A SMALL ACT – The Little Things Count

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post by filmmaker Jennifer Arnold.

How much do the little things count when it comes to staying visible?

My first documentary feature, A SMALL ACT (www.asmallact.com ), opens at the Quad Cinema in New York today. I started the film three and a half years ago with very few resources. DIY filmmaking is hard. We all know that. You have small budgets. You have small crews.

So how can you stand out when you have very little? The biggest lesson I learned while making this film is to leverage any small triumph into something bigger. Use every resource and relationship you have, no matter how small they are. Eventually, all those small things can add up.

Trust me, I started out with nothing, but this film has already been seen by almost a million people and it’s actually changed some of their lives. As this blog points out, there are well over 38 (are you up to 76?) things wrong with indie film today, but that shouldn’t stop any of us. Indie film is daunting, but you can still start small – who knows where you’ll end up.

I promise I’m not going to make this post into a big ad for the film, but the plotline sort of parallels our distribution journey, so bear with me for a moment. A SMALL ACT follows Chris Mburu who was the top student in his Kenyan village, but without money for school fees he had little hope of a future – until a total stranger, Hilde Back, sponsored his early education through a “sponsor a needy child” campaign. She paid roughly $15 dollars a term to keep Chris in school and unbeknownst to her, this tiny contribution paved the way for Chris to go all the way to Harvard Law School. Today he’s a human rights officer for the United Nations. Chris decides to find his sponsor and thank her by starting his own sponsorship program to educate a new generation of kids in his village. There’s a lot more to the story than that, but the core idea is that it only takes one small act to completely change the course of your life (or your film) and there are programs out there that can give us DIY filmmakers a real chance.

We started production as a crew of two. I wrote, directed, did sound and produced. Patti Lee shot the film, produced, did on-set assistant editor work and also cooked lunch for the postproduction crew everyday. We had two great investors, Jeffrey Soros (producer) and Jane Huang (executive producer) but we were still editing the film in the garage with no idea how to get the film done, let alone distributed, and then we got our first (of many) lucky breaks.

We got into IFP’s Spotlight on Docs, which is part of Independent Film Week. I think people probably know what that is, but just in case, it’s a market where filmmakers pitch unfinished projects to distributors, sales agents and other helpful people. It was here that we met Lisa Heller from HBO (another lucky break) and Louise Rosen our foreign sales agent. We wanted the film to be theatrically released, but we also wanted maximum eyes on the project – we got both. I should also mention that the first time we applied for Spotlight on Docs we were rejected, so for anyone out there who hasn’t gotten into this (or any of the other programs out there) – keep trying!

We got a lot of momentum from Spotlight on Docs; we also started making pre-sales (to HBO and ABC Australia), which allowed us to finish our budget. Originally we hadn’t planned on applying to Sundance that year, but with the little momentum we had, we decided to give it a shot. Not only did we get in, we premiered in documentary competition and once again we were the little guys. There were 16 films in competition, I think half of the other filmmakers had won or been nominated for Academy Awards. They all seemed like massive big shots to me. But we had HBO behind us, something that was leveraged from a short meeting at Spotlight on Docs. We had good word of mouth; yes, I asked all my friends to please spread the word about the film. We ended up with standing ovations. Bill Gates and George Soros both showed up to screenings. Roger Ebert wrote a wonderful piece about our film and WAITING FOR SUPERMAN and – the most exciting thing of all – audience members, though totally unsolicited, started handing over donations to the education fund featured in the film.

Over the course of Sundance (10 days) $90,000 dollars was donated to the fund. This was our next lucky break. A lot of people started talking about the impact the film made. Sundance Documentary Fund (which had given us a grant) invited me to attend the Skoll World Forum and talk about film and social impact. A trailer for the film was shown at a TED event. HBO helped launch a major outreach campaign. Each good thing led to the next.

We did a limited theatrical release in April and a HBO broadcast in July. Viewers donated $400,000 dollars to the Hilde Back Education Fund and pledged another million for new students as the fund expands. This got even more people talking, and little by little, we decided to broaden our release into something bigger.

We’re launching the “What’s Your Small Act Campaign?” which is a mix of community screenings and a slow rollout in traditional theatres. We’re starting with the Quad and if our numbers are good we’ll expand. Once again we’re the little guys. There are a lot of great films out there right now and we’ve got no P&A money and no team of people. But being little has worked so far. We’ll see how it goes this week!

A SMALL ACT has been selected by the NYTimes as “Critic’s Pick”.  You can view the trailer here.

Eddie Burns Learns To Love Doing It DIY

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Michael Tully of HammerToNail has a really great interview with Edward Burns on his path from small to medium to sorta big and then back again.  It’s filled with the kind of insights that can only be offered by those that have been there — and are willing to be truly honest, with both themselves and us.

I remember when we were at Tribeca, and John Sloss, who I’m sure you know, has this new venture called FilmBuff, who is our distribution partner with this film. And he gave me an argument, but not so much for VOD. Maybe five years ago, I had this movie called Looking For Kitty. And the movie got one tiny, tiny distribution offer from THINKFilm. It was one of those no advance partnerships, and we had made the movie for a quarter of a million dollars. John said, “Look, you’re gonna sell the movie for nothing and they’re gonna own it, just so you can satisfy that part of your ego that wants the film to be released theatrically.” He goes, “If you were to just go straight to DVD, you could make your money back. And maybe make some more money.” At the time—this was maybe ’04 or ’05—my ego wouldn’t allow me to do it. So, we sell the film to THINKFilm, get no money, we’re supposed to have a partnership, and we’ve never seen a red cent from it. Years later, when we’re presented with the same kind of offer for Purple Violets, now iTunes is up and the iTunes movie site is in their infancy. And we thought, “Look at how bands are delivering their music directly to their fans. Maybe there’s a way for us to try and do that with the film.” And we did. I don’t have the numbers exactly right but I think it was like a nine-month exclusive window for iTunes. And we did surprisingly good business there.

