Well, it would be nice if such a study existed, but I guess everyone figures “why bother to fund what we already know”. Ahem…
Classical music sales did skyrocket though when a study found it made kids smarter. The state of Georgia even passed a law providing classical music CDs for every newborn child. Imagine that, with each new spawn, parents would be given a copy of Hal Hartley’s entire catalogue. Harvey Pekar could be come a household name if the standard baby gift was American Splendor. Okay, maybe such greats as Ballast, Wendy & Lucy, Goodbye Solo and the such may not be so good for teen psyches, but hey Stranger Than Paradise is still a good primer in on studied cool and Primer will surely drive a few truly innovative business ideas (and innovative filmmaking at that).
But isn’t it time that we all came up with some good plans to encourage greater appreciation? I am all in favor helping to up the ante in terms of originality, resonance, artistry, and ambition — and I do believe that better films yields more better films along with greater attendance and all related windfalls — but I also believe that the more auteur related films someone consumes or is even exposed to, the more they want to experience more of the same. Where’s the indie film promotion corner in our public libraries? Where’s the list of recommend films for high school curriculums? Anyone care to start these projects, or is everyone to busy writing their screenplays? I can’t believe anyone is still dreaming of fame or fortune and the reality of the hardship of the life of creative individual in this country is well known — so what’s the hold up to such action? Isn’t it in our interest to encourage deeper appreciation of the art and craft we have given our lives to?
Today’s guest post is from James Fair, a filmmaker and educator I had the pleasure of meeting at the Galway Film Fleadh last year and recently met up again in NYC. You might recall him from a prior post “University Challenged: Educational Approaches To Filmmaking”.
This summer I will direct “The Ballad of Des & Mo”, a feature film shot, edited and screened in 72 consecutive hours as part of the Melbourne International Film Festival (MIFF) in Australia. The plan is to shoot it upon RED One, to cinematic quality with dollies, tripods and tracks. If it goes well, you should never be able to tell that it was made in 72 hours.
‘Why do this?’ I hear you ask. Well, I am fascinated by the organisational structures that digital can offer to filmmakers, and I enjoy experimenting with alternative workflows and roles within filmmaking. I am not convinced that trying to use new technologies with the antiquated organisational structures of a struggling industry is effective. And it seems that the MIFF organisers agree that this is a valid point for us to explore at their event. My argument is that linearity permeates all areas of film production. To be linear is to be direct, undeviating and sequential. I believe that independent filmmakers have a fixation with linearity, and it is an obstacle they need to overcome.
Across the independent filmmaking blogosphere there is a debate raging. Having worked out how to make films cheaply, filmmakers are now trying to find a way to get people to see them. “How can I use the internet to find my audience? Should I go for festivals, video-on-demand, or both?” I believe that these questions are being asked AFTER the film has been made as opposed to BEFORE, and as a result, many are failing.
Perhaps it is inherent in the indie-filmmaker’s artistic belief that a director has a ‘vision’ to share with the world. This is a valid standpoint, but too often the initial priority of the independent filmmaker is to get their vision MADE, and if successful, the priority then shifts to getting it SEEN. But if you shift these priorities into reverse order, the way you get it SEEN often impacts on the way you get it MADE. I believe that this is a problem sprouting from linearity. We are taught that a great film starts with the script. Courses, conferences and books all say pretty much the same thing. But what if you start with your audience and then build your script around it? Sceptics will say that ‘film can not be made by focus groups or committees’. I’m not saying that they should be either, but I do think you should have a good idea of who will be listening to your story when you tell it and it should inform your writing.
James Fair with the rest of the Galway 72 team
Another example of a fixation with linearity is the production roles. Traditional models suggest the organisation of film production is similar to a family tree: director and producer at the top and then spawning various roles until the runners at the bottom. Why is it not shaped differently? Why is it not shaped more like a mind-map, where directors/producers are in the middle and routes sprout out and interconnect around them? I ask myself why a director is a director and a producer is a producer. Not in a philosophical chin-rubbing way, but in a pragmatic way. Specialist roles suited the factory-like processes of the studio system, but on a project-by-project basis I believe I am wearing many hats – director, producer, editor and many more. Even the equipment is not specialist anymore because great cameras are affordable to many. I see loads of people with a 7D or a 550. Today people have an exposure to cheap digital filmmaking technologies in a far greater way than in the days when it really would take years and expense to perfect your ‘craft’ on celluloid.
Admittedly the 72 Hour Movie does have a sub-division of skills otherwise it would be chaos. But a large part of the crew is a versatile team of generalists, who are capable of turning their hands to a variety of tasks instead of standing around when their own job role is not needed. More importantly there is horizontal communication across the process, where anyone can talk to anyone else without the bottlenecks of a linear ‘chain of command’ vertical system. It is this transparency and flexibility that helps us achieve our task cheaply and quickly.
Furthermore, linearity suggests that there should be a period of pre-production, production and post-production. Yet in the past I have needed a post-house to work with me during pre-production on my production workflow, and in 72 Hour Movie project the editing will be running concurrently with the filming (we work upon the industry standard of a non-linear edit system and shooting non-sequentially).
Some people will be shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘I know this already’ and they are acting upon it. New terminologies are emerging for the roles; like ‘story architect’ and ‘predator’ (producer/director/writer/editor). But linearity is still prevalent within even the most knowledgeable sages of the filmmaking revolution. It is a condition of the human mind to create sequential narratives based on our beliefs of rationality and cause and effect. We have all seen the lists and steps that you should take to reach success as a filmmaker. This is linearity, pure narrative, and it often doesn’t give enough respect to the complexity of filmmaking. There isn’t a formula for success in this field, or we’d all be doing it (and cynics will tell you that it is a lottery of chance, nepotism and money).
The industry is unpredictable, so as independents we must be flexible and innovative, not restricted by over-organisation and rigid, linear thinking. We must be ready to exploit unexpected opportunities. How do we do that? We must explore things laterally not vertically and challenge our most basic assumptions. We must stop looking to blogs for answers and start looking to them for provocative questions. Ironically, we must, as Marshall McLuhan said in the 1960’s, stop looking to the future through the rear-view mirror. The answers don’t lie in the past when you are in a paradigm shift. We must share our findings; we are in this together.
