Filmmaking is sometimes just a big game of Where's Waldo.
There are so many cords and microphones and other equipment, that these items often sneak their way into shots. (All movies seem to be suceptable to this problem. Just take a look at the "Goofs" section for practically any movie at IMDb.)
(That's right, we had extention cords that kept trying to make their acting debut.)
Often what you do to disguise a piece of equipment or unwanted object is to cover it up with something... put a person or piece of furniture between it and the camera. Of course, that isn't always the best solution, especially if the camera is on dolly tracks and has to move. Or the character has to move at some point in the dialogue.
As you can see in the photo, we usually tried to clip the cords up on the ceiling. Or we'd run them along the edge of the wall and cover them up with straw or a blanket.
But still, for each shot we filmed, those of us in Video Village had to keep a close eye on the screen to make sure "Waldo" didn't turn up! (Sorry, Waldo!)
What was your filmmaking background before you made the film?
TOM: I had little actual "filmmaking" experience when I began the process of making In the Company of Strangers. I had produced a number of small TV spots and a couple of industrial films but nothing on a scale like In the Company of Strangers.
In 1998, I had also produced and co-directed a 22-minute comedy short called Around the Bend. This was a compilation of about eight comedy sketches that four of my fellow comedians and I had written over the preceding years. This was very cheaply produced but allowed me the opportunity to put such a production together. It was a great training ground which helped me go on to produce something on a larger scale. I learned a great deal about budgeting -- both time and money --scheduling, planning a shoot and all the little things that sometimes get lost with a first-time producer or director on a large shoot. But In the Company of Strangers was my first real foray into a bigger budget film (and yet, by Hollywood standards, it was a micro-budget film).
One technique that I used to prepare myself for making In the Company of Strangers was to thoroughly think through each scene and shot every chance I had. I would try to visualize exactly what I wanted to achieve in a particular shot or set-up and then I would imagine all the things I would need to make that happen. Since I did this with every shot in the film, by the time shooting actually began I had already "shot" the film a hundred times in my head and I had a pretty good idea of what was going to be required. This really helped the process move along. And this thinking through the shots was not limited to camera angle and shot selection. I thought about things like communicating with actors, dealing with locations, providing lunches and craft services, and even how my cast and crew would work on the set.
Where did the idea come from to make In the Company of Strangers?
TOM: When I was in college I had some neighbors in my dorm who thought that it would be fun to go out on a Friday night and try to beat up some gay guys as they came out of a local bar. This struck me as an odd and stupid way to have fun. That turned out to be the initial impetus for the script.
The next influence was a program I had heard about that had been initiated in Ireland to try to eliminate the religious hatred that had spurred the unrest in Belfast and other areas of that country. In this program, young Protestant children were allowed to spend their school vacations in America with a Catholic family and vice versa. This was designed to allow these children who had only known hatred to see that, at the core, there was not much real difference between Catholics and Protestants.
I thought that this concept, if utilized in a sexual orientation type of story, would make for an interesting idea. My belief is that all of us, regardless of race or gender, religion or sexual orientation, want the same things - love, acceptance, success, happiness, and the right to live as we choose so long as we don't infringe on another's rights to the same things. And if we can recognize our shared core desires through the differences between, perhaps we might all get along better. This film was my attempt to illustrate that idea.
What was the process for writing the script?
TOM: I started writing the script nine years before actually shooting it. At that time, I didn't feel I was a strong enough writer to actually write it successfully without it drifting into a maudlin or overly pretentious area. So I shelved it for a while and worked on other scripts with a writing partner. In writing those scripts, I felt that I became a stronger writer with more of an understanding of character, concept and structure.
At that time I was living in LA and trying to find a film job or create an opportunity as a screenwriter. My writing partner and I had seen some glimmers of hope and a few offers for our scripts but we were never able to finalize any deal. Finally, I decided that I didn't want to leave all the decision-making to people in LA and returned to my hometown of Toledo, Ohio to make my own film. That is when I produced Around the Bend which was successfully completed but never sold.
My next challenge was to make In the Company of Strangers. I pulled out the script and realized that although I thought I could make it for a relatively small amount of money, the script was not finished. I started back in on it in January of 2001 and, like many writers, I got stuck in the middle of the second act.
