Mindmap For The 38 Failings

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Mike Ambs (aka @Pedal) built this pretty picture of the 38 Problems. Sometimes a picture is worth it’s weight in words. And hey, You can add on to it too. Thanks Mike!

Inserts and Cutaways

What's an Insert? What's a Cutaway? Well, both are part of filmmaking.

As we've been busy editing, we have mentioned that we had to get some shots that we failed to get during principal photography last year. In fact, last month went back to shoot a bunch of inserts for the movie.

The difference between inserts and cutaways can be confusing. Some people use the word interchangeably. And in some ways, they're very much alike.

An Insert is a close-up of some detail in the scene, having the camera's full attention for a moment. For example, one insert we wanted to get (and did manage to get a couple of weeks ago) was the a close-up of the Red Queen. In the scene, the Red Queen (a chess piece) is being handed from one hand to another. We already had shots of it. But we wanted a closer shot, so it would be clear to the audience exactly what was being passed.

Last October, on the other hand, we were focusing mainly on cutaways. A Cutaway, as the name implies, cuts away from the action, usually to show simultaneous action; it also can be used to create suspense. It is a shot that introduces content or scenery that is away from the central action of the scene at hand.

We got permission to film in the black dirt region of Chester (our main filming location). We wanted some wide open shots. (If you look closely at the photo, that's us with the camera back in October. It was magic hour.)

Jon Reiss on Proper Prior Planning Prevent Perplexing Problems

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is from filmmaker / hybrid DIY distro guru, Jon Reiss.

Over the last several months an argument has arisen within the independent film community as to how much (and whether) filmmakers should focus on the distribution and marketing of their films.

I am rather surprised that there is an argument.  I am very surprised that lines have been drawn in the sand, armies joined and deployed.  I feel that the discussion to date misses two very important points.  First – there is no one kind of independent filmmaker.  There is no one kind of filmmaker.  Never has, never will be.  Thank god.  Each person who is involved in independent film has his or her own desires, interests, passions, loves, hates.  Each filmmaker has different motivations for making a film.  Some want to make a statement, change the world – whether it is social or artistic.  Some want to make money.   Some want to express an idea or emotion to as many people as possible.  Most filmmakers want it all.   However if push comes to shove, filmmakers will prioritize what they want from their films.  And these desires are different for different filmmakers.

Similarly not everyone in independent film wants to be a director, or a writer-director, or a writer-producer-director.   Some filmmakers just want to direct and prefer to collaborate with scriptwriters and producers.  Some filmmakers don’t want to direct, but want to be producers, DPs, editors etc.

Second, the debate implies that directors or multi hyphenate writer-director-producers should be primarily responsible for these new tasks.   I will always be among those that directors should not be solely charged with the distribution and marketing of their films.  As a filmmaker, I know how incredibly difficult this is (especially while making a film) – Frankly one of the reasons this blog post is perhaps a bit late to the debate is that I have been involved with shooting Bomb It 2.

However, I do believe that distribution and marketing should be woven into the filmmaking process just as preproduction planning, casting, scriptwriting, editing, sound mixing are all a part of the filmmaking process.  Just as you don’t consider the sound for your film when you are about to mix or even when you are editing dialogue.  If good sound is important to you as a filmmaker, usually you are considering the sound for your film no later than the tech scout, and often from the script stage. Similarly I feel that filmmakers will be helped both logistically and creatively to incorporate distribution and marketing into the entire process of making their films.

It should be understood by our community that distribution and marketing are not about tailoring your film to an audience that you feel you can capitalize on (however if the sole goal for your film is to make money – perhaps this might be a path for you).

A better way to view this process is that distribution and marketing are about finding the audience that already exists for your film, your vision.  (I credit Marc Rosenbush with this keen perspective).

This process of audience engagement takes either a lot of money or a lot of time.  Most independents do not have much of the former, and so must rely on the latter.   It also takes knowledge.

Knowledge can either be learned through experience or through education or a combination.

A year ago, I felt compelled to write a book about distribution and marketing for my fellow filmmakers as a guidebook to this process.  I did this  so that they could learn from my experience and the experiences of others and so that they wouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel each time anew.  (How awful would it be that every time we shot a film we had to relearn how different lenses, different lighting, different editing affected the emotional quality of a scene).  It is time to compile our knowledge and share it with each other so that each new filmmaker does not have to waste his or her time to relearn tools and techniques that have been tried by others before them.

I have begun a number of other educational initiatives to which I will devote most of the next twelve months.

I do this not to load more work onto the backs of my fellow filmmakers.  The work frankly exists even if you are one of the lucky few to have a distributor swoop down with a check to relieve you of this burden.

I do this for five reasons:

1. To provide a systematic way to train a new cadre of crew people to be responsible for the distribution and marketing tasks on a film.  I call these new crew people Producers of Marketing and Distribution.

I gave this crew position a name because only with a proper name will the work be recognized, rewarded and most importantly trained for.

Few directors want to do every job on their films.  Many don’t want to be multi-hyphenates.  They are happy to find a brilliant script to bring to the screen.  They are happy to work with a brilliant DP or Production Designer.  They are happy to collaborate with a creative producer who will help them realize their vision.   God knows I am.

Just as filmmakers are eager to collaborate on what has been previously thought of as the work of film, directors and producers should be eager to collaborate with additional crew people who will carry out the numerous tasks of distribution and marketing.