James Fair is the director upon the innovative 72 Hour Movie project to be hosted at Melbourne International Film Festival this August, where he will lead a team of filmmakers to shoot, edit and then screen a FEATURE LENGTH MOVIE in three days (www.72hourmovie.com). He is also the Award Leader of the MSc Digital Feature Film Production at Staffordshire University, UK.
This one takes place in the prison yard. Here the prisoners are being made to stand in line for hours. Not a pleasant experience, especially when you're hungry. (Soviet prisons were not really known for their great cuisine. In fact, the standard meal was called "Balanda", a "soup" which consisted mostly of hot water.)
And you have probably guessed it. Poor Yasha is hungry.
Hungry enough to say something to the likes of the prison guards. But here, Serzhant decides to pick on Vovik, who is probably just as hungry as Yasha. Although he's not about to taunt the guys with the guns.
NY Foundation of The Arts’ Matthew Seig pointed out Michael Feingold’s recent Village Voice article to me. Although it addresses the problems of NY’s theater world it is equally applicable to the film world. Give it a read. Feingold lays out both the benefits and the challenges:
testing actors, challenging directors and designers, setting the bar high for playwrights to extend their reach. And I know, too, that if made affordable (but how?), it would benefit a New York audience that has long since given up going to the theater, an audience not interested in fighting its way through ill-mannered tourist crowds to see old musicals redone cheaply and stars that it can see for free (or the cost of a Netflix download) on its home screen. The audience is ready; the artists are ready. What will the theater do?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Is Finding An Audience A Skill That Can Be Learned?
Today’s guest post is once again courtesy of Jon Reiss. Back before Jon wrote the book on DIY distro in the digi age (literally), he and I started brainstorming on the need for a marketing & distribution lab for filmmakers, somewhat modeled on the existing screenwriting & directing labs that many organizations run. We had some real specific goals on this and pitched it to several key entities. Everyone wanted to do it, and I believe everyone still wants to do it. Money and time still are limited supply though, and our dreams have been deferred. Yet, the initial steps have been taken by a couple of organizations, and most recently Film Independent put together: Seize The Power last weekend. Jon’s post below, is a bit of an extension from that remarkable collection of speakers and participants and information.
I heard a number of comments after this weekend’s LAFF Seize the Power Symposium that people where overwhelmed – that their brain’s had been fried by so many ideas and so much information. To me that’s a sign that we succeeded. When Film Independent and the Los Angeles Film Festival asked me to help them devise the Symposium (and accompanying Distribution Boot Camp for competition filmmakers) we were in immediate agreement that the event would focus on: 1. Nuts and bolts practical information for filmmakers. 2. Forward thinking thought leaders indicating what the future might be. 3. Practical case studies of filmmakers who were using the new tools of distribution and marketing. We wanted to avoid people sitting on a panel rehashing how we got here. I also get the same brain-fry feedback when I give my weekend workshops – and I’m delighted. This is what I suggest to people:
1. Focus on the Inspiration and Creative Potential One of the best uber-takeaways is how a symposium or workshop can inspire filmmakers to new creative opportunities. Allow these ideas to run through you and don’t get caught up with any of the specifics just yet – you can delve into those when the time comes for you to act.
2. Identify on What Resonates With You. Many ideas and concepts are presented – but no two filmmakers are alike and no two films are alike. Take a moment to check in with your gut and see what resonates most with you, what makes sense for your current project, what makes sense for your artistic trajectory.
3. One Step at a Time. Don’t feel like you have to do everything at once. Do one thing first. See how it feels – works for you. The world of distribution and marketing can seem overwhelming – they each comprise an entire division at every studio. You are one person – reread item 1.
4. Connect and Collaborate. Further the connection with the people that you meet at these events. Create study groups and film cooperatives. Film distribution and marketing does take a village. I was really excited to hear that some of the attendees of my Vancouver workshop formed a PMD discussion group to process the information and more importantly to work with each other in order to act on it. I still feel that cooperatives among filmmakers is one of the ways to handle all the new work and potential.
5. Revisit the information. You can be sure that any of the speakers have written about the ideas that they have presented. The day after the symposium Henry Jenkins posted the basics of his talk on his blog. Subscribe to Peter Broderick’s newsletter. Check out The Film Collaborative’s site. Read Truly Free Film. Keep up with Film Independent’s ongoing educational program. Heck – even check out my blog or my book Think Outside the Box Office – I wrote it so that all filmmakers could have a companion to this process. And of course – if you are inclined, follow all of the above on Twitter – and then engage.
What was your filmmaking background before making The Beatnicks?
NICHOLSON: I was in the College of Creative Studies at UCSB and majored in film. After graduating I came to L.A. and worked in an equipment rental house. I started working on productions as a driver, grip, electrician, bestboy, gradually working my way up to Gaffer and finally D.P. (Director of Photography). I was able to finance my short films by working on other people’s projects, but writing and directing was always the goal.
Where did the idea come from?
NICHOLSON: I’ve had this idea for a long time, to explore inner realities of characters living outside the norm and how they choose to express themselves. More importantly how they keep going, though never knowing why they do what they do. The Box symbolizes this, the unknown. Is it a blessing or a curse? I suppose it’s autobiographical in that sense.
What was the writing process like?
NICHOLSON: I was drawn to the films of Fellini, Bunuel, Tarkovsky, French New Wave, films that were philosophical by nature and big on character. Later I was inspired by Emir Kusterica and Jim Jarmusch. Their films have a great “vibe.” They’re ironic but point to something deeper. I wanted to write like that.
The Beatnicks actually started out like Jarmusch’s Stranger Than Paradise in that I had made a 30-minute version of it in black & white that could have served as a first act. We decided to shoot the whole thing from scratch and in color when we made the decision to re-cast. It was a painful decision at first but it soon became clear it was the right thing to do. Though the film uses a surrealistic device (the Box) to move the story along, both of these guys had to feel real. They had to represent the predicament of striving for recognition in L.A. and trying to find a universe they could participate in as artists.
