well you’re the only one who knows

about the deal.

ALLEN

What?

KENT

I know what I’m going to do.

ALLEN

What, Kent? What’s your master

plan?

Kent draws his gun and FIRES, narrowly missing Allen. Allen

takes cover behind a pew, drawing his own gun. He starts to

cock it, but stops.

16.

ALLEN

Kent! I’m not going to do this.

Allen stands, removes the clip from his gun, places both on

the ground. He crosses to center aisle, looking down each

row of pews to see nothing. Kent fires one shot in Allen’s

back. Allen falls to the ground. Kent plugs two more

rounds into Allen’s barely living body. He stands over his

brother.

INT. EMPTY BAR - DAY

Kent enters, forcefully chews toothpick. Boss sits, hands

folded on table.

BOSS

Where’s Allen, Kent?

KENT

Haven’t you heard from him?

Boss shakes head.

BOSS

Neither has Isabel.

KENT

I’m sure it’s nothing.

BOSS

I wish that were true.

Boss nods to DARK FIGURE behind Kent. Dark Figure pistol

whips Kent on the back of the head, knocking him

unconscious.

INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT

Kent fades in and out of consciousness to the sounds of a

buzzing noise.

Kent finally wakes, he feels a dull burning in his neck. He

is shirtless, tied to a chair, his neck wrapped in plastic

wrap. He grunts, unable to form words with his thick,

semiconscious tongue. He struggles half-heartedly at his

bonds.

BOSS

"For whatever one sows, that he

will also reap."

17.

KENT

What?

BOSS

You stole from me, Kent.

KENT

Never took anything.

BOSS

You stole from me when you killed

that dealer. Johnson.

KENT

I would never--

Boss leans down into Kent’s face.

BOSS

And then you killed your own

brother.

KENT

How--

BOSS

One thing I learned early on is you

never do your own dirty

work. That’s why I’m in charge,

Kent. I know how things work.

KENT

I’m sure there’s something I can--

BOSS

NO! There’s nothing you could

offer me that could replace what

you’ve taken. From me or from

Isabel. I don’t think she’ll ever

forgive me for putting Allen in

danger.

KENT

What are you going to do?

BOSS

I wanted to shoot you in the back

like you did to your brother,

but Isabel wouldn’t let me. So I

came up with an alternative.

18.

Boss unties Kent. Kent sits up, reaching for his neck,

which is wrapped in plastic wrap. He pulls off the wrap,

wincing in pain. The boss holds up a mirror to reveal the

words "Brother’s Keeper" tattooed on either side of Kent’s

throat

BOSS

People can forget their

mistakes. But you’ll remember what

you’ve done. You killed your own

flesh and blood.

Kent looks at the Boss: anger, frustration. The Boss turns

his back, puts his hands behind him.

BOSS

A queen bee brought an offering to

the Mother Nature. She promised

the queen anything in return. The

queen bee asked for a stinger that

would kill anyone that got in her

way. Nature gave her this gift,

but told her that using this

stinger would mean risking her own

life. Because once used, the

stringer would remain in the victim

and she would die without it.

(Beat) Death comes home to those

who desire to kill.

Kent puts his head in his hands.

BOSS

Killing family is bad

business. Always.

Kent buttons shirt.

BOSS

If any one of my boys sees you, you

won’t see the next sunset.

Kent stands.

BOSS

When we went to your place to

retrieve Baptiste’s money, it

wasn’t there.

The boss pulls a house key out of his pocket and places it

in Kent’s hand.

19.

BOSS

We will get the money back.

EXT. SMALL TOWN STREET - NIGHT

Delilah walks down street towards her car, hips swaying,

confident. Her purse is full of cash. Her eyes smile.

Dark Figure walks out of shadow, following behind Delilah

wearing a dark wool hat and large heavy jacket. Delilah

turns, worried look, speeds up her pace.

Dark Figure slowly draws gun. GUNSHOTS. Delilah falls to

the ground. Dark Figure takes Delilah’s purse.

INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT

Kent stands, grabs his clothes, exits. Boss sits with hands

folded on table. He lowers head, rubs temples.

