On a film set, hands hold the boom mic. Hands set up the camera for the next scene. Hands move light stands, sandbags, props, and costumes. And those are just the behind-the-scenes hands.
Often, after a film set has wrapped for the day, the crew isn't quite finished. Yes, the actors have been released for the day and are able to go home. But, while the equipment is still set up, the crew will often try to grab some shots that didn't make it off the shot list of that day's filming.
So, we film some inserts. And most inserts involve... Yep! You guessed it... Hands.
And that's where we need the "hand double". In this case, instead of the actor's hands, someone else's hand is used for the shot. And sometimes, once the film is pieced together, it's hard -- even for us -- to spot whether that insert is really the actor's hand, or the double's hand.
Substitutions are supposed to be like that.
You shouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Kind of like the hands of a certain carpenter...
Could I behold those hands which span the poles, And tune all spheres at once pierc'd with those holes? John Donne (1572-1631)
Peter Dekom on The Reality Of Creator/Distributor/Audience Relationship
Collen Nystedt of MovieSet pointed this lecture (2/7) out to me via Facebook. It’s not a pretty picture.
You have to skip the 4min corny intro, but amidst the doom mongering, Peter Dekom puts an interesting position out there. He describes the current industry situation as the “antichrist of independent filmmaking” (end of pt.3). Unfortunately he’s not referencing Lars VT either. Dekom doesn’t put much stock on the long tail, but illustrates how the industry is built around movies that do well theatrically (pt.4). Without theatrical success, there’s not much else that can happen from a business perspective with a film these days, he says. So much for the hope of a VOD salvation…
The main thrust is that our industry is in a serious disconnect from our audiences. It is clear that the model consumers like least is pay per use — yet Hollywood is still dedicated to this. Dekom argues that we have to wake up both our business models and our copyright laws (and I wish he explored this latter part more) to adjust how people actually behave. Embrace reality! Wake up and smell the instant coffee!!
Along the way, Dekom takes the time to make a few keypoints to make sure we understand how we got here.
He explains we’re not a world practicing multi-tasking — but rapid focus shifting. It’s not multiple things we are doing, but one thing after another and then back and forth;
He de-emphasizes our industry’s need to focus on distribution solutions; for Dekom the real film biz comes down to creativity, deal-making, and marketing. That may not be ground shaking news, but it does call attention to how much time everyone spends on the question — and perhaps how misguided we are at times just worrying about if we are going to get it up and out.
He encourages us to recognize we live in a world of hyper accelerating change. And to ask ourselves what does that do to us as consumers of entertainment? We are living in the world of The What’s Next Generation. People are no longer interested in What Is (and thus why the Star System is over – pt2). Audiences have moved on.
For Dekom there are four key components of mass-entertainment movies these days : ride, moments, character, story. Very few Indie films can offer ride (thrills), but we can certainly offer moments (think YouTube). And we can always do better by thinking earlier what those moments are going to be, what we will want to put in the trailer.
Since 9/15/08 when the economy tanked, people over 30 have gone to the movies 46% less whereas kids have gone 24% more.
Dekom makes a lot of points.
H makes it clear that there is no traditional indie market to build a business plan on — then or now.
Film subsidies help develop artists, but don’t develop markets traditionally.
Dekom puts some hope on the use of psycho-graphic focus and metadata to help market films (pt.4). Granted this stuff is very personal … and private data — and, in my opinion, should stay that way . But he does spell out how none of this is truly private anymore (pt.5). Once again: wake up to reality.
Dekom does recognize the marketing benefits of piracy and probably could have spoken up more about piracy’s ability to deliver to neglected markets.
He criticizes how the film industry knows less about it’s audience than any other field. If this doesn’t change, we are doomed.
He points how library value has completely eroded (this is the foundation of most studios) and you can’t borrow against it.
Dekom explains that it NOW comes down to the primary event for all entertainment industries. After that, there is just “the other”, no ancillary. Indie business has, unfortunately, been built on “the other” and only the old “other”. And there now is no “other” — in Dekom’s vision. The primary event is very much big screen theatrical now — just like it was in the ’50’s. Without theatrical, where is the business? There’s been a lot of good discussion on what people are willing to pay for, and we need more of it.