Flash forward three years later to Nice Guy Johnny. Two different things happened. We knew what we could make at iTunes even if we didn’t have the kind of “stars” and well-known faces that we had in Purple Violets, which certainly helped. So we said, “Let’s just think the lowest possible number we can do on iTunes. If we’re even gonna entertain theatrical, someone needs to beat that number.” But we never even got there, because John then said to me, “Remember back to Looking For Kitty. This is the moment. We can sell your film for theatrical distribution, and you’re gonna open up on four screens in New York and LA, like you did with Looking For Kitty, and we’ll keep our fingers crossed that if this company has enough money to market the thing, we might make an impression, and you can expand to the next level of a platform release. If we do well there, maybe, maybe you can go on and expand fully.” He said, “Or, you can release your film onto VOD and be in 46 million living rooms, in that moment when you’re doing all of your press.” I heard that, and I was like, maybe if I was a young guy and this was my first film, I don’t know that I would be willing to forego theatrical, because you do fantasize about having your movie play in theaters. I don’t want to say “I’ve been there, done that,” but most times I’ve ended up disappointed with how the films were handled theatrically. As my producing partner says, “There’s nothing special about a specialized film release.” We just thought, we’ll take our film and we’ll do the most aggressive film festival tour we’ve ever done. And that’ll satisfy the need to see it in theaters, sit in the back row with an audience, hear the laughter, and get the thrill of theatrical out of that. But financially, it just made absolutely no sense to try and sell the film to an audience theatrically. And those were all of the things that played into embracing this model.

THANK YOU EDDIE.  There’s a whole lot more of it on HammerToNail.  Check it out.

Quotable Thursday | What's on the Screen

"What you see on the set does not matter.
All that matters is what you see on the screen."
F. W. Murnau [German Film Director]
(1888-1931)


[Photo attribution: Min Master]

What are 3-4 things that help films “break out”?

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Among the other questions I am frequently asked are “What are 3-4 things that would help your film break out?”

1. Unique content and approach;
2. High profile supporters & participants;
3. Participants that are highly active and committed to social media;
4. An already aggregated and identified participatory audience/community base; and
5. A detailed media/marketing strategy that is built and intiated from the start of prep, through production, post, and festival periods, and then into release.

I wish ambition,originality, and quality of execution would help films break out more, but I don’t think it is the case, alas…  I think we can change this if we truly want to.  How great would it be if we actually discussed films more about their content than about their performance; the latter then would be effected much more by the former.  It is a challenge for all members of the community, creators and audience members alike.

I also wish that money did not help films break out as much as it does.  I wish that instead of box office, that in terms of business we followed films more on their Return On Investment.  We don’t even track this in terms of the industry.  We have no transparency as towards spend and what we get in terms of return is decidedly fudged.  Other countries make box office receipts a matter of public record (France), but what about all the platforms.  If we knew what our work actually made, wouldn’t it have a positive effect on what we made?

Zach Clark on "Modern Love is Automatic"

What was your filmmaking background before making Modern Love is Automatic?

ZACH: I went to film school in North Carolina. I made some student films and a little one hour black & white teensploitation movie about Satan-worshipping rock-n-roll juvenile delinquents.

Where did the idea for Modern Love is Automatic come from? What was the writing process like?

ZACH: I possibly subconsciously ripped it off from Paul Bartel's The Naughty Nurse. And Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. The writing process was two years long.

How did you fund the film?

ZACH: Some family members pitched in and helped with about a third of the budget. The rest was me. We shot the movie for a long time, on weekends over six months. So, I would work, save up money and then we'd shoot for a weekend and I'd spend it all. Then we'd wait a few more weeks so I could save up some more money, etc, etc.

What sort of camera did you use for production and what were the best and worst things about it?

ZACH: We used the Panasonic HVX. I like that camera a lot. The DVX, too. I kinda want to shoot another movie on a DVX. I think video looks really pretty.

You wore several hats on the production -- writer, director, producer, editor. What's the upside and the downside to doing that?

ZACH: It wasn't that bad, they were pretty separate. I wrote it, then I produced it, then I directed it, then I edited it. It wasn't like I was editing or rewriting between takes or anything. It's more direct, you don't have to answer to anyone, which can be good and bad. I liked it, though I keep telling myself I'm going to do less and less producing and I keep doing more and more of it.

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

ZACH: I made a rule that we had to shoot in all actual locations, or change the script to suit the locations if we couldn't find what the script was calling for. Instant production design. You never have to worry whether or not the location will look right, because it is right. We only broke that rule once, and that was the day we accidentally smashed a pinball machine. Not our fault, but still.

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

ZACH: There's an answer for this, but it’s either too big or too small for me to articulate what it is.

PPP: (Picture, Parties, Panels) – a formula for success

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post by Joao Amorim, Emmy Award nominee director of 2012: Time for Change, a feature doc offering an optimistic alternative to apocalyptic doom and gloom and featuring leading experts, scientists and celebrities including: Sting, Ellen Page, David Lynch, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Gilberto Gil, Dean Radin, Buckminster Fuller, Paul Stamets, Shiva Rea, Tiokasin Ghosthorse and many more.  It is currently playing in NYC at Loews Village 7 through Oct. 28^th.

Moving towards an Open Source culture in film distribution with 2012: Time for Change

Understanding the changing distribution landscape in 2008 while we were financing this project, Mangusta Productions and I decided to build in some P&A monies into our budget.  When we completed the film in March 2010 we all agreed that the best chance we had to reach a wide audience with this film was to take it straight to our fans and build a movement from the ground up, grassroots style.

I had built some good relationships with environmental groups during the making of the film and we decided to begin by proposing a partnership with Green Festivals – the largest sustainability event in the U.S. that takes place in 4 cities throughout the year.  We suggested that we would bring several luminaries featured in the film to speak on a panel at their expo in exchange for a booth at the festival where we could sell dvd’s and other merchandise, and promote our screenings which would take place in that city simultaneously.  We began this process in San Francisco in April and  were able to put some amazing post-screening panels together featuring people in the film, as well as others activists based in the area.  The results were phenomenal.  We sold out a 280 seat theater three nights in a row and sold out of all our merchandise.  Finally, we co-hosted a party with a local venue and were able to connect directly with our audience and create new relationships that would help in spreading the word about the film.

We duplicated this model in two more cities with Greenfest; Chicago and Seattle. In Seattle, we decided to experiment with a more traditional theatrical run.  Partnering with Intention Media, the filmmakers that managed the initial release of  What the Bleep do we Know?!, we booked a full run at the Varsity Landmark Theater in Seattle in conjunction with our Greenfest panel. This release was successful enough to get extended for three weeks at that theater, and also allowed us to get reviews in some of the major papers.  We were able to book a theater in Portland because of our results in Seattle.  After seeing the enthusiastic response in these initial cities, and receiving a lot of requests for screenings around the world, we realized that people were hungry for what the film was offering and decided to plan a more traditional limited theatrical release.