However, I knew how I wanted the story to end so I went to the end of the story and wrote that scene. Then I imagined what scene might have led up to that final scene and I wrote that. I did this over and over again from the end of the script until I had reached the place where I had gotten stuck. One day I finished writing a scene and realized that I had actually completed the script. I went back and read it from the beginning and even though it still needed a fair amount of tweaking, I discovered that I had a mostly completed screenplay. It was definitely an interesting way around my writer's block.
How did you fund the film?
TOM: The film was funded primarily by investors (65%). I have an old high school buddy who has gone on to be quite successful in the manufacturing world and he was not only my primary funder but also the first person to invest in the film. His investment opened the door for other smaller investors. The remaining 35% or so was self-financed through a second mortgage on my house and several credit cards.
By the way, funding a film with credit cards may seem like the wise thing to do. After all, it seems like so many filmmakers have had some success with this but, having done it, I certainly do not recommend this plan of action. If you are like most indie filmmakers, your film is not going to see the inside of a theater nor is it going to garner a lucrative distribution deal and you will spend most of your time trying to pay off your credit cards or trying to climb out of a terrible financial hole.
How long did it take you to shoot the film? And how long did it take to edit it?
TOM: Pre-production on In the Company of Strangers lasted about six months and included finishing the script, casting, scouting locations and raising the money. The actual shoot lasted 25 days and, I am proud to say, we never lost a day and were able to remain on schedule the entire time. Editing the initial cut took about 4 months but the edit to the version I currently have took a much longer time. In fact, although the film was shot in 2001, the cut I am happiest with took me until the middle of 2008 to find. My first cut had a running time of 115 minutes which was way too long for a low budget message film with no name actors. The current cut (and the version that is available for purchase from my website) is 89 minutes - quite a difference. It is also a much tighter and I believe a much better film.
What obstacles did you have to overcome to make the film?
TOM: Finding the appropriate amount of money to make a film is always the biggest obstacle. The hardest thing was learning to ask perfect strangers to lend me money even though my track record was thin.
I had no trouble finding a highly competent crew. It was a tougher search finding actors who could do the work well. It was shot in 18 locations in the Toledo area and that was also not a problem. All the people we contacted were more than accommodating in allowing us to shoot in those homes or places of business.
The hardest part of the whole process has been trying to get it into festivals and seen by sales agents or distributors. The few distribution offers I have gotten have been very poor and clearly are designed to the advantage of the distributor and not the filmmaker or the investors. This is a tough pill to swallow when you have a finished film and you would like to get it into the marketplace but the return to the filmmaker is so tiny that you cannot make that move knowing that your investors are expecting some sort of return upon such a deal being struck.
When the offer comes through (at least in the cases I have been presented) the money coming back to the filmmaker is essentially non-existent.
What did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?
TOM: There were so many things I learned from making this film. First, it's important to allow the people I hire to work on my film to bring their best stuff and to listen to them. It's not necessary to bow to every suggestion but in my experience, often an actor or a crew person would have a different take on something than I did and many times those suggestions were better than what I originally had in mind. This happened several times with an actor's approach to a particular scene.
Second, preparation is the key to a successful film shoot. Prepare EVERYTHING and leave no stone unturned.
Third, I must remember to trust in myself as a filmmaker. If I believe in what I'm doing, then I won't lose faith in my ability to bring life to my story.
Fourth, and this is purely technical, I will always get plenty of room tone or natural sound when shooting on location. Even though the norm is 30 seconds of nat sound or room tone, I like to have at least 60 seconds of good, clean, uninterrupted tone or sound for every location.
Fifth, it's important to always remember the money people who help me realize my dream. Sadly, I didn't do this. I meant to thank each of my investors when I first publicly screened the film and, in the excitement of the entire night, I simply forgot. It is my biggest regret of that evening because without those people, I never would have been able to make my film - "our" film.
Finally, a piece of advice that I can give to other first time filmmakers - remember that your first film is your first film. It will probably lead to other films or other opportunities so even if it is not the commercial success that you had envisioned, it will still provide you with the experience and the background necessary to do bigger and better things in the future. The experiences I learned working on In the Company of Strangers were helpful in landing me a crew position as a cinematographer and de facto location producer on the 2005 Academy Award nominated documentary film, Twist of Faith, a Kirby Dick film.
Date: Monday, May 11, 2009 Location: Exterior -- Campfire Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Yes, we actually filmed on a Monday.
However, we did wait until evening to shoot our scenes (that Monday being the first day for our final week of filming Under Jakob's Ladder... That's right: Week 4).
