los angeles
a few thoughts on the christian bale controversy
no matter the budget, every live-action film is immensely dependent upon the performances of the actors.
this is an obvious fact.
as such, everyone involved in the film is at the service of the story while their next most important task is to provide the best possible environment for the actors to do their work. this starts with the director, the producer and the entire cast, and it continues all the way down to the extras and the production assistants.
for example, a production designer creates an environment that serves the story, but works closely with the actors so that this environment supports the actors’ needs. it is a fruitful collaboration.
- – - – - -
actors are fragile, sensitive people who, in real life, very rarely resemble the characters that they portray. we’re talking about actors, not celebrities.
in real life, robert de niro is not a tough ex-cop or an ex-con. forest whitaker is not a thug or a hitman. clint eastwood is not dirty harry. christian bale is not the protagonist from american psycho nor is he batman. they are artists, all of them.
yet people lose sight of this simple truth and confuse the fictional character with the person portraying the character. sometimes, the actors experience a similar kind of confusion. often, a film’s crewmembers blur the distinction.
when out of character, actors are often thoughtful, introspective, vulnerable people who carry with them an enormous pressure to deliver their best work.
press coverage often loses sight of this. there’s a kneejerk tendency to portray all actors as unreasonable prima donnas.
- – - – - -
so, the christian bale audio recording.
first off, the audio is taken out of context. we don’t know what happened over the course of the day before this incident took place – we don’t know how much tension there was on the set already. those of us who work in the business know that film sets are often intense environments where everyone works under imposing deadlines. we don’t know if there were any other disruptions that day, sudden changes in the shooting schedule, a new scene that has just been introduced, new dialogue, etc. there are too many things that we don’t know, so we don’t have a complete picture.
secondly, christian bale is wired to a microphone while the others are not – there’s a wireless microphone on him because he’s acting in the scene and the sound recorder is taping the conversation – which is standard procedure. in the mean time, the crew, including the DP (who is the subject of bale’s tirade) and the director, are not micc’ed – their voices are only picked up incidentally. this creates the distorted illusion that christian bale is speaking in a tone that is remarkably louder than the other people who are present, which is, in all likelihood, an inaccurate depiction of how the confrontation occurred.
it creates the perception that christian bale is out of control because his voice is, comparatively speaking, much louder than the rest.
thirdly, i think christian bale is right. he should be pissed off. he’s in the middle of a rehearsal and crewmembers are inadvertently distracting him because they don’t have the patience to wait their turn. i have worked on many sets where actors are trying to rehearse while the crew conducts their business in the background, failing to realise that the actors need silence and time to concentrate. this is serious. there’s a reason why we respect the mantra of silence on the set. the art department and the camera department will always have time to check their responsibilities, but this should not be done while actors are rehearsing or learning their lines or a new set-up.
we owe them that respect. it’s filmmaking 101.
finally, the subsequent press coverage of the incident unfairly villifies christian bale. he deserves better and somebody from the production should step in to defend him. leaving him out to hang sets a bad precedent for how actors should be treated.
- – - – - -
the film set is a workplace for an entire production crew but its primary purpose needs to be the place where actors can bring their gifts to the forefront, so that they can be captured on film.
if actors can’t have this kind of environment, then it doesn’t matter how brilliant the production design is nor how elaborate and stunning the cinematography is. experienced crew members know this.
i don’t believe in pampering actors – and i disagree with the hollywood tradition of maintaining so much distance between the actors and the crew – but all the same, it’s important to realise that most films are only as good as the performances from the cast.
it takes a lot of courage for any actor to create an emotional performance while standing before a large film crew that has often lost sight of the relevance of the casts’ contribution to the entire project. on top of that, actors often have to meet a wide variety of technical demands while performing, involving choreography, timing, taking improvised directions off-set, to name a few. there’s a reason why there are so few who are exceptionally adept at this.
actors need to concentrate. we, who work behind the camera, need them to be able to concentrate. we need them to be able to deliver. our livelihood depends on it. as such, once we’ve fulfilled our tasks on the set, it’s our professional responsibility to get out of the way and let them fulfill theirs.
american apparel comes to valencia street, san francisco
los angeles
a lot of posturing, finger-pointing and vitriol has been coming from san francisco over the last few weeks, as a large number of mission residents are up in arms because american apparel intends to open a retail space on valencia street.
great.
i don’t see what all the fuss is about.
many opponents of american apparel’s incoming presence are, in the grand scheme of things, themselves new to the mission, and their very arrival over the last fifteen years has helped change the mission from an ethnically and culturally diverse neighborhood of mixed incomes into an increasingly exclusive, upscale extension of hayes valley. as of this day, there is very little to distinguish valencia street from hayes street, fillmore street, columbus avenue, or any other shopping district in san francisco.
just take a look at the genteel clientele sipping four dollar single origin espresso drinks at four barrel or ritual coffee roasters (which, like american apparel, is a corporation). see how rainbow foods has changed over the years – ever notice the cars in their parking lot?
american apparel is going to bring about the demise of this district? it’s already happened.
i conclude this micro-commentary by stealing a quote from someone caught up in the thick of an argument on SFist:
“hipsters that come from ‘everywhere else’ wearing the clothing they profess to not want in “their” mission, typing on antique – probably artisanal – manual typewriters: does NASA know that there is literally another black hole forming as we speak, on valencia in the mission? yup, large groups of white progressive hipsters are having their heads disappear right up their own asses.
the only thing missing… is some white dude holding a sign in spanish that says ‘american apparel no en mi barrio.’”
and so it goes, thus we move on.