The hope, in Dekom’s vision, is to learn how to listen to the audience. We need to focus on finding the audience, determining who the audience is, and how to reach them. Each film (unless it is a sequel) is a brand new product line worthy of the same creativity in the marketing that gave rise to the film in the first place.
Check out all seven clips. People pay this man a great deal to have him speak. He’s worth your time.
Isn’t it curious in this age where more moving images get created and distributed digitally that there is this group of people who still call themselves “filmmakers”? It seems a term that is so archaic, so analogue, so yesterday’s news. But is it any of these?
I think filmmakers look for three opportunities that truly define them as filmmakers.
They are:
1. The ability to tell a visual story from beginning to end, without any interruption, as a complete, continuous experience. This is what separates them from people who create stories for TV as most TV series are produced with commercial interruptions or different viewings (episodes) in mind.
2. The chance to have an audience gather in a theater and watch this visual story together, as a shared experience in time and space. In the course of a film’s distribution it may be seen in a lot of different settings, public or private, but the filmmaker is making the film with this key audience in mind. This is the primary target of all his/her imaginings.
3. The opportunity to see his/her film with an audience. Filmmakers want to physically experience the film with an audience. The filmmaker wants to see if they laugh or cry when he/she intended, if the audience got the point–to see if their film really succeeded at reaching another human being. As every filmmaker knows who has done this, it is a genuinely scary moment.
So each of these opportunities really goes to the heart of what is most essential about calling yourself a filmmaker.
Think of them as a set of principles about the relationship between the creator of a film and the audience for which it is intended.
And here is what is most surprising as we move from the analogue past to the digital future.
These opportunities are not disappearing into the analogue past.
In fact, they are just beginning to open up.
Chris Dorr has been a movie producer, studio executive and creator of online and mobile services. He consults on digital strategy and business development. Find Chris at www.digitaldorr.com.
I don’t even know what this was for, This was for something on WNYC called “Egg” produced by Jeff Folmsbee. but I do know that my friend Dan McGuire was also heavily involved in the shooting and editing of it.
I co-founded Good Machine back in 1990. We made a lot of good films and had some good times too. Iget a big kick out of seeing glimpses of folks from so long ago: Mary Jane Skalski, Heta Paarte, Glen Basner, and James Schamus and Ang Lee. Nothing like seeing those gigantic computers and roladexes too. Too think we could make a film without an iPhone…
It also feels so fresh to me. The same drive and ideas that made Good Machine a good idea back then, holds true to this day. Everything is new again. We founded that company on the idea of a no-budget film fund (okay micro-budget in today’s vernacular) could make money and build a better mousetrap in the process. That, and the fact that I had a good long list of directors who needed some help. Both those things still hold true.
Although I must admit I no longer have a Che poster behind my desk, although the Obama “Hope” won works as the same sort of litmus test.
Okay this is old news, but it is still DAMN F’N relevant!
In 2005, via the MacArthur Foundation, Henry Jenkins released this white paper, pointing out that:
Schools as institutions have been slow to react to the emergence of this new participatory culture; the greatest opporitunity for change is currently found in afterschool programs and informal learning communities. Schools and afterschool programs must devote more attention to fostering what we call the new media literacies: a set of cultural competencies and social skills that young people need in the new media landscape. Participatory culture shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement.The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking.These skills build on the foundation of tradi- tional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom.
What Jenkins goes on to point out is needed among students, is also very much needed by anyone working in the film business, or desiring a full appreciation of today’s film culture.
The new skills include:
Play — the capacity to experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving Performance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery
Simulation — the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes
Appropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media content
Multitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.
Distributed Cognition — the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities
Collective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal
Judgment — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources
Transmedia Navigation — the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities
Networking — the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate information
Negotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.
I want to make sure my son has all these skills in his arsenal as he starts middle school. That said, if I ran an undergrad film school, this training would be part of the core curriculum. At the grad level, it would be an entry requirement.