I hope by the time I make my next project, I can put out a call for a Producer of Marketing and Distribution on Shooting People, or Mandy and I will receive a flood of emails.   I hope this for all filmmakers.

In order to create these new crew people, we must provide a way to educate them. Toward this end, I am now working with film organizations around the world to create a variety of educational opportunities to teach this material in the form of classes, labs and workshops.  I am also in the process of creating an online tools website so that filmmakers can share information about distributors, screening networks and the like (kind of a marketing and distribution yelp for filmmakers).  This website will eventually grow into an online academy to teach these tools to filmmakers (especially to create a cadre of PMDs for filmmakers).

I applaud the others who are engaged in this teaching – Peter Broderick, Lance Weiler, Ted Hope, Scott Macaulay, Sheri Candler, Scott Kirsner, Tiffany Shlain, Marc Rosenbush, Thomas Mai, Sandy Dubowsky, Caitlin Boyle, Stacey Parks, IFP, FIND etc.  We should embrace this education as a community – not eschew it.  (I do agree that panels are a poor way to educate.  Go to any university (or any school) and you find very little education being done via panels. )

2. Filmmakers who have no intention of shooting their films still take classes in (or read books about) cinematography so as to understand the art.   Similarly, I feel that filmmakers should at least have a sense of what is entailed in distribution and marketing a film so that they can understand that process.  This does not mean that they have to devote their life to this education (or to the work).  But with knowledge comes power.   I advise my film directing students at Cal Arts to learn the basics of budgeting and scheduling, even if they never intend to produce, AD, UPM or line produce.  I believe by learning the process, they will however acquire the tools to look at a budget and schedule and understand where resources are being allocated so that they can have an informed discussion with their line producer about said resource allocation.

3.  As independent filmmakers, we need to be prepared to take on any task in the filmmaking process, because we are never sure if we will have someone else to do that task for us.  You might not be lucky enough to have someone shoot your film, edit your film, help you with the distribution of the film.  Hence any of these roles might fall to you.  I can’t afford to take a DP with me around the world to film Bomb It 2 (or a producer or sound person) – so I am doing it myself.   Independent filmmakers have always been Jacks and Jills of all trades.  Distribution and marketing is one of the trades we thought we could hand over to others.  We know now that this (fortunately or unfortunately) is not always the case.   As I learned from my odd 7^th grade math teacher: Proper Prior Planning Prevents Perplexing Problems.

4. Maybe, just maybe, in learning about distribution and marketing you might discover some new creative way to express your vision that you did not previously know existed.  I love feature films.  I love great shorts. I even love great television of either conventional length.    But these are four forms that have become ossified in the filmmaking world for too long as the only forms.  I feel that great creativity will come from expanding filmmaking – nay media creating – forms.   Why slaughter your babies in the editing room?  Find new life for them.  Why not create multiple babies in the script stage to express your thoughts in a myriad of new directions?  And still make a feature film if that is your passion.  Why not collaborate with other filmmakers to help you create these new forms of content and reach those audiences, if your goal is to focus solely on making the feature?

5.  Maybe, if you are interested, you might create a long-term relationship with a core audience, that might help to sustain you as an artist.

The central point is this: Don’t limit yourself.   Open up your arms to the vast amount of creative potential that awaits you, and do so with the collaboration of others who are eager to help you.  I believe this should be the model for us as a community to face the new financial realities of our world.   There is too much work to be done for those in our community to vilify others.  It is a time ripe for great opportunity to create and engage with audiences as we have been doing as a species since we first sat around fires telling stories.   The form will change, the meaning to us, as human beings will not.

I am doing a workshop in conjunction with IFP on June 5^th and 6^th. Instead of panels, we are having a cocktail party for participants to meet with distributors and other distribution and marketing service providers.

I will be doing another workshop in Vancouver on June 12 – 13^th.

Finally for June I have collaborated with the LA Film Festival and Film Independent to create a three-day distribution and marketing symposium.  A day and a half boot camp for the competition filmmakers, and a day and a half open to the public focused on 1. Tools instruction  2. Exploring the potential available to us all.

For more information:  www.thinkoutsidetheboxoffice.com

Or www.jonreiss.com/blog

KickStarter: The Good, Bad, & Ugly

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

I forget again who sent me this link, but I found CoffeeAndCelluloid’s post on their KickStarter experience illuminating.

Although I have yet to engage in a crowdfunding attempt yet, I have been contemplating. And I have been providing some advice, thoughts, and general consulting to those that have. I think the points Joey Daoud raises about needing to raise a fan base first, having some investment pre-committed, and needing to have supporters, promoters, and blogs lined up in advance are all right on.  He’s helping all of us learn how to make this better together.

Joey also posted many good links to bring more perspective on the whole crowdfunding experience:

1. Kickstarter and Flattr
2. How to Figure the True Cost of a Kickstarter Project
3. Behavior Patterns of Kickstarter Funders
4. Feature Film Editing and Kickstarter [Podcast]

Mark Stolaroff on The No Budget Film School

What is your background in film?

MARK: I'm 45 and my father was a shutter bug--he loved his Nikon still camera and Bell & Howell Super 8mm movie camera and I fell in love with film then. In high school, waaay before it was cool, I used to make films (on Super 8mm) instead of doing written book reports, and no matter how bad the film was, since you were the only kid doing one, you got an 'A.'