I was able to use much of what I had originally written for the short and added a brief back story for the box as well as developing the relationship of Nick Nero and Nica (Elodie Bouchez).The dark obsessive character of Mack Drake. (played by Eric Roberts), and Hank “the guru” (played by Patrick Bauchau), were created to show what Nick Nero (Norman) and Nick Beat (Boone) might become if they were to split up and follow their respective paths to their conclusion. Fortunately they don’t. Though their fate remains uncertain, they ultimately remain true to themselves and each other.
They say life imitates art. It took seven years from when the short was made to finally turn it into a feature, so Nina Jo Baker (Co-Writer) and my partner at the time had plenty of time to work things out. We were on a mission. Jason Cairns, who originally starred in the short also contributed to the story, and one of the producers, Paul Hahn helped with the final polish.
How did you fund the film?
NICHOLSON: Co-producer Stephanie Danan was good friends with Elodie Bouchez. Elodie had recently won the Cesar Award (The French Oscar) for Best Actress for her work in the Eric Zonka film The Secret Life of Angels. She came to L.A. for a visit. We were all living in an old Craftsman house in Silver Lake then and she loved it there. I think she liked the anonymity of L.A. and the creative spirit we had going.
I was writing music sketches for the film and I recorded her doing dialog over some of them. Her voice is magical. She was the perfect muse. In short we all bonded in a way and she liked the idea of doing something interesting in L.A. Once Elodie signed on things started to happen. There were a lot of actors that wanted to work with her. She brought up Norman’s name who she had met in Cannes. Instant chemistry. Stephanie and Paul got in touch with Garen Topalian who was a stockbroker on Wall St. at the time. The three of them were able to find private financing through their connections. It was shot on 35mm color negative over a 26-day schedule.
What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?
NICHOLSON: Smartest? Trusting the crew. D.P. Joe Montgomery and his Gaffer, Foster Danker were awesome. Production Designer Ted Burner and his crew, truly gifted. Everyone worked for small dollars and did a big dollar job. I never second guessed them. I just leaned on them a bit.
Dumbest? Caving in on certain things I thought important. There’s always that pressure, to make the day. Sometimes you have to let things go. Sometimes you wish you hadn’t. Postproduction sound is an example. On this film the dialog is very important and I think the mix got away from me at times. On the other hand sometimes things happen on set you could never have planned for that are really beautiful. Those are the magical moments.
And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?
NICHOLSON: Patience and perseverance, to push for what you want and still keep an open mind. No matter what the format is, or what the budget is, or what the odds are against you. It’s in there, waiting to be discovered.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO: http://aslan-intl.com/aslanintl/?page_id=68
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Integrating Entrepreneurial Training Into Graduate Film Programs
I was excited to learn recently about how entrepreneurial skills are in integral part of the University of Central Florida MFA filmmaking program. I gave a talk at LAFF on “The Rise Of The Artist Entrepreneur” and find many filmmakers woefully under-equipped to navigate the demands of both survival and creation in today’s world. Randy Finch helped start UCF’s innovative program in 2005 and I asked him to explain it a bit further. This is his guest post:
Not all filmmakers want to know about writing business plans, entity formation, the uses of social media and DIY distribution strategies. The MFA program at UCF is not for everyone. Our program is designed for a small group of microbudget digital filmmakers. If you are not prepared to do everything (including raising your own financing) that it takes to get a feature made and marketed for under $50,000, we’re not for you. While I agree with Ted that financing, distribution and marketing should be woven into today’s independent filmmaker’s education, I also understand the recent backlash from filmmakers who have no interest in these subjects. The reason most of us got into this was not to become experts in distribution, marketing or finance. But in the 20+ years since I first became an independent filmmaker, I’ve been compelled to learn about VHS deals, sale leasebacks, foreign presales, negative pick-ups and all sorts of other arcane (and now mostly useless) business practices.
As far as I can tell, being an independent filmmaker has always meant hustling to get the money and an audience. So teaching my students about the new models of distribution, transmedia storytelling, forming an LLC and the like – is not really such a stretch. Just like all the other parts of the filmmaking process, the entrepreneurial stuff independent filmmakers must navigate today are just skills that can (and, I think, should) be learned. Of course, you can choose to ignore what happens with your film after you’re done with the editing – just as you can choose to ignore visual storytelling, sound recording and the intricacies of post-production workflow – but the more you know about all aspects of the filmmaking process, the better.
I’d be lying if I said that the students in our Entrepreneurial Digital Cinema MFA track all happily accomplish every task we put in front of them. The two classes they are required to take in UCF’s Business School (Entrepreneurship and Business Plan Formation) are generally not their favorites. And the paperwork they are required to submit to get their degree (after they’ve written, budgeted, scheduled, financed, insured, pre-produced, cast, crewed, directed, edited, and mixed their own microbudget feature) detailing everything they’ve done and how they now plan to release their film, always seems excessive. (I tell them that we require less paperwork than the delivery requirements of most distribution companies, but it never seems to soothe them.)
But now that their films are starting to circulate, and our graduates are starting their own careers, the results are very positive. Last time I checked, everyone who has received an MFA from UCF Film is working in the film business. And the first three graduates from our program have all launched their films on the festival circuit, where they all have won awards (including: Best Narrative Feature at the 2010 Gasparilla International Film Festival, Best Feature Director 2009 LA Femme Film Festival, 2009 Silver Crystal Reel Award for Best Feature $1 Million and Under from the Florida Motion Picture and Television Association, and Best Feature, Best Score and Best Cinematography at the 2009 Bend Film Festival in Oregon).
So, in addition to a finished feature length film and an MFA (a credential that will allow them to teach at the University level), everyone who completes UCF’s graduate program in Entrepreneurial Digital Cinema has been exposed to ALL parts of the filmmaking process – including film financing, marketing and distribution using online tools. Whether they want to use all the tools when they get out is up to them. But, by the time they graduate, all our students really know what it takes to make and market an independent feature.