In order to keep building momentum while we planned our proper theatrical release we scheduled a special screening in NYC specifically to attract press.  We did a “green carpet” event with celebrity luminaries and supporters. As with all of our other screenings we had a panel discussion following the screening, this time featuring Sting, Paul Stamets, Daniel Pinchbeck, Tiokasin Ghosthorse, Ganga White and myself.  Continuing with our PPP concept, the Picture with Panel was followed by a great Party where the audience could mingle with the luminaries…

This event gave us a lot of visibility in the media and ended up landing us a great piece on the well-respected BBC World show “Talking Movies”

Over the final summer months and early fall, we took orders for special screenings around the world and prepared for our theatrical run in NYC and LA.

In October we opened theatrically in Los Angeles and NY. We stuck to the panel strategy but amped it up, allowing for multiple panels a day, and for several local community organizations to join in.  We also offered media sponsorships in exchange for exposure on our website and promotional materials.  This helped us to blast the word out to hundreds of thousands of people via email (note: another key component in our strategy since the beginning has been collecting peoples email addresses at each and every screening). Perhaps our greatest ally has been Daniel Pinchbeck’s social network Evolver who have helped promote the film and been our foot soldiers for spreading word of mouth from Day 1.

Our PPP model is proving to be very effective, having already grossed over 60K in the box office. Our first week in NY and in LA we out grossed every other film in those theaters (Loews Village 7 and Laemmle’s Sunset 5, respectively) and are currently rated 9th in the country for per-screen average as of last weeks box office numbers.

Although some media channels (NY Times) have been very dismissive of the film, we are getting the exact opposite response from our audience. We at Mangusta have learned a lot from this experience, and hope we can get this film out to more cities. I think we are close to reaching a critical mass and with a few more successful weekends, we could have the opportunity to introduce the film to the collective society on a wider scale.

After our screenings we have had panelists ranging from people in the film such as Gilberto Gil, Sting, Paul Stamets, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Penny Livingston-Stark, Tiokasin Ghosthorse and Ganga White, as well as other supporters from the community who were not involved in the making of the film such as Morgan Spurlock, Collin Beaven (No Impact Man), Damon Dash, Mallika Chopra, and John Perry Barlow.

Michael Moore recently requested a copy of the film for his theater in Traverse City after hearing about it from people in the community who’d asked for it to be screened there.  After seeing it they booked it and we had a very well-attended screening there followed by a Skype Q&A with myself.

This is all very much still a work in progress but my tentative conclusion is that it takes more then a good picture to get the people to the theater, you need to create a true event out of the experience. That is when I came up with the PPP model. You always need at least two of the P’s to get a group and all three to get a crowd.

At this point we want to spread the word of the film around the world and have many ways for people to get involved. For more info on our film please visit us at www.2012timeforchange.com and join the movement! Evolve to Solve.

João Amorim is Brazilian Director and Producer, focused on documentaries and animated films, with a social and environmental angle. João also helps run the NGO CICLO.ORG and the social media company PostModern Times.  He is currently working on the feature animation film “Gaia and Last Forrest”.

We’re now on BlogCatelog!

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

BlogCatalog

Bicyles, War Rooms, and Breakfast at Tiffany's

Sometimes, movies can make things seem so REAL.

There are people who, on a trip to NYC, expect to find that breakfast is served at Tiffany's.

There are people who ask to see the basement at Alamo. Hoping to find Pee Wee's red bike there, perchance? There are actually signs posted to remind that the Alamo is site where a lot of people died. (In other words, don't ask about the bike!)

And then there is the story (or, urban legend?) of the newly-elected President Ronald Reagan... who, during a tour of the White House, asked to see the War Room; only to be disappointed when he was informed that such a room does NOT exist. (Maybe Reagan could have had Stanley Kubrick design a War Room while he was in office, and get Peter Sellars to play the part of Dr. Strangelove.)

Yes, Hollywood can be pretty persuasive.

However, who was it that said that you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time?...

[Photo courtesy of cpmanda]

What are the biggest 3 problems in the indie film community today?

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

This (“What are the biggest 3 problems in the indie film community today?”) is one of those questions I get asked alot.  I don’’t think there is a simple answer to this. If you read this blog, you already know I can never get my list down to just three answers.  But I get asked this so much, I am going to give it a shot.  Ready, set, go!

I have identified 75 problems which I have posted on this site (38 Problems, & original problems). The list seems to refuse to get shorter, even as problems get solved.  Nonetheless, it’s growth is not a cause for despair, but a truly energizing phenomenon, as I bear witness to our community coming together to make it better.  People are taking chances, experimenting, and daring to think brave thoughts.  So it is not a problem that there are so many problems.  The vast number of issues facing Indie Film is really just one big opportunity.

That said, that question of what is The Big Three gets asked time and time again.  My answers will always change, thankfully.  The question itself is akin to a thermometer, just taking the temperature of the here now.

I think the biggest problem for indie filmmakers is primarily a marketing problem; filmmakers must move from creating a series of “one offs” where they reinvent the wheel each time,  sourcing an audience from scratch on every new project, and instead move to maintaining an ongoing conversation with their communities.  I say this is marketing, because it demands a change it what we are offering from a series of single projects, to a deeper and ongoing relationship.  It requires a change of approach for all artists.  We need a shift of focus and appreciation from product to process.  This the problem as it is experienced on an individual basis for the creators.

That said, for everyone involved in Indie Film simple survival is never very simple. Priorities often become keeping your job, and when that is the case, art of course suffers.  This is that corp. was/is arguably one of the most successful indie production companies in America and we had to shut our office in the same month that we had the #1 film in America (The American) and the first film sold at the Toronto International Film Festival (Super).  We also closed a deal with Focus that month to make an adequately budgeted feature, had another film in post, one shooting, and one prepping.  We have our best development slate ever.  We had virtually no staff or overhead, and it was still too expensive to have an indie film business. This lack of a sustainable business model plagues us in many ways.  Indie film as it currently stands can only be the provence of the young, the wealthy, and the so-committed-you-have-to-judge-us-as-insane.  I may be wrong to use myself as a model, but when after producing over 60 films that pretty much have been uniformly praised and profitable, and the only viable business structure is a film by film singular approach, isn’t it time to completely readdress how this whole shebang is structured?  Or maybe we all need to abandon the belief that this is a business and look at it as more of a field that we are fortunate enough to play in.  And for those that like to watch, we have to stop taking it for granted that the best players will participate, unless we change the nature of our support.

I recognize I being very broad.  To simplify what I’ve already said so far, among the biggest problems in indie film are: 1) The creators’ mindsets; and 2) the overall infrastructure from top to bottom of the industry; so what would be the third?  Why, of course, the very stuff we make.