In college at The University of Texas in Austin I kind of chickened out on film at first, majoring in Business since it was so much more of job-oriented degree. Fortunately, UT had a tremendous undergraduate film program, one of the best in the country at that time (the mid-80's) and one of the only ones with enough money to accommodate 16mm projects in the first production classes. You were supposed to major in film to be able to take Film Production, but I took all the pre-requisite classes and snuck into it. I was in a program called Business Honors at the time, and I had flexibility in my schedule.

I made several films at UT, but after I graduated, chickened-out again, going to New York and doing two years in Investment Banking as a Financial Analyst. I eventually moved back to Houston and started a legit theater with an old friend, but won an internship to work on a film that was shooting in Houston. It was a made-for TNT MOW starring Treat Williams and Glen Ford.

After producing theater for four years, I quit to pursue film, working on a few local films before I realized I had to move to LA, which I did in the Fall of 1994. My first jobs were at Roger Corman's Concorde/New Horizons, where I quickly worked my way up (that's how it works there). On my first film (which starred Martin Sheen and F. Murray Abraham) I was a PA the first week, and then I was bumped up to Location Manager on week two!

I moved up the production chain of command and over the next couple of years AD'd several low-budget 16mm features, and UPM'd an AFI short film which eventually won the Academy Award for Best Short. In 1997 I was the first hired at Peter Broderick's new company Next Wave Films, a company of the Independent Film Channel that provided finishing funds to exceptional low-budget features, including the first films of Chris Nolan, Joe Carnahan, Amir Bar-Lev, and several other talented filmmakers. I worked there for 6 years until IFC pulled the plug.

This was a tremendous experience where I was able to see the entire scope of the filmmaking process, from script to collecting revenue checks from deadbeat foreign distributors. I probably watched some part of more than 2000 films submitted to us, and since we also produced 3 films from the beginning, read many scripts, too. I oversaw the company's investment in each film, many times becoming the postproduction producer once we got involved. We also repped all of our films, so I was involved in putting together festival strategy and selling the films to distributors. We took 7 films to Sundance, 5 to Toronto. Most of our 13 films were released theatrically. After Next Wave, I formed Antic Pictures with two partners, Ron Judkins and Molly Mayeux. Ron and I produced Henry Barrial's Sundance Screenwriter's Lab project True Love for $50,000, and while Henry and I were traveling to festivals with that film, he pitched me the idea of Pig, the film I am in post on now.

Why did you create the No Budget Film School?

MARK: NBFS was born out of a couple of experiences. While I was at Next Wave, Peter and I developed a presentation on digital filmmaking just as the first wave of films made with the new DV cameras were coming out. We put together clips from these films and were invited across the country and around the world to give this presentation. While at Next Wave I also taught digital or low-budget filmmaking classes at UCLA Extension, Maine Film Workshops, and The Learning Annex.

After shooting True Love, I was surprised by how many things--tricks and mistakes included--I learned making that film and was asked by Filmmakers Alliance to give a presentation on anything that I wanted. I put something together that took into account a number of these "lessons." I received some great feedback from that presentation and decided to put together a series of classes designed specifically around no-budget filmmaking--the idea that you are going to make a film with whatever money you have available to you, no matter how much (or how little) that was.

I wanted to stress the differences between successful no-budget films and other types of films, and point out the priorities--where filmmakers should spend the majority of their resources, money and time, since one has to make some pretty hard choices. I was amazed at how much filmmakers stressed over things that from my Next Wave experience, I felt were irrelevant, (things like camera format), and didn't put enough thought into things that were vitally important, (performances, story, uniqueness). NBFS is the culmination of my experience at the theater in Houston, my time at Next Wave, and my work producing, and I keep it current by continuing to be a student of the "art of no-budget filmmaking" as well as a teacher.

How important is it to have a 'name' talent in a low-budget movie these days?

MARK: I've always felt like it was irrelevant, at least when it comes to "no-budget" filmmaking. If you're spending $500k or more, (maybe even $200k or more), it becomes a lot more important, but if you are making your film for $5k, $20k, or $50k, and the goal is to launch your career as much as it is to get your money back, then I don't think names are important and they will probably make your experience much more difficult than it would be otherwise.

The history of successful no-budget filmmaking, and by that I mean films that were successful on their own and that also launched careers, is filled with films without names. It's easy to spit out a quick list just off the top of my head: Clerks, Brothers McMullen, El Mariachi, Following, Pi, George Washington, Footfist Way, Primer, and on and on. Look at all the low-budget NEXT films at this year's Sundance. With the exception of one or two, none of them had names. Look at Joe Swanberg, the Duplass Brothers. The great thing about most of these films is they launch their no-name actors' careers too. Those no-names become names! Ed Burns, Mark Duplass, Paul Schneider, Danny McBride, etc.

What's the biggest mistake that filmmakers make when making a No Budget Movie?

MARK: Maybe it's focus on things that don't really matter in the big picture, and for me the easiest one to pick on is the filmmaker's obsession with camera/format/production value (as it pertains to the look of the film).

For so long filmmakers would think they needed to shoot film, or they needed to shoot on an F900, or now that they need to shoot on a RED. None of that is really important, in and of itself. You'd think the success of Blair Witch 10 years ago would have closed the case on this thinking, but these misconceptions are still out there. Frankly, you can shoot on toilet paper if it matches the aesthetic of your project. The audience doesn't care. Paranormal Activity? $108 million domestic gross shot on a prosumer HDV camera.