INT. KENT’S DEN - NIGHT (LATER)

Kent frantically rushes in with duffel bag. He grabs bottle

of whiskey and a glass and quickly downs a drink. He grabs

his gun and stuffs it in his jacket.

A KNOCK at the door. Kent draws his gun, slowly approaches

the door and answers. Isabel stands, waiting like a marble

statue. She wears the hat and jacket we recognize from Dark

Figure. Kent lowers his gun.

ISABEL

You killed my knight.

Isabel pulls out a gun from under her jacket and FIRES into

Kent’s chest. He falls to the ground gasping as the world

slowly fades to black, holding his chest as his life

fountains out.

FADE OUT

INT. BOSS’S GARAGE - NIGHT

ALTERNATE ENDING:

Boss is putting away materials from tattooing. Isabel

enters and drops Delilah’s purse full of cash. The only

light on them comes from directly overhead. Boss looks at

her then down at the bags. His eyes betray his deep pain at

dragging his daughter into the business.

20.

He reaches out and pulls her to him in a deep

embrace. Isabel looks straight ahead, empty and dark.

FADE OUT

Department Name Role DutiesProduction

Nicole TricheExecutive Producer(Honors Thesis Mentor)

"crucial…in ensuring that the project goesinto production." (Thanks Wikipedia)

Claire GambrellProducer/ProductionManager Keep schedule, manage daily budget

David Tregde Writer/Director/ProducerHiring/Casting, running tablereads/rehearsals, on-set directorial duties

Michael Tahan Assistant DirectorCall sheets, script supervision,set/cast/crew management

Mia Watkins Associate Producer Contact/secure locations, assist Producer

CameraKara Johnson Director of Photography Lighting/framing, camera operationJon Smith 1st AC/Key Grip Jib operator, lighting, etc.

Bryan Cross Best Boy (Grip)Assist with lighting/camera setups,equipment management

Art DepartmentBrittany Barbieri Production Designer Set/costume designTina Tozzi Makeup artist Actor makeup, tattoo/blood effects

Avery Ecker Prop/Costume SupervisorProp/costume management, setdecoration

SoundBen Soldate Production Sound Mixer On-set sound mixingMadeleine StokowskiBoom Pole Operator Sound recording

EditingMariah Czap Editor Final video editingBobby Watts Composer/Sound mixer Original music, sound mixing?

Special Projects

Tyler Oberle BTS VideographerDocument our on-set activites andinteractions

Will Simon Set Photographer Production/set photos, poster images

/RFDWLRQ &RQWDFW�,QIR $UHD�5HDVRQ�IRU�XVH 3LWFK/RFDWLRQ5HVSRQVH

-D]DEHOV�-D]]�%LVWURKWWS���MD]HEHOVMD]]ELVWUR�ZHEV�FRP�FRQWDFWXV�KWP %DU�VFHQHV�ZLWK�PRE�%RVV

(PSKDVL]H�WKH�VWXGHQW�ILOP�DVSHFW��ZH�GRQW�KDYH�PRQH\�WRUHDOO\�SD\�IRU�WKH�VSDFH��DQG�ZH�NQRZ�WKH\YH�ZRUNHG�ZLWKRWKHU�VWXGHQW�ILOPPDNHUV�� <HV

(ORQ�&RPPXQLW\�&KXUFK KWWS���ZZZ�HORQFRPPXQLW\FKXUFK�RUJ� &OLPDFWLF�VFHQHV�EHWZHHQ�WZR�EURWKHUV (PSKDVL]H�WKH�%LEOLFDO�DOOXVLRQV�EHLQJ�PDGH�

<HV��MXVW�FKHFNZLWK�WKHP�RQ�ZKDWGD\�ZHUH�FRPLQJ

$OO�WKDW�-$6 KWWS���DOOWKDWMDV�FRP�$ERXW8V�KWP6RPH�VFHQHV�WR�RFFXU�EHKLQG�WKH�VWRUHLQ�WKH�DOOH\ZD\

(PSKDVL]H�WKH�VWXGHQW�ILOP�VLGH���:H�DUH�PRUH�RU�OHVVDOHUWLQJ�WKHP�WKDW�ZH�ZLOO�EH�VKRRWLQJ�EHKLQG�WKHLU�VWRUH�IURQWVR�LWV�QRW�D�VXUSULVH���(PSKDVL]H�WKDW�LWV�LQ�-DQXDU\�DQGSUREDEO\�DW�QLJKW� <HV