In our last blog post, we started a Q&A with one of our experts in the history of the German-Russian people. We've broken the interview into two sections, since it's a lot of information to digest.
This week, the focus is on the imprisonment of these people during what has been called the Great Terror...
(Note: The photograph above is of Jeff Stewart (in the role of Jakob). It was created for the movie by our props department as Jakob's prison "mug shot"... after his arrest during the Great Terror in 1938.)
Q: What was the Great Terror? A: The Great Terror was a series of campaigns during 1937 and 1938 conducted by the Stalin regime in which over 1.3 million people were convicted of political crimes against the state. More than 680,000 of these people received death sentences. Most of the reminder ended up in Gulag labor camps.
Q: How many German-Russians were arrested during this period? A: According to the work of Okhotin and Roginsky, between 69,000 and 73,000 Russian-Germans were convicted during this time of which between 53,000 and 56,000 or over three fourth received death sentences. Russian-Germans were over represented among those shot in the USSR during the Great Terror by factor of more than eleven. Over half of these people were shot during an operation aimed specifically at rooting out "German spies."
Q: What happened to them after arrest? Were they given trials? A: They were tried by NKVD troikas, but sentences had largely been decided in advance and in no sense did they receive due process. Only about 20,000 Russian-Germans ended up in Gulag camps at this time since as noted above the NKVD shot 50,000 of them out of hand.
Q: As a historian, why are you interested in the history of the German-Russians? A: This is a very long story and I can only give you the very short version. But, my heritage is part Russian-German and I have a long standing interest in issues of national repression and resistance in the USSR. These interests intersected with the new availability of previously classified information on the group starting in the early 1990s. The explosion of scholarship on the group since the 1990s is quite outstanding. Unlike a lot of other groups there is no shortage of primary or secondary source material on the Russian-Germans. Indeed it is impossible even to keep up with new publications of primary source documents on the ethnicity.
Q: The movie, Under Jakob's Ladder, tells a story about these people. In your opinion, why is it an important story to tell? A: It is not a story that is well known or talked about on a popular level. So much so that there has been an almost complete rehabilitation of Stalin in Russia and Central Asia. Forgetting this past has consequences and the movement towards authoritarianism and increased violation of human rights in the former Soviet states has been one of them.
Q: Any other comment you'd like to add? A: I just want to say I think the Moon Brothers deserve a great deal of thanks for taking on this project.
I recently got a message from filmmaker Keith Bearden, the director of Meet Monica Velour. He wrote:
Just got back from the Seattle Film Festival, which in a city of 1.5 million fills 500-800 seat theatres for a month with 400 plus films–that’s a huge percentage of the population seeing films that have no publicity, including many that will open in theatres or on pay per view days or weeks later. Even in a very sleepy, tech savvy city with bad parking, they still get people to stand in line for indie, foreign and odd films. Is it because they have created a cultural context for seeing these films, that people are part of a cultural event? Something social that people can talk about before and after, like going to a sports game or rock concert? How does that translate into cinemas in other cities not part of a film festival?
Also, working in Paris part of the year, they have over 300 cinemas (many with multiple screens!). They used to have more! I realize it’s a different culture, but one of the keys is that young people can get a all access pass that lets them see as many movies as they want. They go in bunches, they get in the habit of seeing lots of different films in the cinemas, which is a habit they carry on into later life. Also, this youth brigade is what created the great cult phenomenons over there throughout the years of films that play for years and years…
We could do a lot more to strengthen film culture in our cities and countries. The first step is society to publicly acknowledge the importance of cinema. With the state of the world being what it is, I understand why many would not feel that this is such a priority. Yet, and I don’t know about you, but for me, one of the initial draws that a life in the arts — and particularly cinema — had for me, was the form’s ability to inspire, motivate, and transcend. I want to live in a land where the community feels these are important virtues.
Fugazi, the seminal DC band, always played shows with lower ticket prices. They actively made sure kids could get into see them, playing all age shows. How great would it be to have the cinematic equivalent of Fugazi?!
I have yet to make a film that got anything less than an R rating, so I can’t begin to say that I have made work that can inspire the young, but it’s exciting to think of an initiative that would offer youth — heck anyone under the age of 24, or with college loans, or unemployed, or working for the state, or any under-rewarded profession (like teachers) — lower cost admissions to films.
It is not just the quality of the films that keep people out of the cinemas, that leads audiences to prioritize other activities over movie going. I strongly believe that a film-literate populace is a more caring and active populace. One of those other qualties that attracted me to movies was how deeply I could connect with characters on the screen, even when their actions or beliefs were so very different than mine. It seems to me that we find very little common ground between us nowadays, yet no one likes that fact. Maybe we could get candidates to campaign on a platform of increased movie going…
Seriously though, what other such initiatives could be adopted to foster a more avid cinema going public? How has Seattle and Paris built such communities? What could other festivals do to foster such civic spirit?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Seize the Power – Why You Should Pay Attention to the LAFF Symposium this Weekend
We are now treated to another Jon Reiss guest post. Jon holds the world record for the most comments on a single TrulyFreeFilm post, but he is one of our New Model Gurus, helping to pave the path to the emergence of a sustainable Artist/Creator Middle Class. We he speaks, I listen.
Two weeks ago I wrote a guest post here about the need to educate filmmakers on distribution and marketing their films. This weekend the Los Angeles Film Festival is hosting a truly wonderful event which I am proud to have developed in collaboration with LAFF and Film Independent (with strong push and support from Ted): Seize the Power: A Marketing and (DIY)stribution Symposium.
The Symposium is designed to focus on the nuts and bolts solutions to the current distribution and marketing malaise plaguing our industry. The intention is to provide an introduction to a wealth of new tools for filmmakers (and all artists/media content creators) as well as strategic guidance from many of the key practitioners and thought leaders in our field. It is an antidote to the concerns of too much talk talk talk on this subject with little true education.
In addition there is a non-public component that you can participate in via twitter. I will be giving a distribution and marketing boot camp to the LAFF competition filmmakers Friday June 18th 9am – 12:30pm and 2:30pm – 5pm and Saturday June 19th from 9am-11:30am. All times PST. We will be tweeting bullet points on #totbo We have done this in the workshops I have given in the past month – and we have found that people around the world start to participate and chime in – creating a global discussion around these topics.