"A film is not done by one person. It’s done by a lot of people. I love this whole collaborative aspect. When it works well, you end up with something better than any of us started out to do."-- Jim Henson
"Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the cooperation of many minds. I may be given credit for having blazed the trail, but when I look at the subsequent developments I feel the credit is due to others rather than myself." -- Alexander Graham Bell
"Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organizational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results." -- Andrew Carnegie
"If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." -- George Bernard Shaw
"No one can whistle a symphony. It takes a whole orchestra to play it." -- H.E. Luccock
"Every single art form is involved in film, in a way." -- Sydney Pollack
My interview for Film Courage made their top ten of the month. I seem to be perpetually stuck at number 5; I guess that is truly Middle-Of-The-Road, eh?
They’ve clearly got at least four people far more interesting than I, so check them out. You can find Jamin & Kiowa Winans of INK there, and Sobi’s Zak Forsman & Kevin Shah, amongst a slew of others.
What was your filmmaking background before making Portrait of a Zombie?
BING: I grew up in a working class neighborhood in Dublin, Ireland. I'd like to tell you I was running around my backyard shooting toy soldiers on a 16mm camera, but my family would not have been able to afford a video or film camera at that time. Movies were a window out of my world and my imagination was fueled by films from filmmakers like Hitchcock, Spielberg, Scorsese, Carpenter, Friedkin, Capra, Coppola, and Donner.
Working at a local video store at age 16 gave me free access to other filmmakers like Renoir, Truffaut, and Cassavetes. It was the movie War Games that got me interested in Technology and Computers. After technical college, I moved to the United States in 1999 and started working as an information technology engineer at the World Trade Center. I never thought making movies was something I could do. It was too far outside my zone as a kid from Dublin.
The fall of the World Trade Center which, I managed to escape due to jetlag and blind luck, changed my perspective on life and made me want to pursue something more creative and fulfilling. My entry into filmmaking started with a technical fascination with cameras themselves and what they were capable of, and it was only later that I let my creative guard down and I realized then that I'd been making movies my whole life, I just called it day dreaming. My confidence as a storyteller increased with every project. Over the past 9 years, I have been creating shorts, music videos, documentary, and narrative projects. Portrait of a Zombie is my second full feature film.
BING: Portrait of a Zombie is a mix of aspects of my own life growing up in Dublin and about how far Irish families will go to protect their children given really harsh circumstances. I admired George A. Romero's social commentary in his Zombie films and I hoped to reflect some of what families in Ireland are facing including economic and social stigma in my film.
What was the writing process like?
BING: The writing process was very swift. I started with an outline of what I wanted and over a period of about 6 weeks wrote the film with my wife, Laura Morand Bailey, who has been my writing and producing partner on all my projects.
How did you fund the film?
BING: Working in the technology field has allowed me to fund all my projects to date, which does not come without sacrifices. You have to give up every comfort imaginable to get the kind of money even low and micro budget films require to do them justice. I am no stranger to living on the Ramen noodles diet for 6 months so I can feed my cast and crew during production and afford a better camera system at the same time.
BING: After consulting with my cinematographer, Clayton Haskell, we decided to use the Red One camera with 35mm Lenses. The images it produces are organic, striking, filmic, and not video-like or too sharp like some HD cameras can be. If these are the kind of images I can create I'm not going to complain over the odd camera crash or reboot.
The only thing I would change about the Red Camera would be to make it lighter. The whole film was pretty much shot handheld. The system weighs in about 20 lbs+ when you add accessories. The last thing you want is to put your cinematographer's back out or give them shoulder damage from prolonged use. Thankfully Clayton was a trooper. I believe the next versions of the camera, "Epic & Scarlet," will go a long way towards making it lighter. I'm hoping to use these on my next project.
What was the biggest lesson you took away from shooting the movie?
BING: I think the biggest lesson is always write and direct what you know and use what you have access to if you want to create authentic stories. Don't wait for anyone's permission to make a movie. The film production went very smoothly because of the lessons I had learned on previous projects through making mistakes and having failures. Doing your homework on pre production can really save your neck during shooting and post production.
What are the advantages (and disadvantages) of being your own editor?
BING: The advantages are obviously cost. Anyone with fairly standard equipment can now edit a film cheaply. If you understand the technology, you can create a film for very little and with the Internet you have access to a wide array of technical resources. If you want to learn editing software or post-production effects or sound applications, it can be done on sites like lynda.com for $25 a month. The process and knowledge of how to do this is no longer expensive or a mystery. Telling a story through editing on the other hand is either something you have a feel for or something you don't.