0LOO�3RLQW�$SDUWPHQW�%XLOGLQJ������$SW������ .HQWV�KRPH <HV

&/7�(;7(5,256 <HV

Month Day Cast Crew Action DetailsDecember ALL Questions ASK ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS YOU HAVE

22 David T., Jon S. Reserve equipmentI will reserve normal equipment. Jon will reservejib asap for Jan. 12

29 David T., Jon S. Reserve equipmentI will reserve normal equipment. Jon will reservejib asap for Jan. 12

January 1

David T., Michael T.,Claire G., Mia W.,Will S., Kara J.,Benjamin S.,

Call sheets,questions, prep

Create call sheets to send to cast/crew for Jan.5th. Specify costumes/equipment needed. Notewhat times certain actors will be called. Checkequipment, procedures.

4 ALL ANY/ALL Rehearsal Rehearse scenes for next day. Location TBD.5 ALL ALL Day 1 of filming See shoot schedule6 Michael T., David T. Call sheets Call sheets for day 2 of filming.

11 ALL ANY/ALL Rehearsal Rehearse scenes for next day. Location TBD.12 ALL ALL Day 2 of filming See shoot schedule

13Jordan R., LoganS., Dylan M. ALL Day 3 of filming See shoot schedule

19 TBD TBD Reshoots Only if needed. Please keep open if possible!

Characters

SceneWardrobeNumber Kent Allen Delilah Boss Isabel Johnson [Props]

1 1

Colored shirt, brighttie Plain shirt, striped tie Suit, blue tie

2 Same + winter jacket Same + winter jacketDress, boots,winter jacket

3 2Jeans, t-shirt, leatherjacket

Jeans, button down,jacket

Jeans, boots,hoodie, winterjacket

Paper bag, money,butterfly knife

4 (No jacket)Red top, darkpants

5 3Jeans, skinny tie,jacket

Same, differentshirt

6 Same, different shirt Same Kent's gun

7 4 Flashy button downRed dress, blacktights Money

8 5 Button down or polo Jeans, purple top?9 6 Flashy button down Blue shirt, loose tie Dark suit, purple tie Toothpick

10

7

Dark t-shirt, wool cap,leather jacket

Red or black top,jeans

Money, Kent's gun,toothpick

11Wool cap, scarf,hoodie, jacket Same as usual

12 Blue or purple top1314 Both guns, toothpick

15

8

Leather jacket, flashyt-shirt

Light/grey suit,purple tie

Black wool cap,black overcoat

16 (Shirtless) (Tie loosened)

17Red jacket, blacktop, black jeans

18

19 Add jacket, hat

Duffel bag, surplusclothes, bottle, glass,Kent's gun Isabel'sgun

20

Scene # Description Set Props Character Props Notes Links1 Empty Bar/Boss intro Christmas lights Cuff links (Boss)

2 Entrance to bar/parking lot Allen's car

3 Kent and Allen threaten Johnson Paper bag

Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers

Folding knifeTactical foldingknife/Butterfly Knife?? http://www.amazon.com/MTECH-USA-MT-343B-Tactical-Folding/dp/B001F4SK3Y/ref=sr_1_7?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-7http://www.amazon.com/United-Cutlery-UC8007-Rescue-Folder/dp/B00436Y4KE/ref=sr_1_12?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-12http://www.amazon.com/Black-Tom-Anderson-Kult-Folder/dp/B001CPEZ62/ref=sr_1_14?m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=outdoor-recreation&ie=UTF8&qid=1348430859&sr=1-14

