Two prominent executive speakers spoke to Cinema and Television Arts majors about filmmaking and directing at the Elaine and Armer Theater Nov. 3.

“It is such a great advantage to be able to work with a film director,” Marshall said.

Marshall took film classes while majoring in political science. He graduated in 1968.

Marshall said he has been to Europe and explored different avenues of film.

“I wanted to go to different places to really be out there,” he said. “I didn’t like being cooped up in one place.”

When Marshall directed the "Bourne Supremacy" in 2003, he said he was given the chance to film in different European cities.

“For me, it has always been an interesting puzzle of how a movie should be made,” he said.

Marshall described the first time he met Steven Spielberg in 1972 when Spielberg was a young director of an upcoming movie called “Duel.”

“You have to get noticed, and if you’re noticed it only means one thing: you’re good;," Marshall said. "You’re what they’re looking for."

Marshall said he was very fortunate to have met Spielberg at the right place at the right time.

“It was pretty much luck on my part,” he said regarding an incident when Spielberg recommended him for a role in a film, that he later got.

Marshall said he was also advised by Spielberg to look at a lot of scripts.

“One of my favorites was 'Back to the Future,'" he said.

Marshall said he and his film production company receive between 20 and 30 scripts every week, of which he only has time to read half.

Marshall also said that directing is much harder than producing because directing involves time and strategic planning.

“The line is very blurry between the two (directing and producing),” he said.

In a question and answer session, CTVA major Greg Sava, asked Marshall if filmmakers were handed scripts or stories that never made it to production.

“We’ve given up on a bunch of projects simply because we couldn’t get anyone to make it,” he said. “We couldn’t keep it going.”

Marshall said the contribution of technology and computer graphics to the movie business has increased the quality of film.

“We are now able to enhance the quality of filmmaking because of special effects and computer technology,” he said. “But when we didn’t have it to rely on, it made some of us even more creative.”

Marshall also said he prefers to work with actors that are not well known to the public. He said he enjoys working with new faces.

Melanie Stevenson, an aspiring actress, in attendance asked Marshall how he knows a movie is good, and how it could sell.

“I like to get feedback and criticisms from people who saw the movie and supported it (in one way or another),” Marshall said.

He said he believed that the film industry’s biggest problem is a lack of great movies.

“The key is to make good movies. That’s why directors spend a lot of time and members put in a lot of effort in creating a high-quality movie,” Marshall said.

Technique and process are crucial to the development of a piece of story, and he said adding both are the basic rules of cinema.

“The people who go to see this movie [per se] are the bank,” according to Marshall. “I sell the final product to them.”

Marshall admitted that the film industry is a people business and a market itself.

***

Breck Eisner, film and television director, was also a guest speaker. He expressed similar sentiments about film marketing.



Thirty-five-year-old film and television director Breck Eisner, who has directed over 100 TV commercials and the film “Sahara,” spoke to CSUN students Nov. 3 at the Alan and Elaine Armer Theater in Manzanita Hall.

Eisner, who went to an all-boys school at Harvard High, received his bachelor’s degree in film at Georgetown University, He directed “Sahara,” starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz.

Eisner said shooting “Sahara” was a difficult journey.

“We had a script that really sucked to begin with,” he said. “So to finish it up with great results and satisfaction from everybody was a godsend for me.”

He said that 12 people worked on the script of the movie.

He said the script underwent 25 revisions because Penelope Cruz was not able to capture the character as it was initially written.

Eisner passed out copies of that scene’s script to allow the audience to see how many times it had to be rewritten.

“If the script is in trouble, it is very hard to overcome,” Eisner said.

Eisner encouraged students to form their relationship with the people they come in contact with.

“People want to hire people they can work with, so get to know people and form some kind of bond with them, because they hire friends over just anybody,” Eisner said. “It’s who you know 90 percent of the time,” he said.

He said students should take a simple story and expand its general idea.

“Student film is a real, fundamental stepping stone,” Eisner said. “Make a short [student] film of about 5 - 10 minutes, no longer,” he said, “because studio executives have short attention span and you have limited funds.”

Eisner also urged students to build upon on their initial ideas.

“Don’t fall back on your first idea; keep rewriting it,” said Eisner. “If you don’t have that kind of time frame, recreate the script.”


link

I don't know if I agree with him or not. Sahara the book did not suck. Sahara the movie went a long way from the book, but was a good action film that brought a lot of attention to our own Dr, Cussler and his Dirk and Al.(of which Rob is an honorary member of Al's fan club :lol:) Maybe Eisner just hit his head before he gave this interview. :)

He didn't say the book sucked, he said the original script that was handed to him sucked. I'm not sure if that's the script that Clive approved or if it had already been changed, though.

First Question; What is the first name of this Marshall guy? Secondly, I believe that Breck Eisner is referring to the sucky script because it was written by a committee of 12 of which I would agree with. No story written by committee is good. And the first rule of a movie is the telling of a STORY. And obviously Penelope Cruz's acting does lack in something. p:

Cruz wasn't the person for that part. Maybe Cathrine Bell would have been better. Just a thought. :)

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that they had to change Eva so that that Cruz could play her. There doesn't seem to be much going on in the acting department for Cruz. There were certain parts of the movie that she did wonderfully (I love when she and Hopper are talking to Massarde about the "plague" and when she jumps onto the train-the way she says thank you...) But she is no Eva Rojas.

Also, who would have ever guessed that “It’s who you know 90 percent of the time,” this was significant for Eisner...? Think daddy had anything to do with it?

I guess I sound a bit jaded, huh? I really did love the movie; I just wish it could have been the book. I mean, we have these movies out there of epic proportions...LOTR, Harry Potter, Narnia, Troy...two of these are loosely for children...and they are 2 1/2 to 3 hours long! Why couldn’t this have been done in a similar manner? Just my two cents...

I just got back from seeing RENT in the theaters and I don't think a single one of the 200 people in the theater who were balling their eyes out as the credits rolled were thinking "You know, they really should have cut a few scenes/songs from the movie to make it 2 hours long instead of 2 hours and 15 minutes." Not a one of them.

Actually, Sahara-the-book translated directly to the screen would have truly sucked. There were too many side plots, it didn't build the way a movie needs to, there wasn't enough action (in comparison to non-action), and it was too long. That's not to say it wasn't a good book. It's just that directly transfering any book to the screen intact just doesn't work. Books and film have different... oh, priorities, if you will. Changes have to be made so the story can be told in a different medium that doesn't allow the rich texturing a book does.

Even accounting for that, I'm surprised that the story was changed so much. It wasn't so much a case of stuff being cut out of the plot for time, but everything was just changed. Other than having most of the same character names and location, the movie wasn't really anything like the book.

I'd be very interested to see the different phases for that script.

I've got a script that follows the book. I think it looks great!
Why didn't they use this one?? I haven't got a clue but it makes nice reading material :)

Where'd you get that? I'd like to see it!

i'm irked they removed the Lincoln Plot bu: det:

I agree with you. I liked that plot. Another hour of the movie would have maed a big difference. w:

Maybe it's his way of trying to appease Clive into giving the movie thing another chance by admitting he made a mistake using that script becuase it wasn't of good quality, which Clive told him in the first place.