Content is a pretty extreme issue with many films and filmmakers – both not being original, not being ambitious, or not being truly able to differentiate themselves in the marketplace – but it doesn’t really seem to be a concern for the industry.  It’s hard to see that it is a concern even for the audience either as you don’t really hear them complaining, but they show it by simply not showing up.  As far as the creators, I know I am as guilty of this as everyone.  I keep making feature films because I love them and they work really well for me – but honestly, people in general do not know how to like indie features, and you have to question if it makes any sense to keep the feature as our dominate form.

Not only do we need to change the methods by which we all engage with films, change the structure by which we make, discover, spread, present, appreciate, and engage with film, but we also have to drastically change what is that we make.

So this brings me back to where we started, and perhaps exposes why this is a problematic question to ask.  What are the the biggest problems in the indie film community today? Why the content, the apparatus & infrastructure, and the context by which we all engage of course. I guess, I could of simplified it further and just provided a one word answer: EVERYTHING.

SUPER World Premiere

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

SUPER World Premiere Clip from Ted Hope on Vimeo.

A clip from the forthcoming extreme superhero film, SUPER, written and directed by James Gunn, starring Rainn Wilson, Ellen Page, Liv Tyler, Kevin Bacon, Nathan Fillion, Linda Cardellini, and Michael Rooker. Miranda Bailey was my producing partner. It will be distributed in the U.S. by IFC Films.

This Is, Was, & Will Be… Indie Film

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Forget that it is music.  Forget that it is ten years ago.  It is still about filmmaking now.

Hat tip to Elizabeth Agate for the link.

Committing To Hybrid Distribution: “The Taqwacores” Story (Pt. 2 of 2)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post by filmmaker Eyad Zahra.   His first feature film “The Taqwacores.” — a DIY production — world premiered at Sundance earlier this year, and opens in New York City at the East Village Cinema today, October 22nd. To learn more, visit www.punkislam.com.  Check out the 1st part of this post here.

Make no mistake.  The indie film world is pretty topsy-turvy right now.  As anybody who reads Ted’s blog knows, there are fewer buyers out there, all the while the digital revolution has allowed for movies to be made then ever.  The market is flipped upside down, and who knows when or where it will every land back on its feet.

As the producer and director of The Taqwacores, my first feature length film, I have had the highest of highs, and lowest of lows in my first filmmaking adventure.  I want to be honest here, and not sugar coat the experience whatsoever.  It has been a wild roller coaster to make this independent feature film, a roller coaster ride that has been going on for nearly 3.5 years (and counting).

As a first time feature length filmmaker, I had thought the biggest hump was production.  I figured, all we had to do was get through those 3 weeks of shooting, and everything else would be down hill.

The reality is that it never gets downhill.  It only gets uphill, and it gets steeper and steeper the more you go forward.

That said, I would do this all over again in a heartbeat. That’s how much I love the story I have chosen to tell, and the life-long friendships I have made because of this production.  To any filmmaker out there, you better make sure you love (not just “like”) the people you are working with, and that your narrative is something you can dedicate years of your life too.

To learn more about how we made the film, check out the production notes here.

Today we release the film in New York City at the East Village Cinema.

At this juncture, we are releasing the film domestically through Strand Releasing (Marcus Hu, Jon Gerrans, and David Bowlds), and these guys have been nothing short of incredible.  They have allowed me to be part of the entire release process, and I deal directly with the heads of the company, and my concerns are always answered by them in an immediate manner.   I have been even given an open invitation to swing by their offices any time.

What I love about our release strategy is that we are using a hybrid method towards launching this film.  We are doing a standard limited theatrical launch in NYC and LA, while along stressing an intense grassroots campaign effort.  It’s a bit of the old and new wrapped in one, which allows me to be involved as much as I want to be.  I have been involved in every major decision for the film.  I also manage our online media (website, facebook fan page, twitter) personally.

We originally launched the film at the Sundance Film Festival, which we were incredibly fortunate to get into.  You can read about how that happened here.

At Sundance is where the seeds of our distribution deal were planted.   Our sales team Visit Films (Ryan Kampe, Aida LiPera), were quite remarkable in helping us setup to sell at Sundance in a matter of weeks.  Visit Films is a global sales representative with a business model designed to help first-time filmmakers maximize their audiences on a global scale.  They are really the only people who do what they do in the United States.  By having only one sales agent to deal with all of our distribution deals, and our global film festival outreach, a huge weight had been lifted off our backs.

We were quite lucky to find ourselves working with both Visit Films and Strand Releasing, and for us, working with these companies has been an incredible fit.  I know there is now a movement for filmmakers to remove themselves from sales reps and distributers, but I urge caution to all filmmakers on this point.  Make sure the route you choose is best for your film.  Research as many case studies as you can, and always think of what’s best in the long run.

Eyad gives an in-depth presentation about the do and don’ts of DIY indie filmmaking through a workshop he has created called “DIY NOW”.  He has presented “DIY NOW” at USC and most recently at the ABU DHABI FILM FESTIVAL.  To learn more about DIY NOW, contact EYAD at info@rumanni.com

Believe In DIY: Believing in The Taqwcores

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post from filmmaker Eyad Zahra,  discussing his DIY experience with his first feature film “The Taqwacores.” “The Taqwacores” world premiered at Sundance earlier this year, and it will be opening in New York City at the East Village Cinema on October 22nd. To learn more, visit www.punkislam.com.

My first feature film, The Taqwacores, opens in New York City tomorrow (Oct 22nd) at the Village East Cinema. It’s been one heck of a grind to get it to this point, with so many people helping along the way, at nearly every stage of the process. This was a true DIY film, made with the help of Cleveland’s punk community, and produced out of the basement of my parents house with the help of my filmschool friends.

Let me pause a second to give a big shout-out to the key players of my team: Allison Carter (Co-Producer/Line Producer), Michael Muhammad Knight (Co-Producer, Co-Writer), Nahal Ameri (Associate Producer/Production Legal), Joshua Rosenfield (Editor/Post-Supervisor/Trailer Editor), and JP Perry (Director of Photography, Colorist).

Let our film be a sign of hope to other filmmakers. If our ultra low budget movie about a subculture, of a subculture (punk Muslims) can play in thirty international film festival and land solid distribution deals in the US, France, and UK, that means anything can happen. Don’t get bogged down by the negative stuff out there, this really is an incredible time to be an indie filmmaker.