Actually, it wasn't even officially planned to take place on this day. (We had originally booked Mondays as a day off.) But, with the weather forecast for the coming week (i.e. the threat of rain), we knew that we had to do something. We didn't need any rain for these campfire scenes.
(Not to mention that we were also under another deadline. Our Jakob -- actor Jeff Stewart -- had to catch a flight back to England on Saturday of that week. And we had plenty of other scenes to film. We didn't have a whole lot of wiggle room if it did rain!)
So, Monday, May 11th. Everything was set up. The two actors we needed were there... Jeff Stewart (Jakob) and Chloe Roe (Marta). A campfire was built. The sun set. Darkness hit.
And... Well... We did not have any rain.
That's the good news.
But the bad news is that we did have wind. Which was especially delightful for the actors and camera crew! (Who doesn't love to have smoke blowing in their faces? Especially when you're trying to do a job... Like act. Or run a camera.)
P.S. By the end of filming for the night, there was still one small scene that we hadn't got to... But, it didn't really require the actors (so we were fine there). It would just mean that we'd have to build the campfire once more...
MARC: The idea for Break came from my mind simply trying to incorporate very specific actors and elements all into the same film, while doing it in a way that I knew would be very saleable.
You couldn't pick a more different movie to make after The Pink Conspiracy. Was that planned?
MARC: I don't think I've ever made a film that was planned. It always tends to happen for me through circumstance. To be honest, as much fun as making a comedy like The Pink Conspiracy was, I prefer to make films that are more dramatic or suspenseful, so in that regard, Break made a little more sense for me.
What was the process for writing the script?
MARC: I wrote Break based on several actors I had at my disposal. After working on my last film, The Pink Conspiracy, Chad Everett had asked me to write him a really dark supporting role. Concurrently, my good friend Frank Krueger and I were working on putting something together that incorporated martial arts. Not only are we both long time practitioners, but we were looking to do something with Xin Wuku, the infamous "urban ninja". To cap it all off, my long-time associate Michael Madsen and I had been looking for something to do together as well. With those elements in mind, I locked myself in a room and wrote Break, a comic booky noir action thriller about a hitman hired to take out a terminally ill crime boss and his lover.
How did you fund the film?
MARC: Initially I wrote Break with the intention of doing it on a micro budget. I was very fortunate that I was able to find an investor willing to put some real money behind it. It was sort of an accident though. I wanted $250K. So I asked for $350K. Low and behold I ended up getting the $350K. All the money came from one private investor though.
Breakhas a terrific cast: Chad Everett, Michael Madsen, Charles Durning, and the late David Carradine. How did you gather such a talented group (what's the secret)?
MARC: There is no secret to attaching talent. I've just been fortunate to establish relationships over the years. With the exception of David Carradine, everyone in the cast was either in my previous film The Pink Conspiracy, or I already knew them.
Chad Everett, Frank Krueger, Sarah Thompson, James Russo, Mackenzie Firgens and Whit Hertford were all in The Pink Conspiracy. I had known Michael Madsen for close to a decade and we worked on a film called Hell Ride together the year prior. Xin Wuku was a martial arts connection, and Charles Durning I met at a film festival. I told Charlie about the film I was developing and he asked me to write him a role. I thought he was kidding. He wasn't. So I did it. Carradine was the only actor I had no real prior relationship with, but I did know his manager, which helped.
What obstacles did you have to overcome to make the film?
MARC: I encountered plenty of obstacles. Primarily location related obstacles. Considering Los Angeles is the birthplace of cinema, it's a pretty un film-friendly town. Even with a decent budget like we had, things were still tight. It's all relative. Bigger budget, but bigger elements.
Once I was ready to sell the film, however, the biggest obstacle presented itself - the economy. A film like this with a bread and butter cast is typically a no-brainer sell. Unfortunately with the global recession, buyers were making bottom dollar offers, which has made things difficult.
Luckily we have been able to get some amazing domestic distribution and we are more or less riding out the storm before we handle most of our foreign business. Things are already looking up. The fact that Break is so easily accessable is a good thing.
It's not easy for a small independent film to get on the shelves in Blockbusters the way we have, or move as many units as we have been. Fortunately I have a very diverse cast, many of whom have very extensive fanbases. That combined with the unfortunate death of David Carradine, has made Break a pretty in-demand title.