The Symposium: Starting Saturday afternoon at 1pm – Ted kicks it off with a presentation on the need for the artist entrepreneur to encourage filmmakers to think expansively about their creative output in order to create sustainable careers. This is followed by a plethora of service providers (from Orly Ravid of the Film Collaborative to Yancy Strickler of Kickstarter to Bob Moczydlowsky of Topspin) that we brought together so that filmmakers could learn the best ways to put these tools into practice in their own careers.
Sunday morning will kick off with a discussion between myself and Corey McAbee (The American Astronaut and Stingray Sam). We will explore how he uses the new distribution and marketing tools and landscape to create a viable artistic career for himself. Caitlin Boyle from Film Sprout will give one of her incredible introductions to grassroots audience development and distribution. I am super excited to see Lance Weiler and Henry Jenkins on Transmedia. (somehow Lance always has a way of frying my brain – in a good way). The inimitable Peter Broderick will lead a discussion on crowdfunding, Colleen Nystadt and Sean Percival will present different tactics for audience engagement. The event will cap with one of those incredible Film Independent public case study examinations of two films: Children of Invention and Bass Ackwards.
Last but not least – it will give filmmakers an opportunity to connect with each other and the presenters. Come on down and introduce yourself, learn and contribute.
- Jon Reiss
The Power Is In The Shoe – the inspiration for politics in film (and film in politics)
Although I understand it in terms of the dictates of the infrastructure, it has always surprised me that we don’t have more films that are truly about politics and the world we live in. It seems that creators are afraid to even wade in those waters. That can not be said about filmmaker Raoul Peck, who will be in NYC this weekend to present his latest feature “Moloch Tropical” at The Human Rights Festival. I couldn’t resist asking him about the need for film to address politics, about where his inspirations come from. Today’s guest post is from Raoul, in reply.
I will always remember one of these rare press conference of then President GW Bush on the eve or after the bombardment of Bagdad by American forces. In the room the best and brightest mind of the world press. In particular the US pundits known for their incorruptible defense of freedom of speech.
And there we were, with a president obviously lying every single lines of his declaration, with nobody having enough guts to ask even one hard question, let alone to counter his transparent lies.
We came to a point where words didn’t mean anything anymore.
Flash forward, …years later in December 2008, the same president, another press conference, in Iraq.
There, for the lack of a better “word” to address the – again – lying president, this young journalist throw his shoe at him.
It was the only answer possible: absurdity, derision, ridicule.
With these same feelings I started to work on “Moloch Tropical”.
The ritual of democracy had reached such a cynical point, that only derision and irony could really address it.
“Moloch Tropical” tells the last 24 hours of power of a democratic elected president.
It could have easily been in Africa, Asia or South America or even in some western countries (think Nixon, Clinton, Berlusconi, Yeltsin…), I choose Haiti, for course.
With this film I wanted to explore the often hidden side of power. No doubt, an occasion for me to revisit my own political experiences in Haiti and elsewhere (like another one playing with a Cuban cigar after hours in the oval office).
Based on some true stories, I wanted to re-live the final day like of a man with unrestrained power (democratic or not), whose supremacy has never been challenged, who is now plunging dizzyingly into a black hole of events he cannot control?
I wanted to explore what happens behind closed doors, when this power is challenged, that moment when everything becomes possible and irretrievable at the same time? Redemption as well as demise. A tragic and unruly “Farewell to Arms”.
During these minute gaps in History, the “leader” reveals crudely his true essence, his fears, and his desires – given that there is no time left for craftiness.
But the idea is that through him, one might even see a little bit of ourselves.
With this film, I was eager to return to the recent political past of my own country, Haiti.
I wanted to re-examine, with a Shakespearian irony, the tragic and foolish nonsense of the past 60 years. A long battle for “democracy” which took no prisoner. Nowhere else but in Haiti has reality generated so much confusion and so many contradictions. Never had we enough time to look at ourselves in the mirror.
“Moloch Tropical” was shot in a unique location, the Citadelle Henry, built by King Henry Christophe at the beginning of the 19th Century atop a steep mountain in the northern part of Haiti. With approximately 100,000 square feet, it is the largest fortress in the Western Hemisphere. More importantly it is the indestructible symbol of the only nation in human history that was created by a victorious slaves revolution.
The single and unique time in which the trail of slavery which began in Gorée Island (another symbol) was permanently broken.
But at what cost?
We were considered worst than Cuba in the 60’s for the rest of the world. Imagine: former slaves leading a big nation after having won over the British, the Spanish and Napoleon armies????
All this makes it even more difficult to listen to the all-round moral superiority and victimization verses deversing upon Haiti since the recent earthquake. The United States of America have always been part of our history, unfortunately often in a very destructive way.
The latest example: Then President Clinton, today’s savior, has been instrumental in showing the economical structural adjustment model down our throat. A policy which kill the rest of our economy and made among other thing US imported rice half cheaper than locally grown rice in Haiti. Thus peasant leaving their field to go find life and non-existing work in Port-au-prince. Thus 300.000 plus dead people in the recent earthquake.
You want me to go on?
The present mess is not only ours, it is yours too.
RP
Raoul Peck’s Moloch Tropical plays Sunday, June 20 at 7:00 PM at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, Walter Reade Theater.
Raoul Peck is a screenwriter, film director and producer, born in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. After producing and directing his first feature film, “Haitian Corner” in 1988, he directs 5 features films including “Man by the Shore” (in competition at Cannes 1993), “Lumumba” (2000) and “Sometimes in April” (2005), 4 documentaries and 2 series. His last film “Moloch Tropical” premiered at the 2009 Toronto Film Festival. In 2010, Raoul Peck has been named President of La Fémis, the French film school.
Roger Nygard is a filmmaker and television director and editor. His latest documentary, The Nature of Existence will be released theatrically beginning June 18 in New York, and July 2 in Los Angeles, followed by other cities across the US.
What inspired you to make this film?