I remember back in September of 2007, I was hanging out with my Florida State University film school alumni pals, which included Adele Romasnki and Justin Barber. Over hummus and carrots, we were discussing the kinds of movies we wanted to make, and how we were gonna pull them off. All three of us, eventually went out and made our films, and all three films were able to get distribution deals. Justin produced Barry Jenkins’ Medicine for Melencholy (IFC), Adele produced David Robert Mitchell’s The Myth of The American Sleepover (IFC), and I produced and directed The Taqwacores (Strand Releasing).

What our films had going for them was the fact that they were all very original, and all were made at a very high quality level. I think we all preferred making our films in this DIY manner, as we were all in control of our visions, and we didn’t have any sort of studio-like executives telling how to do things. In a way, we actually were at a place where it takes some filmmakers years in their careers to arrive at. We were making personal films that had great commercial value, and we had final cut rights.

What more could a filmmaker want?

We need to do a better job of educating filmmakers on this DIY style of making films, film schools especially. Every major film school should be teaching how to make these kinds of films. Today, filmmakers can easily be coming out of film schools with features, and not just shorts. The technology has become beyond affordable for curriculums to support that.

Thankfully Ted’s blog is also an incredible resource for DIY filmmaking. I gotta take a second to thank Ted for sharing his life-long knowledge on the craft, and his willingness to constantly explore fresh, new ideas of the filmmaking frontiers. We need more blogs like Ted’s out there.

We need to empower, encourage, and excite tomorrows filmmakers. We can’t be stuck in the rut of saying things are not the same as they used to be. I can only see things getting better.

Eyad gives an in-depth presentation about the do and don’ts of DIY indie filmmaking through a workshop he has created called “DIY NOW”. He has presented “DIY NOW” at USC and most recently at the ABU DHABI FILM FESTIVAL. To learn more about DIY NOW, contact EYAD at info@rumanni.com

Quotable Thursday | State of Confusion

"I pretty much try to stay in a constant state of confusion
just because of the expression it leaves on my face."
Johnny Depp

How Big Brand Sponsorship Saved Our Indie Film (pt 2 of 2)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest Post by Amy Lo.  Yesterday Amy started the tale of Planet B-boy’s march into brand sponsorship and how they teamed up with Samsung.  Today she concludes with how it was a win/win and some thoughts towards the future.

Taking the long view
We were relieved that our immediate need for post production funds was met, but our proposal also kept the door open for a much bigger fish to fry: distribution. Our initial strategy was the typical indie film non-strategy of keeping the film under wraps, doing a big premiere at a festival and waiting for any offers to come along. With Samsung unexpectedly involved at an early stage, we started thinking about how we could partner with them to bring the film out, either with or without a traditional distributor. We came up with a plan for live dance events combined with the film screenings, a 25-city tour presented by Samsung.

In the meantime, we finished the film and got it into competition at the Tribeca Film Festival. We had a magical outdoor premiere on the riverfront with Fab 5 Freddy as emcee, live performances, and breakdancing lessons before the movie. More than eight thousand people turned out. We’d made it an event. We knew we could be on to something.

We pushed Samsung and came so close – with no less than the Chief Marketing Officer for North America behind us – but internal politics and timing ultimately thwarted further P&A support. Planet B-boy still had a great run with distributor Elephant Eye Films, held over in NY theaters for 10 weeks and spreading to about 50 other cities. We threw some fantastic events, too.

Working towards the future
I’m convinced there’s a still lot further to go with sponsorship and indie film, particularly for distribution and the hard work of getting finished films to audiences. Folks like Rooftop Films , Alamo Drafthouse , and Range Life are making movies more of a communal event. Film festivals, too. Brands get behind those curators without dictating programming, so if a filmmaker’s vision is clear and resonates with audiences, why not experiment with individual film releases, too? Or theaters? Kind of like the old days of TV – Wild Kingdom never had anything to do with insurance but the show’s always been presented by Mutual of Omaha. Sponsorship’s coming back for indie music , why not indie film, too?

Samsung didn’t take any ownership or approvals of the film, and our deal with them paradoxically, became our best guarantee of creative freedom, no strings attached. Sponsorship wasn’t our plan at the outset, but by focusing on the film first, by preserving its quality and originality, we had something for others, both audiences and sponsors, to get excited about.

It most likely won’t happen the same way for me again on another film, and on each project, we as producers have to be more resourceful and more imaginative than ever, looking at every option. I’m telling you this story because the lesson learned is: You never know who might save you. When some doors close, just find new ones to knock down.

Amy Lo is a 2010-2011 Sundance Institute Creative Producing Fellow. Through her production banner Mental Pictures , she develops and produces feature films, documentaries, and new media, focusing on director-driven original stories. She can also be found on twitter @amy_lo .

Robert Bella on “Colin Fitz Lives!”

What was your filmmaking background before making Colin Fitz Lives!?

ROBERT: Prior to making Colin Fitz Lives! I had never made a feature film, a short film or even a home movie. I have never taken any film classes, but I love movies. I was then and am still now an avid filmgoer.

What attracted you to the script?

ROBERT: Tom Morrissey's writing made me laugh outloud - which is a great thing. It still makes me laugh today after all these years.

How did you fund the film?

ROBERT: I reached out to a handful of friends who had an interest in being involved with independent film. Ultimately, I wound up maxing out 20 credits cards to get the film to Sundance. So I guess you could say that Visa, Mastercard and American Express are investors too. :)

What was your Sundance experience like?

ROBERT: Sundance was an incredible whirlwind of emotions all bundled up in winter wear and wild days and nights. It was an exciting ride that I will never forget. I was and still am honored that the film was invited to be a part of it all.

You used your credit cards to finish the film -- would you recommend that approach to other filmmakers?

ROBERT: Uhm...no. OPM - Other People's Money.

Why did it take so long -- is it 13 years? -- for the film to be released?

ROBERT: So many vendors worked for little or no pay to help keep the initial costs down. The idea was that when the film sold they would be paid back. But the sales offers were never enough to cover all of the film's deferments and debt. So I had to buy the film out of hock over the last 14 ears before I could put it back out in the marketplace.

What was the smartest thing you did during the making of the film? The dumbest?

ROBERT: The smartest thing I did was surround myself with very talented and creative people and then let them do their jobs. The dumbest thing was using my own money.

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

ROBERT: Perseverance. Humility. Courage under fire. Respect for the contributions of others. Faith.

Follow Colin Fitz Lives! on Twitter @CFLives and on Facebook.

Available via Cable On Demand at IFC Films.