Also: Marc is currently running a contest. You can purchase the film via Amazon, Barnes & Noble Online, Blockbuster, etc. and then submit a picture of yourself holding the DVD. The most creative pictures are going to win a 12x18 Break movie poster signed by the cast, including David carradine (he signed it just 4 weeks before his death).
Date: Saturday, May 9, 2009 Location: Interiors -- Prison Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Gotta have a least one fight scene in a prison movie, right?
Well, here's our fight scene... between Vovik (Peter Iasillo) and Bruno (Sal Rendino), and orchestrated by our stunt guy, Matthew R. Staley.
Not much more to say. In this case, the pictures are worth a thousand words.
(Actually, if you look carefully, you can tell these photos were taken of one of the many rehearsals. How can you tell? Someone is in every single one of these shots who shouldn't actually be there... Who is it? See if you can figure it out!)
1. You're in a crowded room and you can't hear yourself think, so you call out "Quiet on the set!"
2. You begin to notice electrical cords everywhere and your instinct is to hide them, in anyway you can (even if it means getting a towel to cover them up).
3. You come across something on ebay and think, "Wow, that's a great deal on that prop. Maybe I should bid on it..."
4. You meet someone and wonder if they need a little powder on their nose to keep down the shine.
5. You pop in a DVD and call for "Action!" as the DVD loads.
We really can't talk about Patti Rocks without talking about the film that came before, Loose Ends. How did that film come about?
MORRIS: I saw Memories of Underdevelopment, a Cuban Film, at the Walker Art Center, and I rushed home to my wife, Victoria, and I said, 'You know, we can make a movie really cheap. I just saw this great movie, it was black and white. If we can scrape together $20,000, we can make a movie.' And so we did. She wrote it. And it shot for two weeks, Loose Ends. That was sort of a calling card. We went to 20-25 film festivals, didn't win anything really, but Roger Ebert discovered us and Vincent Canby and Andrew Sarris and we got all these great notices.
Finally got enough money, in the early 80s, to do a movie called Purple Haze, and that did very well. It won Sundance, and that was our first real movie. It was 35mm, color, we actually a shooting schedule and a budget. And that did very well. And we looked like we were on our way.
I then, subsequently, got fired from two studio pictures and was very unhappy -- we're now talking mid-80s -- and I was thinking about quitting, I was thinking about getting out of the business because I was really unhappy. And I thought back to the only time I had a really good time making a movie was my first film, Loose Ends. And I thought, maybe I should think about writing something for those guys and making it back in Minnesota and sort of re-creating my enthusiasm for making movies.
How did you and the actors create the script?
MORRIS: We did a lot of just riffs on sex. We had another movie in mind. And I had all these long cassette tapes filled with Mulkey and Jenkins riffing on women, and I thought, this is interesting. Somehow I got the idea of putting them in the car, driving all night to see Patti to talk her into having an abortion. I did a first draft and I'd give it to them and we'd tinker with it and do some more improvs. Jenkins lived in Chicago, so we flew there a couple times and do some more improvs, and I'd type that up.
How did you come up with the title?
MORRIS: The way I got the title was interesting. I was at the Chicago Film Festival, on a panel. I was dinner with a group of people from the festival and this woman was sitting next to me. I said, 'What do you do?' She said, 'I sing in a band.' I said, 'What's the name of the band?' She said, 'Patti Rocks.' And I said, 'Oh, that's a really good title.'"
How did you get the financing?
MORRIS: I'd known Sam Grogg, because he was head of the USA Film Festival in Dallas. And he'd started a film company called Film Dallas. So I gave him the script and said, 'What do you think?' He said, 'We'll make it.' It was the easiest thing I've ever done. I wrote it and within a month they'd given me $400,000 to make this movie.
He had very few notes. He just said, 'They have to get out of the car midway through this movie.' I said, 'What do you want them to do? See a flying saucer?' He said, 'I don't know, you'll think of something.'
Did you make any big changes to the script once you got the money?
MORRIS: I wrote it for the summer, because Mulkey's running around in his underwear. But we couldn't get it all together, and we got the money in November, and I said, 'We're going to make the movie. We've got the money, we're going.' And it actually turned into a more interesting film, just because of the look of the snow and Mulkey running around in his underwear in 23 degrees below zero.
I had a lot of fun making the film. We had our problems, obviously, because of the money and the cold, but it just re-enthused me for making movies again.
Did you worry about the subject matter at all?