ROGER: In short, there was a day, at about the age of seven, when I realized that I would die some day. You can imagine my shock, after taking life for granted until that point. A voracious reader, I discovered the medical descriptions in the family encyclopedia. As I chanced to read the symptoms of tuberculosis, the little hypochondriac in me began to realize I had the telltale signs. I thought, I often “get tired easily, feel slightly feverish or cough frequently.”
The realization hit me like a mack truck, “I’m dying!” It turned out I wasn’t dying, and I soon moved on to other concerns, like watching Land of the Giants on TV. Or rather, I pushed thoughts of mortality beneath my conscious awareness. Twenty-five years later, when the events of 9-11 forced the whole country (including me) to consider their own mortality--for about a week--I was unable to stop myself from badgering friends with questions: Why do we exist? What is our purpose here? If there’s an afterlife, where exactly is it located? What created the Universe? With billions of stars in billions of galaxies to be mindful of, why would a god get so apoplectic if you masturbate? I wrote the questions down, plus eighty other tough questions, picked up my camera and went on the road to get some answers.
Once you got the idea, how did you go about planning the execution?
ROGER: My plan was to travel to the source of all the world’s major belief systems, find the experts, and interrogate them until I had The Answer. In addition to the USA, I visited Israel, Italy, England, China, and India. I had to travel light and cheap, by myself or sometimes with one other person to shoot B camera. Part of the reason I kept it simple was to avoid official attention. In some countries if you apply for a filmmaker’s visa or press visa it is more expensive and of shorter duration, and they require that you hire a minder to be with you the whole time—to keep you from filming something the government might not want you to film. Mainly they do that because they want to know if 60 Minutes or Warner Bros. is there. So I traveled as a tourist.
Can you talk about how you funded the film?
ROGER: I flirted with a few investors on this project, but decided to self-finance. Investors can be skittish in general, but try telling them you’re making a documentary about the most esoteric concept there is: existentialism. Plus, I didn’t want to give up the ownership of the project. I launched forward, and in-between directing and editing television shows like The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm, I saved up some money and went on the road every few months. That’s one reason it took me four years to finish shooting and editing.
Did you edit as you shot .... or wait until you had all the pieces?
ROGER: I began editing after the first shoot and edited continuously throughout the process. Even though the film is done, I’m still editing bonus materials for the DVD. You can see excerpts and some of the outlandish outtakes on our website: www.TheNatureOfExistence.com
How long did it take to edit and how did it change and evolve during the editing process?
ROGER: Over the four-year process, I would finish a segment and put it on the shelf, then work on another segment and put it aside. Eventually, as the story started to take shape I began to tie the segments together. It wasn’t until the second year that I came to terms with the idea that I had to put myself in the movie, because it’s my journey. You learn what I learn as I learn it. It’s the first time I’ve subjected myself to my own directing. What a tyrant! I‘ll admit I now have a much greater appreciation for actors. I mean, it’s damn hard to remember lines while hitting marks and trying to be natural. It was a great learning experience.
What did your gear package consist of ... and what were the plusses and minuses of that package?
ROGER: I began shooting in October of 2005 with one of the cameras I had used on Trekkies 2, a Sony PD150. But that camera was stolen in Italy. Somebody picked up my pelican suitcase and walked off while I was distracted at the Rome train station. The lesson I learned was to put the camera in a backpack that didn’t advertise itself as “expensive camera suitcase.” And whenever the airlines made me check the backpack, I took the camera out and carried it by hand.
I replaced the PD150 with a Panasonic DVX100A digital video camera, two wireless mics (sennheiser ew 100, with Tram mic upgrades), and a tripod. I had no room to carry lights. The key to getting beautiful footage on the road is sunlight. Natural light makes people look the best. If indoors, I would sit them near a nice big window and let the ambient light key the subject from the side. Occasionally I had to make an exception. Magus Peter Gilmore, the head of the Satanists, preferred not to come outside into the sun for his interview, so it’s one of the few interviews where I brought lights.
If you light video like film, it will feel cinematic. Some countries are more conducive to getting beautiful images. It's hard to get an ugly shot in India--practically the whole country is a religious site--at dawn in Varanasi every direction you point the lens there is a tableau awaiting your composition. In China in November the lighting is similar to what the impressionists in Europe painted with, all day long your images have that gorgeous, warm, golden-hour quality. All because the people there are still burning coal to heat their homes, as they did in Europe in the 1800s.
How is the finished film different from your original inspiration?
ROGER: My original inspiration was so far reaching and impossible to achieve—how do you make a documentary on the nature of all that is??? But that was part of the attraction, the impossibility of the challenge. Eventually, as I collected footage and kept shaping it the project evolved into its final form. So the film is quite different from my first inspiration, but also it accomplishes everything I set out to accomplish. Every mystery of the Universe is revealed. I should warn you not to see the film though, because it will mess with your mind.
What did you learn along the way that you'll take to future projects?
ROGER: I learned that I’m incorrigible. With the paint still drying on The Nature of Existence, I have already started shooting my next documentary. My new film is another concept documentary. My proposal is written and the first footage is in the hopper. It’s almost like a cry for help, “Somebody stop me before I document again!”
More information at: www.TheNatureOfExistence.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Looking Through The Rubble, Ending The Silence, Celebrating The Risktakers, Hoping For A Few Good Leaders
You’d think with all the collapse in the “Film Business” we’d have a whole lot more experimenting going on. Or at the very least the encouragement for experimentation. Why is it that everyone wants to keep doing it “business as usual”. It’s broken! Those days are over! The sky has fallen! Dust yourself off and let’s begin something new! Stop sniveling.
It is a different business now than what it used to be. There is no U.S. acquisition market for films, even if the movies are good. Library value as an asset is a thing of the past (or at least libraries being something you could base easily predictable cash flow or resale on is over). People don’t want to pay to see movies — unless they are the sort of culture (including niche culture) unifying event film. It is truly hard to get people’s attention when they are overwhelmed with the plethora of choices — we are a world of distraction and rapid attention shift. It is even more difficult to get people to talk about good stories, even when more are told and made than ever before. Everything requires more work and more thought than it used to.
