How To Avoid Being The Recipient Of L.A. Douchebaggery

The Urban Dictionary describes Douchebaggery as:

1) The philosophy held by douchebags, holding that no one other than themselves (or perhaps their close associates) matters in the least bit, and thus that other human beings can and should be treated like complete excrement for little or no reason (and often for selfish reasons). Closely related to fascism, which has been practiced by control freaks such as Adolf Hitler.  

2) The act of putting this philosophy into practice.

The following is an example of some profound L.A. douchebaggery (which is a particular subset of the standard douchebaggery).

LAFairfax2_offciteOur tale begins at the L.A. Farmer’s Market, a place I’ve been frequenting for many years. It is a permanent haven of glorious foods and beverages. An L.A. landmark, to be sure. It’s a great meeting place for friends or casual business associates, for drinks, music or a place to read or write. Sadly, it’s next to the far newer outdoor mall-from-Hell known as The Grove. In truth, The Grove is more than a mall. It’s a malignant tumor both culturally, artistically and socially. But let’s not delve any deeper into that today. Suffice it to say that I think of the Farmer’s Market as being far less trendy than its neighboring Grove (though the trendy types do accidentally wander in from time to time, their inner GPS momentarily failing to warn them of the bewildering landscape ahead). The atmosphere is definitely more bohemian at the Farmer’s Market and social status seems far less relevant there somehow (as a result, those rare, disoriented souls almost always find their way rather quickly to the nearest exit and return from whence they came).

Here are the events I experienced today, on this seemingly ordinary sunny Southern California morn, of a particular douchebag who laid claim to the Farmer’s Market as his own personal stomping ground:

I arrive at the Farmer’s Market with my dog Gus. I sit down at an empty table. There’s what looks to be an old discarded newspaper on the table. I’m waiting for a friend. I’m early. I take a seat at the table and settle in. I read my book for a while, work on the computer, check email. After about 20 minutes, my friend arrives. She grabs us some coffee and we talk for about 10 minutes. Ironically, our discussion centers around how some folks in L.A. don’t know how to interact with other human beings in a respectful, healthy manner, how L.A. oftentimes attracts some pretty dysfunctional people who seem to have an overwhelming disregard for others (see douchebaggery above).

As if on cue, a young man walks up to our table and places his plastic cup of bright red juice down on it and proclaims that this is, in fact, his table. He says it in such a way that both my friend and I are a bit confused, but he doesn’t seem to be aggressive or crazy. Maybe this is just where he usually sits. He takes a piece of the newspaper and starts to read it standing up. I tell him to feel free to take the entire paper and he informs me that this newspaper is his. Then he goes to a nearby occupied table, asks the folks sitting there if he can use their free chair, they say yes and he brings it over to our table and sits down and stares at us. I inform him that I have been sitting there for nearly half an hour and he, unwilling to leave, informs me that he got there first and thought leaving the newspaper there was enough to let people know that this table was taken. I tell him that many people leave discarded newspapers on tables when they are done and, since no one was sitting here but me for the past half hour, that there was no reason I should have assumed this table was taken.

I should say, at this point, that the table next to us was empty. He could have sat mere inches away from where he had placed his newspaper down in what was clearly a failed social experiment. But instead, he opts to try and intimidate us out of there by simply being an entitled prick. He could have even asked us to move, which would have been weird, but at least friendly, respectful. He could have explained that he worked at the establishment that this table was in front of and would really appreciate us letting him sit there (and no, the table was not reserved for patrons of that establishment). In fact, there were a million ways this guy could have handled this situation as a decent human being with some measure of tolerance and respect for others. But instead, he acted as if he’d been wronged. As if we’d sat there with complete disregard for him, as if it were a personal “Fuck You.” My friend and I did move to the other table as we really didn’t want to make a scene over a table (though I was tempted). We did, however, talk extra loudly about how there are so many douchebags in L.A. and how the guy at the next table was the perfect example of why this town can suck.

Yes, I do know that there are many good people in L.A. Yes, there are douchebags to be found in every corner of the globe. But somehow this guy walking up and vomiting his dysfunction all over two strangers enjoying coffee and conversation in the moment that we were discussing such matters and how they pertain to L.A. life and lifestyle, seemed just a bit too coincidental for me not to question it as a message from the universe, if the universe is inclined to send such messages. In truth, I don’t believe the universe is so inclined, but events like this make me question my own beliefs.