INFLUENCING CHANGE: RELEASING PERSON OF INTEREST FOR FREE ON VODO

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post by Gregory Bayne

On Saturday, October 2nd, PERSON OF INTEREST screened at the 2010 Open Video Conference as part of the Shared Film Festival. This event was sponsored by BitTorrent, and curated by our partners at VODO (http://vodo.net). The screening was well attended for an obscure film playing on a Saturday night in the heart of Manhattan, drawing in just over 60 filmgoers to a mid sized auditorium at the Fashion Institute of Technology. In many respects, the screening went off like any other. A short intro, the film, then the Q&A, which was moderated by the very adept and prepared, Brian Newman, distribution consultant and former CEO of the Tribeca Film Institute. We were quite happy with how the entire event went off, but it was what was happening beyond the screening, out there on the interwebs, that kept my collaborator, J. Reuben Appelman, and I brimming with excitement. As the film played for the 60+ attendees generous enough to lend us a couple of hours that evening, PERSON OF INTEREST was being released worldwide as a free to share P2P download via VODO to a potential audience of hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

I originally heard of VODO in late 2009, and was very intrigued by this idea of using P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing networks as a means to distribute, and gain potentially massive exposure for, independent film. After I witnessed Jamie King’s (one of the ring leaders of VODO) presentation at the 2010 Slamdance Film Festival, I was convinced it was the way to go for PERSON OF INTEREST.

PERSON OF INTEREST is a film that J. Reuben and I have been at work on for some time. It’s the very definition of a small independent film with no budget to speak of, no recognizable cast, and completed only by sheer and unfaltering will. Beyond that, it’s a gritty film, with an underground aesthetic, that seemed to fit the idea of VODO. As well, I think J. and I realized in this ever-changing world of film and media distribution, where even those ‘in the know’ are struggling, that PERSON OF INTEREST was a film likely doomed to obscurity unless we did something unique, if not flat out drastic with it. So I tracked down Jamie, and got him a copy of the film.

While Jamie, Jan, and Nisse (of VODO) passed around the film, J. and I got busy. We launched a tour of the film (http://filmmakermagazine.com/news/2010/08/person-of-interest-off-the-grid/), set up a store at http://personofinterestmovie.com, and began pushing the film out however we could. We screened in Annapolis, MD, and Los Angeles, sent inquiries to theaters, film centers, and universities across the country, and even ended up hustling Person of Interest on Venice Beach for a few hours. We did what we had to, building momentum.

It was mid-August when I heard from Jamie that not only did they dig the film, but they wanted to release it in conjunction with the launch of their new website (details at http://blog.vodo.net).

At this point many of you, like J. initially, are probably asking, “Ok, but what exactly does VODO do?”

Here’s the short of it. VODO prepares and releases your film, for free, across the broad and growing universe of Peer to Peer file sharing sites. Through their relationships with these sites, and by the fact that they are releasing ‘legal torrents’ to download, they manage to get a number of these networks to ‘feature’ the VODO release on their front page. Some for a few days, some for a week or longer. They have done this to great success with films like THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLD, which is on its way to being downloaded nearly 700,000 in just a few months.

Even with some evidence that this approach can work to build audience for independent work, many aren’t convinced and some have asked if our decision to ‘give’ PERSON OF INTEREST away in this manner is prudent, as many in the corporate film, and increasingly in the independent film industry, are decrying internet piracy as the primary basis of lost revenue. We simply don’t see it that way. We see it as a completely new opportunity to distribute work, and create new audience relationships worldwide that, prior to now, would not have been possible. A week ago, a few thousand people knew about our movie, but a month from now, we’re looking at hundreds of thousands of global viewers.  We prescribe to VODO’s philosophy, summed up in their recent blog post:

“One of our core beliefs at VODO is that “peer to peer” ultimately means that everyone is a distributor. To us, this is a really big and important change: it means we no longer have to rely on big media, big business, big anything to have our ideas seen and heard. We think a lot of interesting social changes will spin out of this single fact. And that’s why we’re working on VODO. Business people call it ‘disruption’. We prefer to think of it as transformation.”

The film released at 7pm EST on Saturday, October 2nd. Within the first 4 days of release the film had 20,000 downloads, 6,500 in the first 24 hours alone. As of this writing, 6am EST on Monday, October 18th, the film has now been downloaded over 41,000 times and shared and promoted by people and networks we have never met. And it’s still growing, steadily, everyday.

In a recent conversation with Jamie at VODO he noted that while most releases have been driven primarily by the addition of new file sharing sites promoting the work, the PERSON OF INTEREST release has been in large part powered and sustained by individuals sharing the film, and the link to download it, via social networks. This is very important as it implies that there is more going on with this release than anonymus masses downloading a film for free. People are downloading it, talking about it, and passing it along to their peers…. actively participating in the distribution of our film.

Of course, most of the industry ilk will ask, “yeah, but how is it ‘monetized’?” Fair enough question, in regard to an art form that, even at the lowest levels, costs something to produce. Do we have the answer? Not particularly, but we do believe that it lies in creating a relationship with those that would choose to download, view, and share our work.

Within those nearly 700,000 downloads of the Yes Men film, there were appreciative viewers that donated nearly $30,000 to date to the filmmaking duo. Another project PIONEER ONE has also garnered that level of success. Sure when you do the numbers, you’re looking at a very small percentage of return. But, it’s important to take into account that those contributions are coming in from individuals worldwide who are generally just showing their appreciation for the work, and hope to see more. Beyond the potential for direct donation from viewers, it seems to us that downloads that climb into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will soon represent a currency that makers can trade on when it comes time to develop and fund their next project.

With the launch of PERSON OF INTEREST on VODO, we have also announced the production of our next film. We’re testing the waters of the P2P relationship to both (in part) fund, and raise awareness for this next endeavor. It may all be a gamble, but we have a hunch that many people, much like J. and I, do in fact like to financially support those projects and people that we are fond of and respect. This is, at the end of the day, still a ‘relationship’ business; it’s just that we are choosing upfront investment in a relationship with our audience, as opposed to an industry.

We’ve learned a lot in these two short weeks of release, and from where we’re standing it appears that the future of (independent) cinema will a) not be coming to a theater near you, and b) rests less in figuring out how to ‘monetize’ your ‘content’, than simply making it valuable.

Stay tuned. And, by all means, go download PERSON OF INTEREST…. it’s FREE!  http://vodo.net/L0u8

Gregory Bayne is a filmmaker working and living in Idaho. He is currently in post-production on his second film, Jens Pulver | DRIVEN, a feature documentary about the legendary mixed martial arts fighter.

How Big Brand Sponsorship Saved Our Indie Film (pt. 1 of 2)

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest Post by Amy Lo

Behind every finished film, there are 1,001 war stories.