Going along with this decision to shoot on the best format possible, rather than the one available to you, is that most filmmakers have to rent that equipment, which takes away one of their biggest advantages, the one studios would kill for--free time. If you own your camera and you have access to your locations and actors, you can design a project where you take your time making the film and getting it right. And I can assure you, if Woody Allen, one of the most prolific filmmakers working today needs to re-shoot a third of his film each time, you--the filmmaker who is just learning--will probably benefit from a little trial and error.

As for production value, so much more of it comes from things other than the camera/format choice--there's production sound, production design, make-up, wardrobe--and any one or more of these will be particularly important depending on the movie you're making. Good sound, of course, is important in any film. If you can't understand what a character is saying, who cares if they were shot in 4k?

What's the smartest thing a filmmaker can do before embarking on a No Budget Movie?

MARK: Prep. The old adage of Good, Fast, and Cheap--Pick Two is at play here. If we know we don't have any money and we want our films to be good, then we have to throw Fast out the window. The only way to get Good and Cheap is to spend the time prepping your film. You can find ANYTHING if you spend enough time looking for it. That might be a free piece of gear, a free location, a great crew member willing to work for nothing, anything.

No-budget filmmaking is about Beg, Borrowing and Stealing. It takes time to beg and borrow, (I won't comment on stealing!), and you can't be afraid to ask. You need to take the time to get your script as good as it can be, to find the best actors for the roles, and to put together the right team to help you. As far as production is concerned, probably the most important element to prep is Locations. You really can't do proper prep until you lock down your location and can scout it with your keys. Your location determines so many other things, and while you might be able to find a last minute 1st AC the night before you shoot, it's a disaster waiting to happen if you haven't nailed down a location right before you shoot. In LA finding a good location is particularly hard, since it's very difficult to get anything for free and because you need a permit (which can be expensive) to shoot in LA. (Well, if you take my class, I can show you how to get around that one!).

What lessons can a No Budget filmmaker take away from today's Hollywood?

MARK: Wow! That's a hard one. I spend a good deal of time teaching what I call The Alternate Universe of Filmmaking (coined by Peter Broderick), whereby the rules of Independent Low-Budget Filmmaking are exactly the opposite of studio filmmaking.

And as far as storytelling for independents, I'm a big believer in hitting them where they ain't. If you try to compete with Hollywood on their own turf, (like making a conventional romantic comedy), you're going to get clobbered. Hollywood seems to be teaching us that if you throw a lot of money at a problem, you'll succeed. That you don't need to be unique, you just need recognizable elements to sell a film.

I guess if I can come up with one thing, it would be that there's a core audience for every film. And the definition of a Core Audience is the audience who doesn't give a shit how good your film is. Studios have been making bad films that appeal to core audiences--large core audiences--for years. They may be 15-year-old boys or 15-year-old girls, but they can be very passionate, even about the worst films. Independents need to realize that there are core audiences for their films too.

And since making a good film is so damn hard--nearly impossible, especially on a no-budget--it is vital that filmmakers work hard to discover who that core audience is and figure out cost effective ways to reach them. And since these no-budget films won't have big stars in them or be based on comic book heroes, these core audiences will be small. They'll be niche audiences, not defined by demographics like "males 18-49". If a filmmaker can properly court the core audience for their film, they'll succeed even if they don't make a perfect film.

And finally, what's your favorite No Budget film ... and why?

MARK: Ok, this is an impossible question because there are so many. I could say Following, Chris Nolan's $12k masterpiece, which I worked on for 5 years and use as a case study in my classes.

But if I really had to think about it, I would have to say Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not a no-budget film, per se, but definitely low-budget and considering they were trying to make an epic period piece, definitely not enough money to effectively pull that off. And one of the things that makes it so great as a no-budget film is they reveal that reality to you right off the bat. They enroll you in their impossible quest to make a big, studio movie with no money. The audience becomes a willing partner in the filmmakers' attempts at pulling off this feat. Right at the beginning, with Patsy rubbing coconuts together because they can't afford horses. HORSES! No horses, in a film about knights! Genius!

Where Does Curation Fit In The New Model?

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Steve Rosenbaum had an interesting post on Mashable awhile back, where he started to lay out some relevant questions about what the correct equation is for creation and curation:

it’s impossible to imagine curators as adding value without a reasonable economic arrangement to content creators. But the ethical issues around attribution, re-purposing, and editorializing around others’ content is far from resolved. Respect and remuneration seem to be reasonable starting places.

Mind you: curation is very different from aggregation. Curation provides the filter and the context. With the vast myriad of options out there, how much do we value the trusted sources that point us in the right direction

Modern Actors in Historical Clothing

It's 1938.

You're in the Soviet Union. But something strange is going on.

People are wearing modern jackets and sneakers... Drinking tea out of travel mugs... Pulling out cell phones.




That's when you realize...

You're on a film set.

Film Gigging: Towards A Lo-Fi Film Circuit

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is by John Bradburn.

Why do kids make music and not films? It’s a right of passage for teenagers up and down the land to jump in a van and travel the length of the country with instruments to play shows. These same kids save up to buy guitars and record demos. They may not make a profit but they enjoy the ride. I want to know why this doesn’t happen with filmmakers. What are the barriers to grassroots film exhibition or Film Gigging and what can we learn from the model most bands work on?

Kids don’t make films. For the cost of a set of instruments you could buy a digital camera and a laptop. Four people can make a film quite easily and with the same level of technological skill needed to record and mix a demo. But kids don’t. Jean Cocteau famously stated that film would only be an art when its materials were as cheap as pen and paper. Well now it’s certainly as cheap as an Ibenez guitar.