Cell phones

4 Kent and Delilah reveling in riches LampCouch pillowsBlanketMagazinesLarge TV

5,6 Kent and Johnson make a deal Toothpick

Kent's GunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274

7 Delilah schemes(same as previousapt scene)

Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers

8 Kent and Isabel's date Coffee cupsgeneric-style cups withlids

9 Boss get's wise Toothpicks

10 Kent decides to change the deal.(same as previousapt scene) Paper bag

Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers

11 Kent murders Toothpicks

Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274

Driving gloves Like the gloves in Drive

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004C443RG/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&psc=1&s=apparel

12 Isabel meets Allen at the church

13 Kent makes another choice(same as previousapt scene) Cell phone

14 Kent kills again Toothpick

Driving gloves Like the gloves in Drive

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004C443RG/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&psc=1&s=apparel

Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274

Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574

15 The Boss takes charge Henchman pistolUse black gun I alreadyhave

dark wool knit capdark wool jacket

16 The Boss gives Kent the lowdown plastic wrap tattoo makeupChair

17 Delilah's downfall Fake money

Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574

dark wool knit capdark wool jacket

19 Kent's escape attempt(same as previousapt scene)

duffel bagwhiskey bottledrinking glass

Kent's gunWG 1911 Full size CO2airsoft pistol, two tone

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=6274

Allen's gunTSD 1911 CO2 blowback(brown grip)

http://www.airsoftgi.com/product_info.php?cPath=408_424&products_id=5574

dark wool knit capdark wool jacket

20 Alternate ending purse

Fake money Hollywood Propsellershttp://stores.ebay.com/propsellers

dark wool knit capdark wool jacket

PURCHASESFake MoneyGlovesHand mirrorLarge, black jacketSet propsToothpicks

Dept. Elon Television 1/4/2012 1/11/2012 Tregde Media

Camera

T3i (50mm f1.4, Rode mic, kit lens) X X T2i (50mm f2)2 Tripods X X Zacuto Z-finderPocket Dolly X XIndie Dolly X XVarizoom shoulder rig X XGlideCam X XVideo monitor X XSlate X XJib

Lighting

Rifa X X Can lightsKino Flo X X China ballSports Com light kit X XFlag Bag X XReflector Kit X X

Sound

3 Zoom recorders X X Mic stand2 Sennheiser boom mics X XRode boom mic X X2 boom poles X X2 lav mics X X2 Xlr cables X X

Misc.

4 sandbags X X Gaff tape2 C-stands Velcro ties2 extension cords X X2 LED light panel X

BTS

Panasonic X XBattery X XPanasonic charger X X

Scene Time Description Characters LocationCostume Notes

Day 1Saturday,Jan. 52012

1 8:00-10:00 Opening Scene at bar Boss, Allen, Kent J Wardrobe 19 10:00-11:00 Boss demanding change in tactics Boss, Allen, Kent J Wardrobe 6

15 11:00-12:00 Kent is rendered unconscious at bar Boss, Kent, Isabell J Wardrobe 82 12:00-1:00 Allen, Isabel leaving bar Kent, Allen, Isabell J Wardrobe 1

16,18 3:00-5:00 Kent wakes in Boss's garage Boss, Kent R Wardrobe 820 5:00-6:00 Alternate Ending Boss, Isabel R Wardrobe 819 8:00-10:00 Kent's death Kent, Isabel M Wardrobe 8

[2NDUNIT]DAY 1JAN. 52012

5 3:00-4:00pm Allen sees/chases Johnson Allen, Johnson B Wardrobe 2

[2nd UNIT] Dir: Michael Tahan; Camera: Jon Smith; Sound: Ben Soldate; AP: Mia Watkins

Day 2Saturday,Jan. 122012

3 9:00-10:00 1st interaction with JohnsonKent, Allen,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 2

6 11:00-12:00 Kent Protects JohnsonAllen, Kent,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 3

12 1:00-2:00 Allen & Isabel in church Allen, Isabel ECC Wardrobe 714 2:00-5:00 Shootout in church Kent, Allen ECC Wardrobe 719 6:00-7:00 Pickups: Isabel & Kent Kent, Isabel M Wardrobe 8

4 7:00-8:00 Kent and Delilah 1 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 27 8:00-8:45 Kent and Delilah 2 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 4