MORRIS: I thought it was risky, in terms of the subject matter. I didn't know until after it was done how people would react to the language in the picture. The ratings board first gave us an X for language, and that had never happened before. I guess I was just so used to it. Not that I talk that way, but certainly I hear that. I was kind of surprised by the reaction.
When I first started putting this together, I thought people are either going to love or hate this. I had no idea I was going to divide audiences, and it did. And it did. People loved the movie or hated the movie. More people loved it, thank god, than hated it.
At the very few personal appearances I made before the movie, I'd say, 'Some of you people might get uncomfortable during the first two acts of this movie. Just wait, okay?'
Date: Wednesday, May 6 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 Location: Interiors -- Prison Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Would a prison be a prison without at least one rat?
Meet Stockings.
Our furry actor with a long tail poses with her new best friend, Yasha (Quentin McCuiston).
And here she is, posing for the group photo with her owners/handlers (Dana O'Connor and Sandy Essington) and Yasha.
You also might have noticed that the title of this blog post is "Rats" -- as in, there is more than one rat. Well, if you look closely, Dana [in the yellow shirt] actually is holding a tiny rat in her hand. So that makes two rats.
By the way, here's a bit of trivia. The rat's favorite food on set was... cheerios. (Except on the day when she wasn't interested in eating anything!)
Oh, and just in case you want to know... Yes, we had the Animal Humane people come out to double check that "No animals were harmed..."
In response to the LOVELY BY SURPRISE post the other day, filmmaker Ashley Meyers wrote in with this suggestion: What Indie Film Blogs will cover undistributed films? Please help us build this list. Let us know which ones you know about. Or better yet, make a whole list and send it in and get the gold star of the day!
I know one, but it will only run the positive reviews. Check out Hammer To Nail (and yes, I did help co-found it).
Date: Wednesday, May 6 & Thursday, May 7, 2009 Location: Interiors -- Prison Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Week Three. We filmed exclusively in the prison. Day in and day out. No need to strike the set. (Okay, so, we actually did strike the set every night. At least with regards to locking up the expensive equipment and all. Not very fun when it was raining cats and dogs outside and the camera had to be lugged up a muddy hill and across the yard to its super-secret-locked-up-tighter-than-a-drum spot.)
In any case, here are some random photos from inside the prison walls...
Checking the lines... Left to Right: Greg F. Kowalczyk (Rudi), Sean Patrick Folster (Yosif), and Jeff Stewart (Jakob). (Actually, it looks like Jeff's just drinking his tea.)
Armen Garo (Serzhant) - "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille..."
Yosif (played by Sean Patrick Folster) approaches Serzhant (Armen Garo) when Rudi (Greg F. Kowalczyk) suddenly realizes he's headed out of the prison... (but not in a good way).
Some prisoners... Left to Right: Karl (Matthew R. Staley), Otto (Jason Catron), Martin (Michael Werner), Ludwig (T.J. Craig), and Adam (Scott Rummler)
STIAN: It all started with the first scene. I was watching a series where one of the characters was going to an AA-meeting. It suddenly struck me that it would be funny if instead of doing the whole "my name is .. and I'm an alcoholic", he would rather pull down his pants and say "I have a small penis".
At first I did not really believe that it could amount to anything, but the more I thought about it the more I liked the idea.
First of all because it has a big comedic potential. Secondly because a small penis in my opinion works great as a metaphor for the insecurity I wanted to address with this film. Everyone has a part of their body that they're not satisfied with, and for some this really weakens their quality of living because they worry so much about it. And last but not least because the subject still, in 2009, is quite taboo.
What was the process for writing the script?
STIAN: I made a first draft which in many ways are quite similar to the final product. Then I had some sessions with a tutor who gave some grate advice on how to improve it.
The biggest problem for me was to choose if I wanted a external or internal conflict, that is when in the film to introduce that the group leader had a normal sized penis. If the main character had found out about it earlier in the film we could have had a bit more drama between the two, and the main character could have threatened to expose the leader to the rest of the group. In my opinion this would add a lot more tension to the film, and a better dramatic structure. However I also liked the idea of the internal conflict, where the main character gradually learns to accept himself as he is. To me this just seemed to work better with the genre, and in my opionion resulted in a funnier film.
How did you create the song for the film? It's very catchy.
STIAN: The song was written by our sound guy, Erlend Myrstad. I told him I wanted a gospel song, and that I wanted to use the groups mantra as basis for the lyrics. So he created this brilliant song that I really love. We know some people who know some people who sing in a choir, so we got them to come and sing it for free.