The disadvantage is you may be too close to the material or unable to figure out solutions to story problems on your own. Sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is what you really need. It really does depend on the director. Some directors want to be involved in every aspect of their films and some want to drop their footage off with an editor and see what he or she comes back with. I've done it both ways and I'm comfortable with either depending on the project. I've worked with many fine editors and learned a great deal from them.
Finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?
BING: I learned that we are very quickly coming to a place were almost anything is possible with low cost technology. If you can dream it and visualize it, you can create it. You do not need multi-million dollar budgets or access to large studios to tell good stories and image quality is no longer a barrier to good movie making.
There are lots of predictions going around right now as to future of 3D.
Although, it's not like 3D is new.
But, with a whole assortment of movies being released in 3D -- Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, to name a couple -- it's certainly on people's minds. But is 3D just a passing fad? Or is it here to stay?
Everybody is making predictions. But predictions can be interesting things.
For example, in 1900, a writer for the New York Times predicted that the advent of the automobile would solve the parking problem. The reasoning? The auto occupies less space at a curb than a horse and wagon. (Oops! Bad prediction.)
Second example... Have you ever heard of "Disney's Folly"? This was the pejorative nickname for a full-length animated feature film that Walt Disney had in production in the 1930s. Up to this point, no one had ever attempted a movie-length cartoon. People in the movie industry predicted that it'd be the death of Walt Disney Productions.
In addition to this, Walt disney even had opposition even inside his own fledgling studio. After a viewing of the almost-completed movie, one employee wrote an anonymous note to Walt: "Stick to shorts!" (This note apparently upset him for days.)
Of course, ultimately, Walt Disney got the last laugh.
(By the way, after the enormous success of Snow White, if a Disney employee responded in a negative manner to one of Walt disney's ideas, he would exclaim, "I'll bet you're the guy who wrote 'Stick to shorts'!")
So... what about 3D?
Well, they're coming out with 3D televisions, now. One thing to consider is that these TVs are rather expensive, especially considering there are only a handful of movies out there using 3D technology.
And you still have to wear those glasses.
What do you think? Is 3D here to stay?
University Challenged: Educational Approaches To Filmmaking
Today’s guest post is from James Fair. I follow it with a note of my own in regards to the same subject. James is a lecturer and filmmaker based at Staffordshire University in England. He graduated from Bournemouth University and University College Dublin. He believes that recent activities within his three universities point towards a fundamental difference in educational approaches towards filmmaking.
Two events happened quietly in the back rooms of a couple of English universities last week that indicate an interesting direction that is emerging within film disciplines of British universities; Staffordshire University decided to partner the 72 Hour Movie (link: http://www.72hourmovie.com) project at the Melbourne International Film Festival and Bournemouth University closed the first round of entries from alumni for a £100k budget film project (link: http://www.bsma.ac.uk ). These extra-curricular projects are flagships designed to illustrate just how relevant their courses are to industry, to future students and industry alike.
Nothing is unusual there, as many universities internationally have sought ways to engage with future students and industry in a variety of disciplines for years. However, these two projects are emerging at a time where the film academia seems to be polarising in Britain and Ireland. The fundamental question is: do we need to make movies to know movies? For example, last year University College Dublin stopped the popular ‘hands-on’ production modules of their MA Film Studies and focused upon strictly academic theoretical areas. Meanwhile, Staffordshire University launched the almost-entirely practical MSc in Digital Feature Film Production. Strategic decisions that point in opposite directions!
Bournemouth University used to print ‘practice without theory is empty and theory without practice, blind’ onto the Television & Video student’s handbooks. Yet the introduction of fees into some British universities appears to have brought about a fragmentation of film studies. Whilst practical and vocational qualifications are expensive to run, they seem to yield a good return on graduate employment and satisfaction. Meanwhile, ‘traditional’ film studies appears to be lacking an industrial relevance, as if it is of academic value but little else – attaching a narrative to the history of cinema yet making no contributions to where it may be going in future. Cynics will argue that the practical courses are gimmicks, selling shovels in a gold-rush. Optimists will argue that Bournemouth and Staffordshire are attempting to create models for a sustainable future in British filmmaking. The answer probably lies somewhere in between!