The film industry looks like the music industry if we thought we could only record songs with orchestras in the Albert Hall. There is no lo-fi film circuit. There are small budget shorts but 95% are aiming at the mainstream. There are even less film ‘labels’ that fund and distribute films like albums. CDs and DVDs are physically the same. If you can get an album reviewed you can get a film reviewed. So logically there should be an equal amount of indie film labels as there are music labels.

The issue is not with the availability of ‘cinemas’ and lets be clear a cinema is just any old space that can screen a film. Most bars have a big screen projector, speakers and a DVD. Sure there are short film evenings but they work on a different level. Films are frequently chosen by a selector and then screened in a micro festival model. Crucially the money generally goes to the exhibitor not the filmmaker. This would be like paying Glastonbury £90 to listen to your demo on the hope of being selected.

I am trying a different model. I am taking my feature – Wrists – to small venues around the UK in a film-gigging model. I’m taking the film to any screen that will show it where ever that is. I’d even love to be invited to someone’s house and show it to a group of friends. After the screening I’ll sell some DVDs of Wrists or some of my other films. This is entirely possible because it’s a small film for a small audience (It cost about £2, 000 and was shot with a crew of 3). I believe that if your film has a small audience then you should make it for a small amount of money. Reinvest your profits and then continue as any band would.

Much of the influence for this comes from the DIY punk and hardcore music scene. In the 1980s Dischord Records started releasing the bands from Washington DC area. They did everything themselves and released the albums at affordable prices because their overheads were low. They looked at the technology and the audience and worked out a profitable cost structure. They did not look to the received wisdom of the industry (which is currently destroying EMI ). This route is simple but it is a lot of hard work for slow and modest rewards. But you will enjoy the ride.

The 80s hardcore scene made famous the phrase ‘the personal is political.” I worry that our current film industry squeezes out marginal voices because of the perceived cost of filmmaking. Filmmakers feel less empowered to experiment or be honest in their films. I fear that most of the filmmakers we see need acceptance – to be chosen for a festival or given a job in the industry. The perception of cost makes investors always go for the safer or more mainstream or more like what has happened before type product. Technology has now leveled this playing field.

We need a paradigm shift in our thoughts as filmmakers. We are not ‘directors’ or ‘producers’ we are filmmakers who need to own their film, tour their film, sell their film and find their audience. Filmmakers should ask themselves what technology do I really need and what crew is essential to its operation.

Bands are technical – they play their instruments. Films are frequently divided in to talent and technicians. This is illogical and stupid and raises the cost exponentially. If you have an idea to make a film have the passion to learn how to use a camera. Just like kids playing shows and living in the back of a van. Guitarists get better by playing guitar and filmmakers get better by making films not waiting for them to happen. And yes the glamour of the film industry may probably have to go.

This project is aimed to open up a debate about what we expect from film – does it need to be so bloated and only exist in a cinema? Even ‘art-house’ takes on budgets that are beyond the imagination of most people. I argue that this is only through received wisdom rather than looking at the facts of what technology is available, what film you want to make and how to connect with that audience.

Much of the impetus for this idea came from working as the DOP on the 72 Hour Feature project that came out of Staffordshire University’s Digital Film Production Research team. This experience of shooting, editing and screening a feature in 72 hours showed me more than anything that we should look at the evidence of how a film is possible rather than decades old assumptions. And I fear these assumptions are the only barriers to grass routes film exhibition.
You can see more details on Wrists at wristsfilm.blogspot.com

You can read more about the 72 Hour Film Project at www.72hourmovie.com
You can email me on j.p.bradburn@googlemail.com if you have any comments or want to book a screening. It’s free in the UK by the way.

John Bradburn is a filmmaker, journalist and lecturer at Staffordshire University in Film Production Technology. His no budget feature Kyle played in the 2007 Seattle International Film Festival, West County Festival Los Angeles and Flatpack UK. His research interests include new distribution models, digital film language and DIY Aesthetics.

The Living Wake: The How & The Why Of Our DIY (pt. 3 of 3)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post concludes Sol Tryon’s tale of some of what he learned and loved from making and distributing The Living Wake.

Having seen the challenges of indie films hitting theaters with little to no marketing budgets, we have set a theatrical schedule that allows us as the filmmakers really support the film in each market where we release it.  We have set up a network of influential people and companies to support us by doing hosted screenings for nearly every single screening we have.  This creates more of an event type of feel to the traditional theatrical experience as well as the opportunity to cross promote with our host for each particular screening.  The way it works is that the host targets their friends, fans and supporters to come to their specific screening while we market to our networks as well. The idea being that we are able to bring awareness to our host and their work as well as them bringing audiences we wouldn’t have necessarily been able to reach ourselves into the theater.  Ultimately what it all comes down to is a targeted grass roots network that will hopefully spread through word of mouth.  While we don’t have unrealistic expectations for our theatrical box office numbers, we do believe we will significantly raise the awareness for the film in general and hopefully that will lead to larger interest in the DVD, TV, VOD, digital and foreign rights.

Since we have set our theatrical plans in motion, we have already received much of that interest in our film.  We have been able to close on deals for North American rights for the film with different companies that will allow us to retain the right to sell our film ourselves as well as put it through the traditional channels into the marketplace.  We have targeted on deals that are for short terms and provide high percentages of profits coming back to us.

