The Rule of Half

I saw Gigantic Thursday night, a week early.

There's a group here called New Filmmakers, and they screen upcoming unusual releases every week; my Google news alert told me they'd be showing Gigantic a full 8 days before it opens, so with about two hours' notice, Jody and I dropped everything and went.

Matt Aselton, the director, was at the screening. I went up and re-introduced myself and startled him a little, I think, because I look very different from the movie and it was completely out of context for him. But once he realized who I was, we had a few laughs about the shoot and caught up. It's been a whirlwind process for Matt. Some people have raved about the movie, and some have said, and I quote, "I don’t remember ever wanting to just haul out and punch a movie before ‘Gigantic,’" (Nick Pinkerton in the Village Voice, who comes across as a monster asshole in his review.) But it's always better to be hated than ignored, right?

And my take on the film? Hmmmmm.

I mean, I genuinely liked the film. I had a few problems with it, but I think it's different and thought-provoking and Aselton and cowriter Adam Nagata are refreshing new voices on the scene. Matt's got a history of thinking differently — he has shot a number of unusual commercials, but this is his first feature film — and I think the movie avoids falling into a lot of obvious traps (while stepping directly into one or two clichés towards the end). It's also got a very surreal aspect to it, which I loved. A lot of risk-taking. Overall, certainly a worthy and enjoyable night out at the cinema.

But my scene? Meh.

I'm starting to realize that there's a kind of Rule of Half to TV and film work. That rule reads something like this: Anything you shoot that isn't vital and crucial to the advancement of the plot will be cut in half. And it's likely to be the half that you wanted saved.

In this case, I wanted all of it saved, because it's a tiny little scene, but if they were going to cut, I'd rather they have kept some of the bits they left on the floor, because they were the funnier bits. To me, anyway. Matt has said in many interviews that he didn't want the movie to be too funny because it would then lose its emotional core. And I agree with him, and I also see how leaving in all of my scene might have damaged the tone of the larger scene around it.

That said, it was a little disappointing. It's all done in a medium-to-long shot, from one angle, which came across to me as a little static.

Well, not all of it. Clarke Peters (who was a joy to work with) got his coverage, but we (the actress playing my wife and I) did not get ours. And I get that—I mean, the scene is supposed to showcase him, and it did—but still, I was hoping for a bit more. I'd forgotten that they didn't cut my hair and it was super-long at the time. I think I look kind of nondescript and blend-into-the-backgroundy (story of my life). And the sum total of my screen time couldn't have been more than 30 seconds. Friends of mine who see this film and don't know I'm in it will likely not recognize me.

Still, as Jody pointed out to me over gelato afterwards: I've shot my first film, and that's a nice thing to be able to say.

I'll just have to try to get that Rule down to One-Quarter or below.