10 8:45-9:30 Kent and Delilah 3 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 713 9:30-10:15 Kent and Delilah 4 Kent, Delilah M Wardrobe 7

[ 2NDUNIT]Day 2SaturdayJan. 12,2012

8 11:00-12:00 Allen and Isabel coffee scene Allen, Isabel ETCS Wardrobe 5

[2nd UNIT] Dir: Michael Tahan; Camera: Jon Smith; Sound: Ben Soldate; AP: Mia Watkins

Day 3SundayJan. 13,2012

11 6:00-8:00pm Johnson's deathKent, Allen,Johnson ETCA Wardrobe 7

Simultaneous 2nd Unit scene in downtown Burlington.

17 6:00-7:00pm Delilah's death Delilah, Isabel B Wardrobe 8

LocationLegendJ Jazabel'sR Roussel ResidenceM Mill Point ApartmentETCA Elon Town Center alleyETCS ETC streetB Downtown Burlington

ECCElon CommunityChurch

Scene Framing Equipment Description1 EST W Glidecam Push in on bar

1A CU-MIndie or PocketDolly

MASTER: Slow dolly back from the back of the boss's headto reveal the two brothers.

1B CU-MIndie or PocketDolly

Slow dolly back from boss's face to reveal back of brothers'heads

1C MCU Tripod Two shot of brothers' reactions, standing1C-a CU Tripod Kent's response + reaction shots1C-b CU Tripod Allen's response + reaction shots1D CU Tripod Boss from "Can I trust Allen?" through end of scene

2A W-M TripodMASTER: Brothers exit. Camera pans as Allen approachesIsabel.

2B M-MCU TripodAllen/Isabel leave previous frame to enter this one. Theyapproach camera.

2C MCU Glidecam Track backwards with couple

3A W Tripod Brothers leaning against wall3B W Tripod Shot down alley as Johnson passes entrance3C M Shoulder rig Shoulder tap and follow brothers as they pursue Johnson.3D MCU Shoulder rig On sidewalk, pan and follow brothers to Johnson.3E-a CU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage3E-b CU Shoulder rig Johnson's dialog coverage3F CU Shoulder rig Kent taking cash. Follow-tilt with knife (do as pickup)3G M Shoulder rig Same setup as 3D. Brothers approach camera3H-a CU Shoulder rig Kent's coverage from phone call3H-b CU Shoulder rig Allen's coverage from phone call3J M Shoulder rig Same setup as 3D/3G. Brothers turning down alley.

4 EST W Tripod Static, tilt down on upper level apt. complex4A-a M Pocket Dolly Push in on the back of Kent and Delilah's heads4A-b M Pocket Dolly Push in on Kent, Delilah. Hold thru Kent's shrug.4B-a MCU Tripod Delilah's dialog coverage thru "This is ridiculous"4B-b MCU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage "There's plenty of nice..."4C-a CU Tripod Delilah's dialog coverage from "I hate that stupid rule."4C-b CU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage "The two families..."4D MCU Tripod Two shot from "I promise"

5A MCU Shoulder rig Allen walking into frame, reaction to Johnson, pursuing.5B M Shoulder rig Johnson dealing, seeing Allen, taking off. down street.5C W Shoulder rig Across the street of the chase.

6A MCU Shoulder rig Outside alley, panning with Allen as he runs into Kent6B-a CU Shoulder rig Allen's dialog coverage6B-b CU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage6C M Shoulder rig Follow Kent into alley; Johnson's reveal.6C-a MCU Shoulder rig Johnson's dialog coverage6C-b MCU Shoulder rig Kent's dialog coverage6C-c CU Shoulder rig Kent showing gun6C-d CU Shoulder rig Hand's shaking

7A MCU Tripod Overhead of money poured on table

7B MCU TripodTwo-shot of Kent/Delilah dialog. She pushes him out offrame.