In the end, it has been an amazing journey that started out with a single creative vision, grew into a collective achievement and now is taking us in directions we never imagined. I have realized that to be an independent filmmaker you no longer just have to know how to make a film, you have to know how to finance, make, market, negotiate and sell your film to the world.  While the whole process is exhausting and all encompassing, I have learned more than I could have ever dreamed of. Going through everything my team and I have with this film and actually seeing it open in theaters in several cities across the country is absolutely the most incredible feeling.  Knowing that this film exists and can be seen strictly because of the vision and hard work of our ever-growing team of collaborators is at once humbling and rewarding. Despite the challenges we have faced and the length of the journey we have been on with this film, I would not change a single thing.  The film has taken us on this ride and it has led us to do everything it needed in order to be where it is today.

Don’t miss The Living Wake in Los Angeles May 21st-27th at Laemmle’s Sunset 5

The Living Wake: The Path To Self Distribution (Pt2 of 3)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is the second of three from filmmaker Sol Tryon, whose The Living Wake is currently in theaters.

Like many indie films, with The Living Wake we were continuing to raise money as we went and post-production was no different.  We used the dailies from the shoot to show new potential investors what we were creating.  Fortunately, Charlie Corwin and Clara Markowicz from Original Media saw our vision and believed in us enough to finance the completion budget and help escort us into the next phase of our journey with the project.  After an extended post-production due to schedules, we had a film that we felt surpassed all of our initial expectations for the project. We were sure this was going to be a darling of the film festivals and people all over the world would appreciate our bizarre little movie.

While we knew it was a very particular film and that it wasn’t really headed for big mainstream success, we felt that the film was well crafted, had an amazing combination of comedic wit and emotional sensibilities and that the cult classic potential was off the charts.  Unfortunately, we were hitting the festival circuit right at the time when the bottom was falling out of the industry. No one was taking any chances on buying films that needed a special sort of marketing to reach its audience.  We found ourselves in a predicament where many of the buyers were saying, “I love your film, but I don’t know how to sell it…”  We received amazing praise from the press and audiences alike, but it didn’t fit into the traditional mold of successfully distributed films.  We had several offers to basically give our movie away and hope for the best, but that wasn’t something any of us were interested in.  We had worked too hard and believed too strongly in the film we had created to just have someone put it out there with no real vision or marketing support and potentially find it sitting on a shelf somewhere leaving us with no control over the future of the film. So, we decided to pass on all of our offers and embark on the journey of discovering how we could release the film ourselves.  With the guidance of some filmmakers that had been having similar experiences, we devised a strategy to get the film out theatrically and retain control of all of the other rights.

Tomorrow the tale continues with: The How & The Why Of Our DIY

Don’t miss The Living Wake in Los Angeles May 21st-27th at Laemmle’s Sunset 5

Sol Tryon on “The Living Wake”: Doing it differently (Pt. 1 of 3)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is the first of three coming from the filmmaker Sol Tryon.

The Living Wake has been a truly original project from the get go.  With a creative team of first time filmmakers we knew every phase of getting this film made and distributed was going to be an immense challenge. Peter Kline, Mike O’Connell and myself developed the project from its origins as a 20-page one-man show into a full-length feature film.

Once we had the script ready to go, we knew it was going to be something that we were going to have to make on our own to prove ourselves to the film community.  We shot a short film based on the characters from the feature to help us show investors that we had a distinct voice and vision.  From there we were able to raise our seed money to get us going.

The three of us moved to Maine intent on making this film however we could.  Living in tents on my parents’ land, we began location scouting and casting while continuing to try to find financing.  Things began to fall into place for us as more people joined our team.  We quickly developed a group of passionate people who were inspired by the originality of the script and the setting we were creating.

Through this collaboration, our dream of bringing our quirky comedy to life became a reality.  Shooting the film was the most exhausting and enjoyable experience I have ever had. We became a big creative family where everyone was doing anything and everything necessary to make sure our schedule was met and the vision was fulfilled.  By the time we had completed the shoot, every single person involved with the project felt a true sense of ownership and believed we had created something special.

Tomorrow: The Path To Self-Distribution

Don’t miss The Living Wake in Los Angeles May 21st-27th at Laemmle’s Sunset 5

How To Pitch Investors

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

This article on how to pitch VCs could apply equally well to pitching new film investors. I consider my 60 feature productions equivalent to 60 start ups. I recently had the good fortune of participating in an investors’ forum and got to speak to the other producers a bit after. From the conversations, it sure sounded like all the other film producers could have benefited from this advice.

Valuable Dirt

Last year, when we were filming Under Jakob's Ladder, we gave the props department some clumps of dirt.

That's right. Dirt.

They were perfect for a certain scene in the movie. But because they were clumps of dirt, a sign had to be written: "Don't throw away. These are props!"

There’s an important lesson here. Don't throw anything away. When making a film, even dirt can have value.

Towards A True Cross-Platform Future

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Last fall at PowerToThePixel I had the good fortune to be invited to partake in a ThinkTank on transmedia.  They have recently published their report on the day and I encourage you to read it.  Special thanks for Michael Gubbins for pulling the report together and facilitating the session.