How long did it take you to shoot the film? And how long did it take to edit it?
STIAN: It was shot in 5 days over a 7 day period. We had about 14 days to edit it, but we did not use all of them, because our footage linked up with the storyboard very well.
What obstacles did you have to overcome to make the film?
STIAN: As I mentioned, the subject is a bit taboo. I remember a phone call I had with a potential actor.
Stian: “Hi! My name is Stian Hafstad, and I’m calling from the University of Bergen. We’re making a short film and I was wondering if you would be interested in auditioning for us?
Man: “Yes, sure. I’d love to. I really enjoy acting. What’s the film about?”
Stian: “The film is called Small Penis, and is about a support gr..”
*click*
Stian: “Hello? Hello? Are you there?”
So we had many encounters with people who did not like the subject.
Also, we had to postpone the shoot for one day, and reshoot some scenes, because the guy who played the youth version of the main character punctured a lung in the filming period. But luckily we managed to find a replacement quite quick so we got the shots we needed. And that is why the main character looks so different when he's a teenager and when he's an adult.
Now that you've completed your graduation film, what's next?
STIAN: My bachelor's degree is in film and televison production, but we have only done fiction for the last year. The two years before that focused on documentaries and televison, and media science theory. So I am hoping to get in to a good film school where I can continue developing as a filmmaker and get some more experience. I am also writing on some new scripts, so if I could get funding for one of them, and just skip the film school step, that would be great:)
There's a good post today on FilmmakerMagBlog by Jake Abraham on LOVELY BY SURPRISE, a film he produced and is now distributing. The only way DIY is going to really ever become a viable model is for filmmakers to do precisely what Jake is doing, and share the experience. You should definitely read the whole post, but I definitely appreciated this nugget:
we worked with Indigenous to make sure that every possible outlet, both retail and online, would carry the film. They set up Netflix, Blockbuster Online, Amazon.com, iTunes and all those other online rental and purchase sites. Also, as they are set up as a vendor with all the wholesalers that distribute to retail rental stores and purchasers like Target, K-Mart, etc., we have orders coming in from those guys as well. This detail can’t be overlooked. Working with an approved vendor is a key step to getting your DVD in rental stores all over the U.S. (yes, they still exist). Don’t wait until your DVD is pressed to do this. It takes months to get all of this set up properly. The consequence of delaying this process is severe, as your film will not be available everywhere you want it to be when your marketing push is on and potential viewers won’t be able to access it.
Of course this brings up the question:
Who are the approved DVD vendors for the remaining DVD rental stores? It would be great to create a list. Anyone know of any? This is the kind of information every filmmaker needs to have and needs to know where to access.
We screened LOVELY BY SURPRISE at our This is that Goldcrest Screening Series and the film went over quite well with our crowd. The most uniform response I heard was that everyone thought the film was unique and they had not seen anything like it. How great is that?!! I wished I lived in a world where this was the most sought out attribute from all filmmakers. To me such praise is gold. There should be a box where you can check that as your preference. I would join a film club in a heartbeat that promised originality on a regular basis.
Reading Jake's column though, it reminds how early into the wilderness we all are. To forge a path requires a huge communal effort. There is so much I don't know, and I would bet I know a hell of a lot more than you do (not to be smug, but...). But it is not intimidating; it is only reality. When I look at the work everyone did demystifying production, development, festival strategy, and initial sales -- essentially the work of the Indie Film movement of the last 15 years, I know that distribution and marketing are conquerable too. Provided we share that is. So what are the next steps?
We should start a regular column here on DIY Distribution Tips. Let me know if you have any.
Like the DVD-Rental Store Approved Vendor List, also let me know of any further lists you think we need to build.
And check out the LOVELY BY SURPRISE website. It's nice. One thing I think they did really well was the placement of the widgets to add the film to you Netflix or Blockbuster queue. Ditto the Amazon pre-order button. The booking link gets a bit lost due to the consistency of the font and structure, but neatness still counts for a lot in my book. Still since any true indie booker or theater will want this film, it would be nice if it popped a tad more for them.