8A M Glidecam Track backwards with characters.8B CU HH/Glidecam Isabel taking Allen's hand

8C MCU Tripod Couple sitting on bench to continue dialog

9A M Tripod Brothers two-shot, Kent chewing toothpick.9B MCU Tripod Tilt up from Boss's nervous hands on his dialog9C-a MCU Tripod Kent's dialog coverage. Tilt/pan when he leaves9C-b MCU Tripod Allen's dialog coverage9C-c MCU Tripod Boss's monolog9D MCU-M Shoulder rig Kent's last line, leaving

10A MCU Shoulder rigTilt up from Kent sorting bills to reveal Delilah rubbing hisback.

10B CU Shoulder rig Delilah's lips on Kent's ear

10C MCU Shoulder rigFollow Kent as he gears up to leave. Long take throughend.

11A M Shoulder rig

Follow brothers from sidewalk to alley, revealing Johnson.Allen turns to face alley. Kent approaches Johnson.Camera follows Kent.

11B M Shoulder rig

(Possible continuation of 11A) Two-shot with actors inprofile, moving camera to whichever actor speaks. Keepuntil Kent pulls pistol and shoots.

11C-a MCU Shoulder rigFranticly follow Allen as he runs up to Kent. Kent's dialogcoverage.

11C-b MCU Shoulder rig Allen's dialog coverage. Tilt down to Johnson's body at end.

12 EST W Tripod Static/tilt up on ext of church12A W Jib MASTER: Jib down as Isabel enters/approaches Allen.12B-a MCU Tripod Profile of Allen as Isabel sits. Allen dialog coverage12B-b MCU Tripod Isabel's dialog coverage12C MCU Tripod Two-shot from behind12D CU Tripod? Overhead of hands12E CU Tripod/HH Cross/Christ figure

13A M Shoulder rig MASTER: Follow Kent, move to Delilah on line. Long take13B-a MCU Shoulder rig Kent dialog coverage from text message thru end of scene13B-b MCU Shoulder rig Delilah dialog coverage from text thru end of scene

14A W Tripod Allen in aisle. See reaction to Kent entering14B-a M Shoulder rig Kent entering, dialog coverage14B-b M Shoulder rig Allen dialog coverage14C-a MCU Shoulder rig Kent dialog from "You talk like him now?"14C-b MCU Shoulder rig Allen dialog from "You've got to let me help"14D-a CU Shoulder rig Kent: "Well you're the only one who knows."14D-b CU Shoulder rig Allen: "What?"14E-a MCU Fig rig Follow gun as Kent whips it out and fires.14E-b MCU Fig rig Follow Allen as he dives behind pew, draws gun, line.14E-c MCU Fig rig Slow motion shot of 14E-b14F MCU Fig rig Allen coming out, line, search.14G M Fig rig POV of Allen's search

14H W Fig rigFocus on Allen, Kent stands in shot, fires. Allen falls out offrame

14J W Shoulder rigAt end of aisle, Allen's legs sticking out. Kent approaches.Fires into body.

15A MCU Shoulder rig OTS from Boss as Kent enters sits.15B MCU Shoulder rig Boss's dialog coverage15C-a CU Shoulder rig Kent dialog from "I'm sure it's nothing."15C-b CU Shoulder rig Boss dialog coverage

15D MCU Fig rig Follow shot of dark figure

16A CU Fig rig Shot of light going in and out of focus16B CU Tripod Kent's face. Slowly roll into focus. Kent dialog coverage16C M-MCU Tripod Boss steps into light. Dialog coverage16D M Tripod Profile two-shot when Boss leans down to Kent.16E ECU Fig rig Boss unwrapping Kent's neck. Don't reveal anything yet.16F CU Tripod Kent OTS as he holds up mirror and reveals tattoo.16G-a MCU Tripod Boss dialog coverage after tattoo reveal16G-b MCU Tripod Kent coverage thru end/scene 18.

17A MCU Shoulder rigTrack back with Delilah. See panic in her eyes when DarkFigure appears

17B ECU Fig rig Overhead Delilah's purse filled with cash17C CU Shoulder rig OTS Dark Figure as it follows Delilah17D-a CU Sandbag Ground shot of Dark figure's steps coming to a stop.17D-b CU Sandbag Ground shot of purse getting picked up.

19A MCU Fig rig Quick and jerky. Whip between Kent and bag as he packs.