L.A. may not lay claim of ownership to douchebaggery, but they do have their own specific breed of them and the town does seem to be a magnet of sorts for such reptilian creatures.

For the record and as a sort of “public-service”, I feel the need to share that the establishment this individual represents is known as The Barber Shop Club. I cannot say what the other employees of this establishment are like. They may well all be extremely nice individuals with a great respect for others. But based on this one unpleasant soul, I would say to any self-respecting individual with expectations of being treated even remotely as a human being (if I were to be asked) to take your chances elsewhere and to actively avoid such an establishment and warn friends and loved ones to do the same. Unless, of course, you are the adventurous type and want to possibly come face-to-face with a real, live, honest-to-goodness douchebag. But be warned, they are more tolerable from a distance.


How To Avoid Being The Recipient Of L.A. Douchebaggery

Soderbergh, The State Of Contemporary Cinema, & Questions From A Young Filmmaker

Screen shot 2013-05-01 at 10.36.21 AM

This is a daring and insightful speech given by Steven Soderbergh last week at SFIFF. It is one of the most perceptive and articulate commentaries on the state of cinema today and the difference between “cinema” and “movies.” For me, personally, it encapsulates so much of what I have been writing about for years and captures the very essence of why I started Off Leash Films and what I hope to achieve.

This speech comes at a perfect time for me as I have been engaged in conversation with a young filmmaker who recently commented on one of my older posts. The following is a response to several of his questions to me regarding editing choices I made on THE PLAGUE: WRITERS & DIRECTOR’S CUT and my approach and attitude toward making films and whether or not I consider the audience ahead of time:

Question: Hal, one question my friend, did you make the film for you or for the audience? That is what all filmmakers need to ask themselves. I agree with you, I need to see both films from beginning to end to judge and compare, also I’m sure the producers have taken away your characters and their emotions and made it all prokat – a recipe that works generally. I’m only saying I preferred the points where the film cut. The tightness of the shots and the fact that when it didn’t intercut it rounded up my emotional tension which is what I needed.

…I ‘m only young and learning and grown up with the fast cutting generation and think films like Amour are nerve wracking and should be respectful to the current audience and include editing – what is your view of films like Amour or Angelopoulos’s style? I love Fincher, hate Tarantino, love Attenborough, Altman, Nolan, Bergman… I love a good film, I don’t like self-indulgence and auteurs that do film only for themselves and just happen to have a good pr company behind them. I met Lars Von trier and he was horrible to us young students , full of pretentiousness and up his own. But I met Scorsese as well and he was amazing and helpful. It’s truth that I have learned from your site and take on board what you say about the intention. How do you know your intention? You shoot A and you edit B and on the way you might like C… is it always defined? Should it? If you were to do Plague again what would you do differently?

Answer: My answer is very simple: I don’t have an audience that is specific or makes any demands. I make films for myself WITH the knowledge that I am not so unique or unusual that I am going to alienate most or all of the human race. My audience are the people who will be moved and/or effected by my films and want to see more. Plain and simple. I am not a director for hire. If I were, then I would have to consider what the audience is that the producers want to reach if that is their goal. If I direct a pre-existing comic book or a James Bond film, then, yes, I must consider the audience. But if I’m making films that are an expression of who I am and tell the stories I have a need to tell and offer the experience that I want to put out there, then considering some non-existent audience makes no sense. The last thing I want to do is second-guess other people and decide what they might or might not like, what they might or might not “get.” Then I am not honoring anyone, least of all myself.

Hollywood has trained many filmmakers to think in terms of audience (males 16-25, for example). This has nothing to do with filmmaking for me. That is marketing and when marketing dictates what kind of films you make and how you are going to make them, the work itself becomes that much less personal and, as a result, that much less daring. Vittorio De Sica once said, “Art has to be severe. It cannot be commercial. It cannot be for the producer or even for the public. It has to be for oneself.” So I guess the question you need to ask is are you a director for hire or someone who has a vision they want/need to explore and share? Both are completely valid approaches. But they are not the same.

As for the directors you mentioned, AMOUR was one of my favorite films from last year. I love Haneke. I wouldn’t have changed a frame, not a beat. My other favorite from last year was the 3-hour cut of Kenneth Lonergan’s MARGARET. The year before that TREE OF LIFE and MELANCHOLIA. So yes, I love Von Trier. And I don’t care whether he is a nice guy or not. That has no bearing on the effectiveness of his work for me. And you used the term “self-indulgence” negatively. Yet I think it’s a requirement for making any kind of art. Who are we supposed to indulge in making art if not ourselves? An audience? The audience finds the art, not the other way around. At least as I see it. Coppola is still one of my heroes and his approach to filmmaking now is absolutely thrilling to me. My favorite Coppola is still THE CONVERSATION. You like Bergman. He is one of my favorite filmmakers. He did NOT make films for an audience. An audience found his films. For him, it was about him and his actors telling stories. In a way that moved and excited them.