Among the observations and recommendations:

• The business models of film and other creative industries are struggling because they are trying to dictate how customers use the media

• Creative industry needs to break free of restrictive single media practices with territorial rights and release windows

• Different media platforms are not always in competition and can cross-fertilise a brand and attract new audiences

• Value is moving away from product sales towards customer engagement with a brand

• Collaborating with audiences is not a restriction on the creative process but a means of informing and supporting it

• The ‘active’ or ‘empowered’ audience works at many levels, from crowd-sourced finance to recommending a work through social media

• Cross-media work, and audience and community relationships, can build true cultural diversity

• By working with audiences, film-makers and other content creators can gain greater control over, and draw greater value from, their work

• Cross-media work involves much greater participation in content creation which will attract new talent, promote the visual arts and potentially open up new creative forms

- Cross-media film-making is about renewing film-making not replacing existing media, such as cinema theatres

• Open standards and net neutrality are central to the development of these new forms

• Content creators are competing for audience time – not with each other in a tiny distribution channel – hence sharing ideas and tools is part of the culture

This paper should be mandatory reading for all storytellers.  It provides a great catch up as to where we are now (or were 6 months ago).

Topics are:

1. THE PANEL  2. THE CONTEXT  3. THE AGENDA (Cross media: evolution or revolution?  Where are audiences driving content?  What are the missing links?  Can we create a cross-media movement?)  4. THE LANGUAGE   5. FROM CONSUMERS TO COLLABORATOR  6. THE ENGAGED AUDIENCE  7. TURNING ENGAGEMENT INTO VALUE   8. EMPOWERING THE STORYTELLER  9. POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY  10. STORYTELLING AND CROSS-MEDIA VALUE  11.CROWDSOURCING AND CREATIVE COMMONS  12.VALUE THROUGH INTERACTION  13.CROSS-MEDIA VALUE  14.LOOKING FORWARD

Sol Tryon on “The Living Wake”

What was your filmmaking background before making The Living Wake?

SOL: I received an associate of arts degree in directing from Rockport College in Maine. I then moved to NYC and began my career working as a PA on several indie features. Over my first couple of years in NYC I worked my way up the ladder in the production department as an Assistant Director.

I produced my first feature, Bomb The System, in 2002. During this time I also began to work closely with Shirin Neshat on her video art projects shooting in the US, Mexico and Morocco. From there I directed a couple of short films, continued to produce other features and began to develop The Living Wake. I love filmmaking for many reasons, but mostly because it gives me a chance to tell stories that can both entertain and educate.

What drew you to the project (i.e. why did you want to both produce and direct it)?

SOL: When I first heard about Mike O'Connell and The Living Wake it was a 20-page one man show. The combination of outrageous humor and incredible wit instantly got my attention. I had been looking for my first film to direct and knew that I wanted to do something that was funny, but also had real emotional content.

When I read the first draft of the script, I knew that this was the perfect project for me.
Knowing that it was going to be a low budget shoot, and with my experience producing indie films, it made sense for me to take on the producer responsibilities as well. I pride myself on being well rounded and having a solid understanding of all aspects of filmmaking.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

SOL: Reflecting back on the production, I would have to say that one of the smartest things that I did was to have my wife, Rebecca, work with our locations manager in securing our locations. We shot the film in and around the town that both myself and my wife grew up in, and she was always the star singer in the area, so everyone knew her. When she would knock on a door and ask someone if we could use their land or their house for our film, they were always excited to help. We weren't just some film production coming into their town to be a nuisance, we were local kids making good and including the community in our project.

The dumbest thing I did was probably trying to do the most complicated camera shots in a scene with a baby. The concept was great and had we been able to pull it off, it would have been magical, but unfortunately reality caught up with us. We ended up having to change around the whole scene and reshoot it without the baby.

While I have no regrets and it works great the way it ended up in the film, that was valuable time wasted and I should have known better. I guess that is always one of the challenges for a first time director. You always think you can make the impossible work even when you know it shouldn't...

How did the film change while shooting ... and while editing?

SOL: During the shoot, we were able to stay very close to the script. Outside of the mishap with the baby scene that I described above, we didn't have to change much. There were some great improv sessions during rehearsals that would find their way into the film, but for the most part we really stuck to the script.

During the editing process it's another story. We took out a couple of whole story lines that, while great and entertaining, weren't necessary in the final film. It is always painful to cut scenes out of your film because you really love every frame you shot, but at some point you need to ask yourself if it's best for the film or not. If the scene is staying in because of an attachment to the scene and not because it's driving the story forward, it's got to go. In the end, the decisions we had to make were challenging, but they helped to keep the story focused and kept the sharp comedic tempo for the pace of the film.

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?

SOL: I learned so many things during this whole process that I could go on for hours. Most importantly, I learned to treat every shot, interaction and moment working on the film as if it's the most important thing in the world. It is such an honor and privilege to be able to make a living creating art that if I take one bit of it for granted, I would not be doing justice to the gifts and opportunities that I have been provided.

Some Job Opportunities In Indie Film

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

I spoke to the This is that interns awhile back on what opportunities I saw in the current landscape for employment in the indie sphere. We shot it so we could share it with you. I indebted to This is that former intern Chris Stetson for putting this together. Give this man a job!

We’ll have more clips from this discussion in the upcoming days and weeks.

Some Job Opportunities in Indie Film with Ted Hope (part 1) from Hope for Film on Vimeo.

Twelve Thoughts On The Value Of Cinema

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Tops on my list of “75 Problems With The Film Industry These Days” is that there is no way to justify the price point for movie tickets.  Which doesn’t mean I am opposed to paying for them — I do pay and I see it as almost a political act.  By buying movie tickets, I am voting with my dollars for the culture I want.  But I know that many people out there aren’t at all like me.  If people see the movies as just another entertainment or leisure time activity, it is very hard to justify the price. (when we compare it to other “values” – not clear on “values” not sure needed).