But the actions of last week suggest an increasingly polarised future. Should universities take the low-expense route and examine what lessons we can learn from the past or should they expensively engage with practical examples and aim to engage with where this digital evolution may be taking us? The halfway house seems to have gone; the barbell effect seems to be emerging in British and Irish universities in much the same way as it is in industry – either all budget or no budget!
It would be genuinely interesting to hear a debate about the role that academic institutions can play in the future of filmmaking, if any at all. This is not the old ‘film school’ debate; this is about whether universities should be actively engaging with industry for solutions during this paradigm shift or whether they should be an omnipotent observer. Maybe there’s room for both, as the title ‘university’ suggests?
Note from Ted: Here in the USA, I think this question is as relevant as relevant can be. The schools churn out film grad after film grad yet the industry has fully crumbled. We have no support for the arts here and no way for the market to support these grads either. The schools still make money encouraging unrealistic dreams. There are hundreds of solutions, but even the commercial infrastructure that is in place don’t want to engage in the discussion, else it reduce what little livelihood remains. We have nothing resembling a thinktank that can help unite the artists, industry, financiers and government. What better role could the academic institutions play than furthering these discussions?
Update Sat. 3.27: It was nice to see Ira Deutchman at The Conversation speak of his desire to turn Columbia University into precisely the sort of place where such questions could be asked.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Free Is Not Worth The Price (And Neither is $1.00!) Part 2 of 2
Today’s guest post, like yesterday’s, is from filmmaker Michael Barnard. Yesterday, he covered how we slipped into our embrace of “free”. Today, he writes of the deadly results.
I used to read Daily Variety online religiously. Now I don’t. When I click on my fifth article (or whatever the tipping point is) and am denied access, I resent it. Yet, I know that if Daily Variety does not succeed somehow, I am either going to have to become my own journalist (“JOURNALIST”, not merely an observer or repeater) or I am going to have to rely on agenda-laden, word-of-mouth bloggers.
This situation is also affecting indie filmmakers. Indie filmmakers have to deal with the very worst form of free: theft by piracy. They have to deal with distribution outlets that want their films for free. Even REDBOX, with their $1 DVD rental kiosks, a pet peeve of mine, is an enemy of the indie filmmaker.
The success of REDBOX comes from ripping off filmmakers. In fact, you have to admire REDBOX for achieving something few ever have: they have even ripped off the studios! By circumventing the sales requirements for rental DVDs (REDBOX bought their DVDs from big box stores like Wal-Mart at discounts rather than at “rental” pricing from wholesalers), they stripped the potential profit from rental fees and kept all the income for themselves. They single-handedly killed the perceived value of DVDs by pricing them at only $1. Yes, they are successful, but because, of course, EVERYONE WANTS FREE. $1 is “free” as far as the film business is concerned, since there was no return of any of that income to the filmmakers. (The studios have since coerced REDBOX to start playing on a more level playing field.)
Bear in mind: McDonald’s will offer you a $1 burger. Why? They know that’s as good as free to you. But the difference between REDBOX $1 DVD rentals and McDonald’s occasional $1 burger is that McDonald’s still has its full-value menu for you, and will up-sell you with sodas and French fries. They sell $1 burgers with the full intention of making a profit and without killing the perceived value of a standard McDonald’s meal.
When REDBOX rents you a DVD for $1, that’s it. End of story. There’s no more income stream possible, there’s no up-sell, there’s no method to establish the realistic value of the product.
And the most hostile effect for indie filmmakers: the kiosk only displays a couple dozen titles, so indie filmmakers can no longer compete for viewers’ attention as they used to when people wandered the aisles of their local Blockbuster.
$1 DVDs from a REDBOX kiosk are the same as “free” and the impact is just as profound on filmmakers as the free online content has been on the news publishers.
The impact of “free” is beginning to cripple journalism and filmmaking.
At some point soon, it will sink in to me, and others, that FREE IS NOT WORTH THE PRICE.
Michael R. Barnard is a filmmaker and marketeer living in Hollywood. He is rushing towards pre-production on his indie feature film A FATHER AND SON (http://AFatherAndSon.com)