This is just one small part of how we willed into being a film called Planet B-boy , and maybe it’s a rare, lucky case. But when it mattered most, it was a big-time brand that 1) came to our rescue with cold, hard cash; 2) allowed us to keep complete creative control; and 3) gave us greater ownership of our own film to boot. They didn’t even realize how crucial it was to us, but the truth is, Samsung saved our indie film.

Starting on our own
I met a filmmaker named Benson Lee who had a great character-driven story structured around the vibrant resurgence of breakdancing around the world. I didn’t know how, but I wanted to produce it. Industry broadcasters and production companies loved the idea but said essentially the same thing – go and shoot it, show us a rough cut. Fair enough. We turned to equity investors and scraped together enough to buy plane tickets and cameras….Fast forward through production highs and lows, and three months later, we had 300 hours of footage to log in four different languages. We also had a negative bank balance. So what next?

Rallying our cohorts
Between going back to investors and trying to raise money, we didn’t wait around. We posted a clip on YouTube, rehauled our website, and started reaching out to b-boys and folks online for feedback. While Benson went through footage, I spent days seeking out those who would become our most ardent supporters. Our video racked up tens, then hundreds of thousands of views, netting us our first featured spot on the YouTube front page. As the momentum grew, we did our part to keep it going.

One of our first videos showed main characters dancing in distinctive settings, like the Eiffel Tower and a Buddhist temple. We started getting messages from all over the world “Come film here!” and “What about our town?”, so we figured why not open it up through a video contest? Anyone could send us footage of their own choreography in front of their own city landmarks, and selected shots would form an epilogue to the movie during the end credits. With the community involved, our film ended up covering dancers from every continent – except Antarctica (though we did get b-boys from the Arctic Circle in there!).

It was a simple way for people to connect with the film, and individual participation naturally fit with the film’s themes about self-expression – how each dancer interpreted the art form and made it their own, feeding their own culture back into it. Early on, I had also gotten the idea from Four Eyed Monsters to collect email addresses and zip codes as “screening requests” – and we got 500 subscribers from Poland in a single day – a fan in Warsaw had built their own mini-movement around the film.

Sticking to our story
Meanwhile, we had been shaking the money tree and editing the film simultaneously but were running out of equity investor options. We didn’t have a rough cut yet to show distributors or production companies who might put up finishing funds – and if we were able to get that far on our own, would we necessarily want to give up creative control and rights to our film?

When we explored the idea of sponsorship, we were clear on our parameters. Our first priority was being able to make the film our own way. That was never in doubt and wasn’t negotiable. One key difference between commissioned work versus independent work looking for support: We were the ones who could set the terms. Any sponsors would have to be on board with our creative independence, and we made that authenticity itself an integral part of our proposal.

Figuring out our strengths
Once we established what we wouldn’t do for sponsors, we still had to think carefully about what we could offer them. There weren’t many indie film examples we could turn to. We weren’t cult filmmakers like David Lynch, Spike Jonze, or Wong Kar-wai. We had no guarantee of distribution or a film festival premiere – we didn’t even have a film yet.

But we did have footage – 300 hours of amazing dancing and stunning back stories that wouldn’t all fit into our feature-length film. We had plenty of “content” to lend to a willing partner. Going back to our initial YouTube clips, we also had a growing following and the potential to transcend a niche audience once we had a finished film. The creative goal for the feature was to show b-boy culture in the truest light possible, and through our characters, also make it a relatable story about identity and self-expression. It was a story we were passionate about, and it seemed like something a sponsor could get behind.

Doing our homework
Where to start? We connected to Samsung after much due diligence and research. We asked around for help and suggestions within the b-boy community, and we drew up lists of target companies. We found as much information as we could about each: decision makers, past projects, other forays into sponsorship, and what their mandates might be. Some companies supported the arts through non-profit arms, while others fielded proposals through their in-house marketing departments or ad agencies.

Samsung seemed our best match as an electronics company. They had empty hardware; we had content to fill it. I built a sponsorship proposal tailored to them around this idea. We promised to give them a series of five trailers as exclusive content – for embedding into new Samsung cell phones, mp3 players, and other portable media devices, and in retail displays and product road shows. The videos wouldn’t be commercials for Samsung product; they would strictly promote the film – and identify Samsung as our supporter. And for this, they were willing to put substantial money towards us finishing our movie, a mid-six-figure sum that meant all the difference for us, and was less than the cost of a traditional 30-second ad for them.

Tomorrow, Amy concludes with some thoughts on “Taking The Long View” of brand sponsorship of indie film.

Amy Lo is a 2010-2011 Sundance Institute Creative Producing Fellow. Through her production banner Mental Pictures , she develops and produces feature films, documentaries, and new media, focusing on director-driven original stories. She can also be found on twitter @amy_lo .

Transmedia, Brand Sponsorship, & Crowdfunding: New Methods For A Long Gestating Project

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Guest post by Zeke Zelker.

Ted: We are trying to find new ways these days.  New ways to tell our stories.  New ways to build community around our work.  New ways to bring audiences out to support our work.  And new ways to fund our work.  As we take these steps down these bumpy paths, it is our communication with one another that will bring forth the best practices.  Zeke had been speaking about some of these such steps that he was employing, and kindly has chosen to share them with all of us. Below Zeke outlines his new film, and then reveals what has made the process unique for him.

I’ve been working on this project for over ten years. Generally I let ideas percolate in my mind, on paper and screen before I set out to embark on bringing the movie to life, my ten year gestation period, is one hell of a pregnancy. I’ll pitch the project to various people within the industry, observe their reaction then go back to rewrite, rebuild, rethink. This project is different, sure we ALL say that, but this one is on two fronts, how we’re funding the project and how we’re telling the story.

Brief Synopsis: Why would four people give up everything to live in a tent, thirty feet in the air, on a catwalk, eight feet wide by forty-eight feet long? To win a mobile home and “ninety-sixty hundred” dollars? Desperation? Greed? Attention? Escape? No matter what their reasons, Clarence Lindeweiler is trying to capitalize on them to save his struggling alternative rock radio station WTYT 960.

At first a laughing stock of the community, Clarence’s hair brained scheme to drum up listeners garners national attention, pulling his radio station from the ratings basement to number two. As the contest wears on, the novelty wears off and ratings start to dip. Clarence takes the do-anything approach to right his sinking ship however his shenanigans backfire. The community and media turn on him, calls ring out to end the contest but success has gone to Clarence’s head. Who will become the lucky contestants? Who wins the grand prize? Tune into WTYT 960 to find out.