I should have known Free would be the mantra of the weekend. We were going to take Hope The Younger to freeload at Vanessa's Dad's pad by the beach for the 4th, but before we left, we had the op to share a cab back from celebrating Strand's 20th with Indiewire's Eugene Hernadez; under his arm, still in it's protective wrapper, was Chris Anderson's "Free". Eugene had shelled out the $27 bucks for the wisdom of the nothing economy. Meanwhile, I was still hoping that Anderson would still take me up on my offer to send copies to the 4 most influential people I know, and thus provide with a copy for the price of the title. I guess heads of Hollywood and Indiewood studios don't rank in his book. Back from the sea, sand still between my toes, I still haven't read the meme of the moment, and now must live vicariously.
I once had a friend who said he preferred reading criticism than seeing or reading the real deal. I just may have to settle for that experience myself on this one, but luckily we all have the pleasure of both Malcolm Gladwell and Janet Maslin chiming in on Anderson's book so we can still participate in the daily chatter.
Just so it's clear -- if it isn't already -- Anderson's "free" is not the same "FREE" of this blog's inspiration (and title). Here on TFF, free is used in terms of thought, execution, and means of distribution. Here I mean FREE in terms of content, not economy. Granted there is a lot of overlap, but basically I am hoping that by changing our economic model to adapt to the reality of our times, what once was mistakingly called Indie Film can be a far more diverse and participatory culture. But more on that later. Back to that other Free...
Generally the question everyone seems to want to know is how do you make money, let alone recoup your time and money, when you are giving the product away for free?
“The way to compete with Free is to move past the abundance to find the adjacent scarcity,” states Chris Anderson in his book. What does that mean for you the filmmaker?
Scott Macauley on FilmmakerMagBlog tipped me to Brian Newman's powerpoint on moving beyond Free, and actually how to make a living with Free. Brian answers that question quite clearly & concisely.
To further answer this Question-Of-The-Moment, Janet Maslin points out in her review:
Mr. Anderson sees that consumers think not only about money but also about intangibles like convenience, access, quality and time.
Maslin, in contrasting Anderson's "Free" with Shell's book "Cheap", also hits upon one of the plagues that runs amok in Indie Filmland:
Ms. Shell’s intangibles are different; she argues that moral accountability and responsibility are often sacrificed for the sake of cheap pricing.
They didn't write a book on that because it would require two words: Bad Behavior. I find that even the filmmakers who adopt the "film-is-war" approach to production (more Bad Behavior), still struggle over these principles. People don't like to exploit others, although sometimes they allow themselves to get distracted to the point such exploitation becomes a tad too convenient. Those that do have started to lose some of those human qualities. Generally I find the creative brigade would love to find ways to get their work made and seen without having to ransom moral accountability and responsibility. People will adopt good behavior if they are reminded or given the opportunity or have a gun held to their head (daily).
I think the gun is there along with the opportunity and the daily reminders.
Yet, the fear of there be no real business model there too, leads a lot to indulge in a less rigid sense of effects. It's funny how survival leads many to cannibalize themselves. And as clearly as Gladwell deconstructs Anderson's model, he too finds it difficult to unearth the money-generating Free model:
There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money). The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, “has so far failed to make any money for Google.”
To makes matter worse, providing for Free, isn't free to YouTube. As Gladwell points out "A recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars." And then it gets even worse from there:
...in order to make money, YouTube has been obliged to pay for programs that aren’t crap. To recap: YouTube is a great example of Free, except that Free technology ends up not being Free because of the way consumers respond to Free, fatally compromising YouTube’s ability to make money around Free, and forcing it to retreat from the “abundance thinking” that lies at the heart of Free. Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube will lose close to half a billion dollars this year.
So where does all this leave us? Indie films been losing approximately two billion a year (guesstimate: 4000 features @ $500K avg. budget; all not distributed or recouping).Gladwell's summation essentially comes down to that there are no easy answers -- but that easy answers do sell books (or at least get you a publishing deal, and the 4th of July meme of the moment).
But talented artists still want to make movies. And to make good movies, we all need to focus on the movies first and foremost. But good movies aren't enough in this world to get seen.
A good first step is to work harder to make your film better and more distinct.
The second step is team up and start to truly collaborate.
Try following Kevin Kelly's 8 Generatives for step #3.
I think the fourth step is follow those rules via some of the methods we've relayed here.
Let's call the fifth step sharing your knowledge with each other in hopes that we will find a way.
Step by step we will get there. Let's make this map together.
As Joe Tripitican commented below, the musicians are dealing with this all straight on. There's a lively debate he tipped us to over on Jonathan Taplin's blog too. Check it out.