I think Theo Angelopolis’ LANDSCAPE IN THE MIST is one of the most beautiful and moving films I’ve ever seen. Yes, I get why some people find his films too slow, same with Tarkovsky films, but I adore them. They “speak” to me. They move me to tears, excite me in their artistry, in their ability to express and touch me. Ridley Scott, on the other hand, bores me now. He made 3 amazing films early on and the rest feel very empty to me. That does not mean they are empty, only empty to me. His recutting of ALIEN removed the very thing I found to be most effective and daring about his original cut. But several years ago he went back and “picked up the pace.” Shame. He didn’t even see what he had done and why it was considered so amazing by so many. He is a filmmaker whose instincts I no longer trust. I have met the man. I have had story meetings with him. He’s very nice. I enjoyed his company. But his ideas bore me, as do most of his films.

For me, THE PLAGUE needed to linger on the moments that resonated for me. That is the experience that I wanted to share. What happens in those moments and the feelings that come up for people experiencing that. However, it will not be the same experience for everyone. Another reason I do not consider the audience or allow them to dictate my creative decisions. I have no control over what individuals bring into the screening room with them. To try and second-guess that I see as a futile mission and one that has no appeal to me.

My desire, as well, with the editing of THE PLAGUE was to juxtapose certain images and themes, to suggest directly and subconsciously the connection between the kids and the adults. Every cut is made with purpose. Each has something to say, something that is nonexistent in the producers’ cut, which ONLY wanted to make a film with action and bloodshed. A killer-kid film. They wanted to answer as many questions as quickly as possible which, for me, reduces tension. That is something that I have no desire to be a part of. Nor do I find that to be effective in any meaningful way. I believe my cut is more frightening because of what it conjures up under the surface, those feelings that we don’t initially understand, but that rise to the surface nonetheless. I also believe that allows my cut to linger with its audience far longer than the other cut. But that is, as you know, also dependent on who is watching and what kind of experience they are open to. Again, something I have no control over nor do I have a desire to control.

You asked me what I would change if I could do THE PLAGUE again. Ironically, I would think less about audience reaction and more about what moved me personally. I would not have wasted precious energy on worrying about what others might think or how it fit into genre expectations. I would have made the film even more visceral, more abstract. I would have also trusted my instincts about the people I was working with and not talked myself out of taking the project elsewhere when I had the opportunity. And I would have never allowed myself to be talked (threatened) into miscasting the leads which, no matter how I cut the film, will always bog it down and dramatically lessen its impact. The film can never rise above the fact that they were miscast, that they were there to appease Sony’s marketing department despite the fact that they were not who or what we imagined in those roles, nor were they capable of pulling it off to the level that the film and story required in order to be what we intended and hoped the film would be.

There are so many quotes by so many artists that speak to me personally. They mirror my own feelings and articulate my own personal discoveries. They are also full of lessons and instigate thought. I want more from my films, both those I make and those I watch, than perhaps some others out there. That seems to be the case. But I also know that I am not “special.” There are so many people out there yearning and searching for the same artistic storytelling experiences that I am. Now maybe that’s not the majority of male 16-25 year olds (though it might be as so many films supposedly geared toward that audience still bomb), but I trust that what I want to say and how I want to say it has an audience. All I need do is be true to myself and follow my instincts and my passions. I feel no need to attract the largest audience possible. I am also not looking to make films for the studios or work with a budget of $200 million. So I have the luxury of not having to worry about such distracting things as what others might think and that someone might not like or respond positively to something I do. There are more than enough people who will have the opposite reaction, or simply their own complex reaction. I know what moves and effects me and that’s what drives me. I’ve written a fair amount about all this. You can find some of it at my production company site:

I suggest reading the list of quotes there as I have personally found so many of them to be inspiring and deeply insightful.

And some other blog posts I’ve written that may or may not be of interest to you. Either way, they do articulate in more detail what I have been trying to say above. And probably more accurately. If you want to read them, they are here:

Soderbergh, The State Of Contemporary Cinema, & Questions From A Young Filmmaker