I do think there is a solution to this dilemma though.  We have to restore the values to film that are truly UNIQUE to film. It’s easy to say, but what does it really mean? Since cinema’s unique value has generally been neglected in most current aspects of film and its infrastructure, we are really talking about enhancing the value of cinema, of making the experience more than a movie — even if we are essentially returning to what it always has been, will be…

I recognize that there are those out there who bristle at using economic terms as a primary descriptive for an art form and a pure pleasure.  Get over it.  It’s an expensive endeavor that is difficult to deliver to a widely dispersed and ill-defined audience.  And the support system is changing and in need of great help.  Burying your head in the sand and not facing the time we are living in, is to dig the grave for the art, the business, its creators and collaborators, even for the culture overall.  Let’s find the path out of here I say.  The pain of the present exceeds the fear of the future.  But it starts with taking stock of what we’ve got.

Most filmmakers recognize the need to try to do more with their movies these days, to try to make them more of an event, or to extend their reach beyond the form into more of a cross platform experience.  That said, there is still a lot more work we can do to increase the value of the traditional cinema experience.  The steps needed to enhance the value of movies start with examining just what the core value of cinema is.  Before you can improvise, you should acknowledge the fundamentals — and we need to do that with cinema’s unique qualities.  We can take it beyond this list, but it’s a place to start.

1. IMHO the greatest value cinema has always brought is community aka social capital.  This is not to say that this is beyond pleasure, but something that is unique to the form. Cinema is a tool to organize community. Movies help people to connect.  Can this connection — and the odds thereof — be increased?
2. Another historic value of the movie going experience is intellectual capital. Yet we do very little to increase either of this value. Where’s the equivalent of Oprah’s Book Club for Movies that bring both social and intellect capital?  Where are the study notes for every film?  What is done to aid in the appreciation of the art?  To place the work in a cultural context?  Where we once had critics, we now find a synopsis and stars.
3. Intellectual capital is increased by exposure to a new world.  Intellectual capital is increased by exposure to beauty. Intellectual capital is increased by exposure to emotional complexity and emotional truth. This exposure is a value unto itself.
4. The more that filmmakers curate other films, the more they will increase the value of the films they support.  People need to know that the people they trust care about specific work.  As much as value is determined on an individual basis, it is also determined by those who we value.
5. The appeal of most films in the theater is that they are new — but there are so many that offer this quality that it is not a distinct enough value.  What makes one film distinct from another?  Timeliness is not enough of a value, although it is one that certain sectors will always praise.
6. Beyond new, value is increased by limited access and increased demand.  This is the velvet rope principal and one that gets buried beneath the noise of closing the release windows.  People don’t want what they don’t know about.  People don’t want what demand has not yet been manufactured for.  It has never been enough just to play a festival and hope the world will then show up when you come to their town.  The more the tastemakers, the curators, the Oprahs of the world are talking about films, the more we want them and the more value we place in the experience once it happens.
7. The more something is linked with our identity the more value we assign to it; how do we help this relationship with others and films?  The closer a specific audience or community sees the link between themselves and a work, the more they will value that work.  Obviously, this requires awareness, outreach, and contextualization.  To date, this has only been done in the most general of terms: race, gender, class, orientation, politics and some special interests like design and general geekdom.
8. One of the main reasons people go to the movies is simply to get out of the house, but is the experience in the theater enough to warrant the ticket price?  When the home offers comfort and control, how does the theater top that?
9. When does going to a movie also provide a social good?  Can going to the movies make the world a better place?  Such social good is dependent both on the content and the environment in which it is delivered.  People take great pleasure in doing something positive with their time and sometimes just showing up can trigger that phenomenon.
10. Movies provide engagement with our world.  They help us feel we belong to something big, something wonderful.  Part of it is the joy of sitting in a theater with a group of like-minded individuals.  Part of it is the recognition that the audience is part of the equation of what cinema is, and part of it is the totally awesome content we are watching.  We are open when we consume and carry that experience with us after we leave the theater.
11. Movies provide transcendence. They lift us up out of the mundane.  Sure some just stop at escapism, but they have the potential for much more, and even that escape is a start.  Transcendence perhaps combines many of these values, as it is a momentary reordering of the world, born from the awe and pleasure of being witness to creation,  the feeling of another in alignment with our dreams and hopes, a sense of collective wonder and re-understanding.
12. Movies have the capacity of instilling the most expansive definition of what it means to be human, both complex and generous — the furthest thing from being reduced down to a simple demographic (as those pocket pickers who masquerade as the form seem to delight in doing??).  Movies can make us glad to be alive and eager to take full advantage of our labor and our gifts.  They are the rare art form that can capture the deepest and fullest qualities of life and time.  But when the movies are first and foremost about separating us from our wallets, they do quite the opposite, alas.  It is a shame that this value is not the pursuit of most Hollywood cinema, but just the same, it does not need to be pushed out to only the art film pasture, for it has the capabilities of returning to even the most populist forms.

Point Me in the Right Direction

A year ago, yesterday, we officially wrapped our film shoot for Under Jakob's Ladder. After a very long month of filming, we were probably ready for a very long nap.

Just point us in the right direction.

(As you see in these production stills, we did quite a bit of pointing during the film shoot!)






And it wasn't just the crew... The cast also had some pointing moments!

Why Microbudget Filmmaking Sucks

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Read what Mynette Louie has to say about time in the trenches.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•