The story for Billboard, an Uncommon Contest for Common People! was inspired by true events from my childhood. I recall driving by a billboard, in the early eighties, on our way to the mall, where three men lived, to win a mobile home. Times were tough then; high unemployment, people couldn’t afford housing, high fuel prices, does this sound familiar? Seeing those men waving at us, as we drove by them, has stayed with me.

Within the framework of the project we’ll be exploring many things about the human condition using the platform of transmedia to help engage the audience and interact with them much like the real contest did close to thirty years ago. This is a challenging project and we need a lot of help in its creation.

Those three men became dependent upon the community and business owners to sustain them, much like how we are launching this project. We’re funding the project through crowd funding and offering the opportunity for companies to sponsor billboard space in the movie. The offering of branding space to help fund the film has always been a part of the project from day one, but it has now metamorphosed into being a part of the story. Can you help us? Will you become part of the story?

[http://www.vimeo.com/15513404]

We’ve made a 10% rule for ourselves, we want to raise 10% of the funds required to make the movie from friends and family and from the area where we plan on shooting the movie. This happens to be my hometown where we have already made a number of features, having had a significant impact to our local economy. Will my own community step up and support us or will this become a hurdle that we will have to overcome?

So far we have only raised $700 since our announcement two weeks ago, we have $29,300 to go. We have had some local press, pushed out emails to over 9,000 people, put it out via facebook, etc. which has resulted in over 130,000 impressions for the project thus far, which businesses could have already been capitalizing on, hmmm I guess we’ll have to take the wait and see approach on this.

We feel by having 10% of our budget in place, will also prove to those people who are on the fence of support, that the project has some legs and carry them over to the other side of support. We are offering some great perks: parties, merchandise, a shout out on the radio in the movie, a seven course meal cooked by me, small billboards that appear in the movie, on the website and possibly in the trailer and commercials, and the large billboard that is the backdrop for most of the movie and will appear in ALL key art promoting the film, posters, letterhead, DVD covers, website, anything and everything that you can think of. Oh and we have fiscal sponsorship through Fractured Atlas where donations and sponsorships are tax deductible. I feel this could be a deciding factor for some, that the close of the tax year is upon us.

Those people and companies who donate will have a leg up on others when we release information about the movie, after all we will have their direct contact information. There will be chances to win prizes, be in the film, play games, listen to a new virtual radio station and many, many other things that we’ll be announcing over the course of the two-year project.

I am not discouraged by our dismal performance thus far. I know it takes time for people to warm up to a new idea and I know once things start to unfold, people will become more inclined to help. I believe that. I also believe as we get the project out there, that companies will have that ah-ha! moment and understand what we’re doing, capitalizing on the idea of transmedia and seeing the plethora of branding opportunities to target to our 13 to 35 year old demographic.

I’m kind of glad that it took me ten years to finalize my plans for this project. Waiting so long enabled certain technologies to be developed and opportunities to present themselves. It gave me time to craft a better script and it to develop a very immersive story telling experience where we’re offering the community to get involved and many artists various opportunities to share their work all within the frame work of the Billboard story experience.

This is all very exciting to me, the convergence of story telling, brand involvement and technology to entertain people. After all, if we’re not creating something that is entertaining do we even have the right to be in this space/medium?

I believe that Billboard is not only an entertaining project but also an important one. Billboard examines the root of humanity, that piece in each one of us who struggles to get ahead, to get noticed or to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. It is the type of project where we look at ourselves and those around us, observing that at our core we need human beings to be human, to propel our existence. Sure these are some lofty ideas for a comedy but that’s what the project is truly about. We may even laugh at ourselves in the process.

Stay tuned… I’ll share what is working and what is not over the course of the project. I look forward to hearing people’s comments, helping me learn and understand the new story telling frontier. And yes, I would love your kind financial support, pledges can be made at http://www.indiegogo.com/billboardmovie

Life may just imitate art!

Zeke Zelker is a Lehigh Valley, PA native whose first exposure to the film industry was in John Waters’ film Hairspray, as a dancer in Corny Collins Council. A critically acclaimed, award winning filmmaker with a number of films to his credit: The 2005 Sundance Film Festival favorite Loggerheads, Affairs, Fading, A.K.A.-It’s A Wiley World!, Getting Off, Southern Belles, Just Like the Son, a documentary on the Dalai Lama, A University Prepares, and his most recent film InSearchOf, the sixth most viewed drama on Hulu all time. Zeke has been an early adaptor in using technology to make, promote and market his films.

The Ticking Bomb

Storytelling needs to be compelling. It needs something that makes you want to find out what comes next.

And that something is a little thing called suspense.

Alfred Hitchcock was known as the Master of Suspense, and for good reason. But suspense can be a tricky thing. For example, here's what it's not: when a bomb go off in a movie, but takes the audience by complete surprise... this is actually not suspense.

To add suspense, Hitchcock would say you need to let the audience in on a bit of information (i.e. that there's a bomb ticking away, about to explode). And that's what causes tension for the viewer... What is the hero of the story going to do? Will they figure it out in time?

Of course, the suspense doesn't have to be a physical bomb. (Wouldn't all movies be lacking something if a bomb-threat were involved in every plot line?) But, think of the "ticking bomb" here as a metaphor.

So, let's go to another example from one of Hitchcock's movies... one without an actual bomb: Vertigo (1958). (Warning: there are SPOILERS in this example for those of you who haven't seen this movie.)

The "ticking bomb" in this case is the end revelation that Judy and Madeleine are the same girl. The movie actually gives this away much earlier than it does in the original book (although Jimmy Stewart's character is left in the dark until the very end). Hitchcock reveals his reasoning for this: "I put myself into the place of the little child, sitting on its mother's knee, being told a story. When Mother pauses in telling the child the story, the child always says, 'Mummy, what comes next?'" (from an interview with Truffaut)

Hitchcock goes on to explain that even though everyone was shocked that he wanted to ruin the surprise ending of the book -- that Judy is Madeleine -- he thought it more to his purpose to let the audience in on the secret. Going back to the little child analogy: The kid, knowing this secret, would then ask his mother, "And Stewart doesn't know it, does he? What will he do when he finds out about it?"

Every story needs some sort of what-comes-next-mummy. Otherwise, it's bound to lose its audience. No, not that all movies should be suspense thrillers like the ones Hitchcock put out.

And yet, it's something to keep in mind. Screenwriters: Find a "ticking bomb" for your story.

[Photo courtesy of VSmithUK]