19B MCU Fig rigOTS follow as Kent rushes into kitchen, grabs whiskey. Seereaction of door knock.

19B-b W Fig rig Door

19C M Fig rigWhip up from Kent's drawn gun to his face as he slowlyapproaches door.

19D CU Fig rig Kent's hand turning door knob.19F-a MCU Tripod Isabel OTS of Kent lowering gun19F-b MCU Tripod Isabel dialog19G-a M Tripod Isabel drawing gun, firing.19G-b MCU Tripod Kent falling out of frame

19H M Tripod/Pocket dollyOverhead of Kent dying. Use pocket dolly as crane acrossKent's body.

20A W Tripod Boss sitting in chair. Delilah entering.20B W-M Tripod Boss OTS of Delilah approaching

20C MCU GlidecamCircle around from Boss's face to Isabel's. Alternately, dotwo shots on tripod.

Funder Amount Perk Method PerkClaire Gambrell $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 PosterPatty Gliniewicz $50.00 Co-producer Paypal Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJordan Roman $25.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJordan Roman $25.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/Preview

Mark Tregde $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy

John Tregde $35.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/PreviewJonathan Tregde $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster

Total Raised $285.00Fees -$26.95

Sub Total $258.05

Don Schneider $50.00 Co-producer Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster/Preview

Gregory Roman $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy

Keith & Loretta Jones $25.00 Special Thanks Credit Card Credit/14x11 Poster

Leslie Roman $100.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit/Full Poster/Digital Copy

Curt Feldman $200.00ExecutiveProducer Credit Card Credit

Total Raised $465.00Fees

Sub Total $723.05

Elon UniversityHonors Program grant $1,000.00

Grand Total $1,723.05

Item/Description Price Date Store Method Purchaser Reimbursed? From? Legend50mm prime lens $107.00 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo ReimbursedZacuto z-finder jr $165.00 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo Not reimbursedGaff tape $14.49 9/13/2012 B&H Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo Pending reimbursementWG 1911 Full size CO2 airsoftpistol, two tone $75.00 Airsoft GI Credit Card David Tregde YES IndiegogoTSD 1911 CO2 blowback (browngrip) $75.00 Airsoft GI Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo32GB Sandisk SD Card $29.88 11/8/2012 Best Buy Debit David Tregde YES IndiegogoButterfly trainer $33.52 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde NO HNRDinner meeting $20.73 11/28/2012 The Root Credit Card David Tregde YES Indiegogo

Magic Bullet Cosmo $59.40 12/11/2012Red GiantSoftware Paypal David Tregde YES Indiegogo

Record Album Frames (8) $63.98 12/14/2012 Target Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRCouch pillows, heavy coat, etc. $13.90 12/15/2012 Goodwill Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRFollow focus/Jar grip $4.92 12/18/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde Out of pocketDriving gloves $24.99 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde Out of pocket HNRMakeup order $96.09 12/26/2012 FXwarehouse Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRMakeup sponges $11.00 12/26/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRProp Money $36.96 12/26/2012 eBay Paypal David Tregde YES HNRLens rentals (both weekends) $141.44 12/26/2012 Lens Rentals Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRDriving gloves $15.28 12/26/2012 Amazon Credit Card David Tregde YES HNR

CO2 cannisters $21.99 12/26/2012Dick's SportingGoods Cash David Tregde YES HNR

Craft Services $88.92 12/26/2012 Sam's Club Credit Card Mark Tregde YES HNRCan light and batteries $11.99 12/26/2012 Harbor Freight Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRTies $4.27 12/29/2012 Goodwill Cash David Tregde YES HNRCostumes (Kent) $41.71 TJ Max Cash Jordan Roman YES HNRCraft Services $62.44 1/2/2013 Walmart Credit Card David Tregde YES HNRCorn Syrup $1.83 1/5/2013 Food Lion Cash Claire Gambrell Out of pocket HNRTravel Reimbursement $36.20 1/5/2013 YES HNRPizza $24.88 1/12/2013 Dominoes Credit Card David Tregde YESCostumes (Delilah) $49.99 1/21/2013 ModCloth Credit Card Molly Dougherty YESPostersBlu Rays

TOTAL EXPENSES $1,332.80

Indiegogo $723.05Grant $1,000.00

Total Funds $1,723.05

Scene Description Notes

General Gun shotsMake Jen's gun shot different from Jordan's. Don't want it toseem like they're using the same gun.