Which is not to say that the art and industry of film is over. Far from it. It is just a different business. And I believe there is great work to be done and substantial money to be made. Particularly if we all accept a little experimentation along the way. Trying something new does not warrant a “FAIL!” stamp. There is more value than just monetary (and some of that is actually lucrative, or potentially).
Are the only conversations about it happening behind closed doors? What’s with all the eerie silence? Spooky…. There’s certainly a lot of discussion going on in other related industries. But what is with ours? From what I read, it sounded that around the proclamations of demise and change at the PGA “Produced By” conference there was very little imagining of new ways forward — particularly methods that might support the creative community.
Can we start to celebrate the experiments? The brave thinkers? The risk takers? Can we at least talk more about them? Could we ever have some sort of supportive structure that actually encouraged experimentation? Could we look more to the future, than we discuss the past or present?
This is a Q&A with one of our historical experts in the area of the German-Russian people.
Who are the German-Russian people? They are people that populate the world of our feature film, Under Jakob's Ladder. Jakob and the other prisoners, living in the Soviet Union in 1938, are known as German-Russians (or, as some call them, the Germans from Russia).
Chances are, you have never heard these people even existed. So, we've asked a few questions of our historian...
(Note: The photograph above shows a group of German-Russians working on one of Stalin's collective farms. It comes from the private photo collection of Marta, granddaughter to Jakob. One of the men pictured is Marta's father.)
Q: First of all, can you tell us who exactly are the German-Russians? A: The Russian-Germans are descendants of immigrants from Central Europe that immigrated to the Russian Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries.
They settled initially in the Volga region and then later in the area of the Black Sea, Caucasus, Bessarabia and Volhynia. Most of them came from states that later became part of Germany, but others came from other regions of Europe. They are referred to as Germans because they all spoke various dialects of the German language. But, it should be noted that the vast majority of German settlers in the Russian Empire arrived before the unification of Germany in 1871.
Q: How did they come to live in the Russian Empire? Empress Catherine II issued a manifesto on 22 July 1763 offering special privileges for Christian foreigners wishing to immigrate to the Russian Empire. Under the terms of this manifesto the immigrant colonists received free land, communal autonomy, freedom of religion, temporary freedom from taxation, interest free loans and a promise of eternal freedom from military service.
Q: How many German-Russians lived in the Soviet Union by the late 1930s? A: The Soviet government conducted two censuses during the late 1930s. Neither are perfect, but they do give an indication of the number of Russian-Germans in the USSR at the time.
The 1937 census shows only 1,151,602 Russian-Germans and the 1939 census counted 1,427,232. The 1937 census is obviously an under count in that does not count the large German population living in Siberia at this time.
While the number for the 1939 census which took its place was artificially inflated to hide deaths from the 1932-1933 famine. Viktor Krieger estimates that the actual population in 1937 was between 1,350,000 and 1,360,000.
Q: What language did the people speak in their villages? A: The Russian-Germans spoke various dialects of German in their villages. These dialects varied depending on their origins from Central Europe. They also acquired Russian words. Village churches and schools conducted their services in standard German.
Q: Did they live and work in the same villages and cities as the Russians and Ukrainians? A: The rural villages were for the most part separate and isolated from the surrounding Slavic population. In cities and towns, Germans often lived as minorities surrounded by much larger Russian or Ukrainian populations. In 1937 the Soviet census listed 14,239 Russian-Germans in Leningrad and 11,825 in Moscow.
The population, however, was predominantly rural. Even in the Volga German ASSR the 1939 census lists the urban population as 60,000 Germans and over 58,000 Russians. In contrast the rural regions of the territory had over 300,000 Germans versus only about 100,000 Russians.
Q: How did Stalin's 5-Year Plans affect them? A: The five year plan from 1928-1932 (they finished in four) coincided with the forced collectivization of agriculture and the liquidation of the kulaks from 1929 to 1931 and the 1932-1933 famine which disproportionately effected the Russian-Germans. In 1930 and 1931 over 1.8 million peasants were forcibly uprooted from their homes by the Soviet regime and deported to special settlement villages. This is about 1.2% of the Soviet population.
The number of Russian-Germans treated in such a manner was about 50,000 or 4% of their population. Likewise the man made famine that struck parts of the USSR in 1932-1933 claimed the lives of around 150,000 Russian-Germans or around 12% of the 1926 population. The death rate for the Soviet population as a whole was under 5%.
...Q&A to be continued next week.
Why Can’t Producers Get Along & Work Well Together?
Today’s guest post is from NYC-based feature film producer Adam Brightman.
Recently I was asked by a couple of smart but fairly inexperienced producers some good questions about how producing teams can work well together (and not so well). For better or worse, in my career, which is now in its third decade (ouch), I have averaged about 70/30 good to bad. Maybe that is par for the course. Maybe it is reflective of how much of my film work has been on non-studio, extremely challenging films. In any case, since they asked, and since it is a crucial and, perhaps, unappreciated part of the filmmaking process, here are my thoughts.
1. Everybody counts. All producers on films today are important, and unless they are clearly dead weight or baggage (a star’s manager, an executive’s friend, what have you) then every producer makes a valuable contribution. And whatever the credit one gets on a movie, if you are part of the producing team then you are a producer. Plain and simple. So as I said, everybody counts, and the producing teams that recognize and acknowledge that fact work well. The ones that feel a need, for whatever reason, to undermine and minimize each other’s contributions do not work well.2. Communication. That’s the business we’re all in, yet some people are better at it then others. I have worked with some producers who can barely articulate a thought, much less effectively communicate an agenda, a plan of action, an argument. If you cannot communicate, you are in the wrong business. If you have other skills that lend themselves to being a producer but have trouble communicating, then, in my opinion, you should let other people be the communicators and confine yourself to the role you are best suited for. Which leads me to…
3. Define the work. Movies are complicated to make, and only get more complicated, which is really why we do in fact need bigger producing teams (that and the practical fact that there are very few people around anymore who are the great ‘all around’ producers of the past. It really was simpler then.) The producing teams that work best are ones where everyone understands their role and does what they do best. This is not to say that a good team does not share and overlap duties. The best teams feel free to advise each other, and support each other, but also trust each other to do what they do without being second-guessed. Which leads me to the most important and admittedly cliche part of this little essay…
4. Trust and Respect. Easier said then done, sometimes, but a little bit of the latter goes a long way, and if you don’t have the former, why are you on the team? Of course, there are many answers to that question, since movies come together in so many ways and with so many combinations of people. But if there is one thing I have seen over my many movies that really made the difference between a good team and a bad one, it would be trust, or lack of it. Making movies is a frightening enterprise. There is generally a lot at stake. Money. Career. Relationships. Success! Failure! This pressure can bring out the worst in people. But I say, if it is so hard, and so much is on the line, then all the MORE reason to depend on each other and work together to make it a success.