And Mark Cuban wants to encourage all business-minded to avoid the freemium model as he believes any successful free-ium play will grow until it becomes to large, expensive, and retro. There will always be a Facebook to replace MySpace, and a MySpace to replace Friendster, a Google to kick Yahoo's ass. Personally speaking I think all companies should plan to make themselves obsolete within five years, or they are not doing the public good.
Just in case you haven't heard yet... 'Under Jakob's Ladder' now has its own Fan Page on Facebook!
Are you already on Facebook? Then become a fan of the movie! Just go to our Facebook Fan Page and click on the "Become a Fan" at the top of the page.
Becoming a fan is yet another great way to get up-to-date info on the movie. We'll be posting production photos, involving you in discussions, updating our editing status, and letting you know when the movie is complete and ready for screenings...
(What? You don't have a Facebook account? Don't worry. You can easily sign up to get one.)
You can also friend us (the Moon Brothers) on Facebook.
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 Location: Interiors -- Prison Film: Under Jakob's Ladder
Ah... Tuesday. We're back on set for Week 3 of filming.
Today is one of the days we had bring in our make-up artist: Jennifer Theeparajah. (We actually already had her come in on Saturday.) Her job on set? Make sure we had our bruises for Yasha (played by Quentin McCuiston)...
Here's the thing: We needed the bruise to age, to get progressively lighter as time went by. But, the problem was, we weren't really shooting the scenes in order! Which meant we had to be specific as to what type of bruise the scene called for. So, we needed labels for each bruise.
For example: We'd tell Jennifer that we needed a "Day-3 Bruise" for one scene (i.e. a lighter bruise). And a half-hour later, we'd need her to either take the bruise off completely, or switch it to a "Day-1 Bruise" (i.e. a darker bruise).
Fortunately, changing the bruise was a pretty quick process; and so we never had to wait very long until we got the bruise we needed for the scene.
Here's an excerpt from an on-line interview I did recently.
You're the author and co-author of several books, most notably Digital Filmmaking 101. Tell us about them. What inspires you to write?
JOHN GASPARD: We wrote Digital Filmmaking 101 originally as a series of notes to ourselves, to remind us of the steps we took to make a feature for very little money. We later expanded those notes into a complete book to provide beginning filmmakers with the tools they would need to make a feature for what most Hollywood films spend on coffee and rolls.
My second book, Fast, Cheap and Under Control: Lessons Learned From the Greatest Low-Budget Movie of All Time, was designed to help keep new filmmakers from re-inventing the wheel every time they go out to make a feature. There is a wealth of knowledge in the low-budget movies that have come before ours, and it's a foolish filmmaker who doesn't heed those lessons. In the book I talked to both old-school low-budget filmmakers (like Roger Corman) and people from the current generation (Swingers, The Blair Witch Project, Open Water, etc.).
The latest book, Fast, Cheap and Written that Way: Top Screenwriters on Writing for Low-Budget Movies, does just what the title suggests. I spoke to over twenty top screenwriters who had previously worked on low-budget films and got their secrets on how to write for a tiny budget. Interviewees included George Romero, Tom DiCillo, Stuart Gordon, Bob Clark and Kenneth Lonnergan, among others.
Your films were made on very low budgets. Grown Men cost under $13,000. How did you manage this?
JOHN GASPARD: Well, as soon as you realize that you won't be paying anyone, that cuts your costs significantly. Second, you should write the script to conform to locations and props that you can get for free. Third, you should shoot as quickly as you can -- 12 to 15 pages of script a day is not uncommon.
The main reason to make a movie for such little money is not just to save money -- it's also to help you maintain control of the movie. Without backers breathing down your neck, you can make the movie you want at the pace you want. You may never see that money again -- a high percentage of low-budget movies never see the light of day, let along turn a profit -- but the satisfaction of making the movie YOU wanted to make greatly outweighs the cost.
Do you have any advice for the amateur filmmakers reading this?
JOHN GASPARD: See as many movies as you can -- low-budget independent films, Hollywood films, classic movies from the Golden Era. You can learn something valuable from every movie you watch, so the more you see the more you learn.
Read scripts to learn how to write one. And I mean real scripts, not transcriptions of finished movies. Learn what the words look like on the page and how that gets translated into images on the screen.
And, most important, don't ever try to fund your movie with credit cards. Don't believe what you read about other filmmakers doing this -- it flat out doesn't work.
Filmmaking is sometimes just a big game of Where's Waldo.