General Kent's GunMake Jordan's gun more of a "hand cannon" type with adeeper, more booming sound.

General Gun Shots

Make sure we can't hear any one say "bang" or any in-scene gun shots when we add sounds effects. It pulled meout when I watched the rough.

General Adding post audioCity b-roll and Delilah's (Molly) death scene need street/cityaudio added in post.

2 Allen & Isabel talkTry to remove the hum of the AC units. Noise filters shoulddo the trick

4 Kent/Delilah watching TVadd background TV noise. Doesn't matter what. justquiet/mumbling

11 Johnson's death sceneADR Johnson's lines so we can get his half of the mumblinga little better.

12,14 Church scenes foley door opening

14 Church shootoutWhen Allen pops the slide on his gun, add a shell casinghitting the floor

14 Church shootoutAdd 2 extra gunshots to Kent's first attack. Make it seem asif he took a few more shots.

14 Church shootout When kent kills Allen, add some shell casings dropping

15 Kent knocked outWhen Kent gets hit on the back of the head, we need asound effect like a thud and slight bone crunch maybe

16 Kent/Boss final sceneCan we add the low electric hum of a light that fades in andthen out as the dialog starts?

16 Kent/Boss final sceneADR Kirby Wahl saying "Brother's Keeper" that we can addover the mirror reveal.

18,19 Isabel shooting Kent ADR Jen saying "You killed my knight."

Scene # Description Notes Claire Notes

1 Boss lecturing brothers

Let first song start as just a single note. Add multiple noteswhen boss enters parable/monolog, then bring it back downinto next scene.

When the music stops, it feels toosudden for me, needs a smoothertransition into parable then outcompletely when he leans forward.

4 Delilah and Kent arguing in apartment

Music is a little too ominous. Save for the next scenebetween the two brothers. Do a simpler pad melody similarto the ending. <-- I agree with David

5,6 Kent and Johnson deal

Use the music from scene four with the percussion andeverything. This melody works great here. The piano bit atthe end feels too like. Just hold out the low ominous padlonger until the scene transition. <-- Again, I agree with David

7 Delilah and Kent sexy scene This scene is being cut. Don't worry about the music.

8 Isabel and Allen cute sceneGreat music. Start it a little sooner and then roll into the nextscene as you already do.

I really like how it carries over into thenext scene, but it could last in the nextscene a little longer. I would also likesome kind of tones or music when Kentstands from the meeting with the Bossand his brother just because he looksso powerful

11 Johnson's death scene

More upper register/violins in the strings section if possible?Maybe a solo vocal going "oo" or "oh" like from the Lord ofthe Rings (i'm a nerd)

I love this music - I don't know about thevocals in this song, not my personalfavorite (I think the strings are enough) -I think it could go even further into thenext scene as well

13 Kent and Delilah plotShort, but I will need a drone type thing here. The end willhave no audio, so i want it to build a little there as well.

14 Allen and Kent in the Churchlove the vocals, but hold them back until the line "What's yourmaster plan?"

Great, I really like this part - but it cutsout too quickly, smoother transition out.I also would like to see how it would beif music started once again as Kentwalked out of the church and into thenext scene

16 The garageMusic is great here. Entrance is awesome. Is it possible tomake the piano more "out of tune" sounding?

Love it, I would bring the percussion(snare sound) out some, it is reallygreat, then if it it possible to bring inmore drums like a timpani, in achroschendo to Delilah's death? Andthen have the sound drop out when shefalls? This is just something that I thinkwould be cool, but is of course, just asuggestion.

17 Delilah's death scene

could use something here that then melds into the endingsong. I'm not sure what. Something pad/electronicpercussion based like from "Drive" that can blend into theending.

Could also just make the ending startsooner?

I really like thissong, it is verypowerful andemotional and fitswell into the movie!