Adam Brightman has worked in film production since 1982. He has been a part of the producing team on many movies, including “Two Family House”, “Funny Games”, and “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”. He is currently producing the Amy Heckerling comedy “Vamps”.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Seize The Power: LAFF’s Film Financing Conf Now TWO-DAY DIY MARKETING & DISTRIBUTION SYMPOSIUM
We have spent the last ten years making the Film Financing Conference an invaluable experience for filmmakers, and as the industry is swept by very significant changes, we want to rise up to meet those changes with programs that meet filmmaker needs at this moment. With that in mind, the Los Angeles Film Festival has created Seize the Power: A Marketing and (DIY)stribution Symposium, a new program specifically designed to help filmmakers navigate marketing and distribution in the growing age of new media and to promote an open dialogue on the impact and exciting possibilities the changes in our industry bring.
Seize the Power: A Marketing and (DIY)stribution Symposium will be held June 19 – 20 at the GRAMMY Museum at L.A. LIVE, and will host the same insight, quality of information, and caliber of speakers that has made our Financing Conference a vital stop for filmmakers.
Are you looking for financing? About to shoot? It’s time for filmmakers to think about their marketing and distribution from the moment they get the green light. Remember, distribution begins NOW.
If you want to MONETIZE YOUR ART, you can’t miss this event.
If you think it is as simple as make a great film and it will get seen, you are not truly recognizing the world we live in. Great films get ignored all the time. Great films don’t get distributed, and when they do, often they are not distributed in a significant way. Filmmakers and their collaborators have to move beyond the dream that if you build it they will come as it allows both them, their work, and their supporters to be exploited.
You are reading this presumably because you either love watching great movies or because you aspire to making great movies. I write here because I want to do both of those things and I have the confidence that if we change our behavior, both are possible. I write here because I want to do both of those things and I have the concern that if we don’t change our behavior, we will lose the opportunity to do either for ever.
Change begins with a step, usually the easiest one for the most people to do. What would be that change that encourages either, and ideally both, for better movies to be seen more widely, and for more of the movies to actually be better? On all fronts, I think the answer comes down to collaboration. If the quality of culture and the access to quality culture is of a concern to you, you have to enter the equation.
What was your filmmaking background before making The Loneliest Road in America?
MARDANA: Before the film, I used to be a production assistant at a commercial production company in Hollywood, Believe Media. There, I spent most of my time grabbing lunch for the owner. Every once in a while, I would get to work on set. I had made shorts in college, but nothing of significance.
Where did the idea come from?
MARDANA: It came from the actual road. Highway 50 is literally called the loneliest road in America. I used to travel this road on my way to and from college. Every time was always a weird experience for me. The towns on this road were/are almost abandoned.
I’m a pretty avid mountain climber and one summer my father and I climbed Arc Dome in Nevada. Before the climb, we stopped at Tonopah for some supplies. It was a massive empty town. I spoke to a young girl my age at a hardware store. She told me that ten years ago, the population was 15,000. When I was there, it was around 1,000. At that moment, the image of the modern day ghost town was burned into my brain. This reminded me of the more recent corporations that had moved their factories down to Mexico: Payday, GM, etc. GM left Flynt, and we all know what happened to that town (thank you Mr. Moore).
What was the writing process like?
MARDANA: It started off like a lightning bolt. I was trying to sleep one night, and for some reason I couldn’t. I got out of bed at 3 am and did some laundry. My brain was shooting all over the place. So I went on a hike at about 4 am (My old house was at the base of the Hollywood hills). I put on a iPod and heard this song that I never heard before. It was Cat Power’s cover of “Yesterday is Here.” It was one of the best moments of my life. I came down the mountain feeling a little crazy. I went to a café and busted out the first fifteen pages of the script before going to work. From then on I would hike and write in the morning.
How did you fund the film?
MARDANA: Family, my mother and my lead actor’s parents. My mom considered it her grad school tuition. Colin Day’s parents took the executive producing role very naturally. They are in charge of selling the film.
What sort of camera did you use for production and what were the best and worst things about it?
MARDANA: We used the RED camera with Cooke s4 lenses. The camera is amazing during the day. It looks very similar to 35mm film. The best part about it is the ability to keep shooting without reloading the camera. Our opening scene was actually a 20 minute shot! We cut it to show the most beautiful parts of the jeep driving through Glenwood Canyon.
The camera is not so good at night. It introduces a lot of digital noise. But the good people at Red have fixed it with their new Mysterium X sensor. Now it shoots better at night than film.
What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?
MARDANA: That’s a hard question to answer. I might think that I have made a smart decision, but someone else might think that I was idiot. Personally I think the decisions should be made before production. Production is simply the execution of the grand plan. Whether the decisions are smart is up to the majority of viewers.
There was one really dumb thing that Tony, my DP, and I planned. We shot a night scene in the car while driving. And we lit the actors eyes up and strapped a camera in front of them. They could barely see anything. We were lucky to be alive, once that was over.
And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you can take to other projects?
MARDANA: Do your own post if you don’t have much money. Nothing good is cheap in this town. Most good deals are not deals at all because you’ll end up re-doing everything yourself. I ended up coloring the film at the end of the day after we dumped thousands of dollars into a post house. It pays off now since I’m coloring commercials now.
