Fogdog -- Webster's Dictionary -- "a bright spot sometimes seen at the horizon as the fog starts to dissipate."

Enter Fogdog Films Production Office, late morning, Paul Estabrook, a high-spirited artist, sits at his desk munching on a fruit breakfast roll and takes sips of what appears to be his expresso drink from Starbuck's while mild-manner Pam Coffey sits at her desk facing Paul. "There is literally some magic that happens...when we work on projects together. We all just slip into a role that fills a need in order to get something accomplished. All our individual talent and creativity comes into play and nobody is stepping on anybody's toes in that process. The organization and flow of things is just incredible. As we expand this community, the kinds of people we attract are creative and talented. Basically, everyone wants to work and play with us."

Estabrook enthusiastically agrees, "We made this connection and boom. We've been locked in ever since."

They are talking about producing Leaving, a B/W short film about a relationship between a father and daughter (played by two very accomplished Northern California actors, Elizabeth Nunsiato and Ivan Sandoval). Their relationship is changing. "It's about what is not being said," Coffey explains, "It is the day she comes to take him to the nursing home. It's about switching roles where the daughter is now taking responsibility."

"It's a tight little piece about a eleven pages long," injects Estabrook. "We were talking one night about the short. We came up with an idea, and we talked about the story, and Elizabeth (who played the Portuguese mother in John Travolta's Phenomenon) said what she wanted specifically from this --a set piece that was a splice of life. We talked about what would happen. Pam and I just sat down and sort of wrote it."

Right now, they are $600 over the budget. They still have postproduction left; yet, nothing but optimism fills their office. By the time they finish Leaving the film's total estimated cost will be $13,000. Once Leaving is all done. It's off to the festivals.

Estabrook explains how they funded the film, "Private funding, great family and friends. We sent them a very professional letter. We referred to our parents, said what we were doing and what we wanted to gain by this, where we were going and who is involved. People were very responsive. Blew us away on the money we got."

"Far exceeded our expectations," echoes Coffey.

"At first we had no idea as to what this thing would cost. We made this shot list and thought that it would look great with a 360 angle shot and stuff like that. We gave the shot list to Mike Malmberg (Director of Photography). We told him that we figured it would cost $6,000. And he was scared to death for us because we didn't know what we were doing. He told Nunziato that he thought it would cost $10,000. So, we made some phone calls, and we realized he was right," laughs Estabrook.

Coffey joins in with a laugh and adds humbly, "I have to say we ended up producing this ourselves. Everyday in this office we were on the phone and getting information and educating ourselves in the process. As we got closer and closer to it, we made some real good discoveries about how we were going to work and what was required, so reality began to set in, and also, to our credit as Mike Malmberg said we learned so fast. He was very impressed from the first meeting when he said he was scared for us to when we wrapped early on Friday."

"First day of shooting, which was a night shoot, we did ten set ups. Last day we did twenty," Estabrook concurs.

Coffey and Estabrook co-directed the piece, which worked out fine. They set some ground rules that they quickly changed or else they would have been miserable. "Paul would sit at the monitor and I would sit at the camera. And we would be seeing different things... Plus, the biggest consideration in all of this was that the camera really was a character. It was hand-held. It was very tight. So, looking at the monitor was much more informing than what I was seeing at the camera. Then, we decided we would sit side-by-side and watch what was on the monitor. We would see the same thing and know exactly what was going on."

"And we would also direct Mike. Like tell him to find more and give more range. That would get him going. And, we both knew when we got something that we were happy with, too. It is what the camera sees that really excites you and pushes the story forward," adds Estabrook.

Ending the story was a tough one for the directors. Should Elizabeth's character take her father to the nursing home or not? Coffey explains, "Our original intent was that the end of the film would not answer all the questions. It is such an intensely personal decision for anyone in that kind of situation. We didn't want to make a value judgement about it. We were aiming to force the audience into making their own decision. We were aiming to leaving it somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not he was actually going to go. We were vacillating between that and pushing it a little bit further with Elizabeth's character."

How did they solve their dilemma? "Elizabeth ended up improvising the whole ending. "It was truly in the moment, and she knew where she needed to go with it."

"It was her story by then -- that moment. It was both their stories -- Ivan and Elizabeth," adds Estabrook.

"It's like pushing a baby bird out of a cage -- it's got to fly. You know it's going to fly."