Quotable Thursday | Midnight

"An optimist stays up until midnight
to see the new year in. A pessimist stays
up to make sure the old year leaves."
Bill Vaughn


[Photo via flikr courtesy of Stephen Cannon]

New Blog Sections: I Need Your Help

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

You may have noticed on the bottom right hand corner of this HopeForFilm blog that I’ve started having a roll of other indie film thought bloggers — rather an ever changing list of their most recent postings.  Hopefully you already follow all of these good minds, but regardless I think they are all raising issues about making indie films that can’t be missed — and hence their inclusion on this site.  These are smart folks sharing their knowledge and musings — providing the crucial ingredients needed for the culture to work better.  I am sure there are others I should include too, so let me know of them if you find them first.

I have added a similar blog role on LMBF “Aid To Making Better Films” but could use some suggestions there.  I would also like to add curators to TheseAreThoseThings and welcome suggestions.  Issues&Actions has a good list “YouAreNeededToDoSomethingNow” but they all slant towards Net Neutrality and I could use recommendations for more general film issues.  I would like to do the same for TheNextGoodIdea (and have some ideas for that) and BowlOfNoses.  Your help is appreciated.

I’ve long dreamt of an indie film journal that wasn’t about deals or celebrity, but was about process: creative, production, and presentation — a journal that was about the Hows, and the Whys, and the How Comes?.  This is my step towards that work.  I KNOW I would read such a journal.  Would you?  Can we build it?

And while I am at it, I have another question for you.  I’ve noticed some blogs have a curated twitter follow list, providing a feed of select individuals.  Would you like me to include such a thing here on HopeForFilm or Truly Free Film?  Perhaps the same folks who blog articles are currently being featured?  Anyone I forgot? If so, please let me know why they should be included.

Just trying to make it all a little bit better, step by step, with your help and input.

Jon Favreau on "Swingers"

After you'd written Swingers, why did you decide to try to make the film and not just sell the script?

JON FAVREAU: By keeping the script, you maintain control over every aspect of the movie.

Creativity, you're giving up final cut usually right off the bat. When you're making it yourself, it's up to you and only you what ends up in the movie and what compromises you want to make creatively. So, for some nominal fee, they're really getting a lot of leverage over you, both creatively and financially.

A lot of changes were asked of me: changing certain characters to women, making the characters more likeable, changing things that interfered of what my vision for the piece was.

In defense of those people, they're used to developing scripts, they're looking for clues in the material, they don't know what the overall vision of the piece is, so the best thing to do is to not take any of that upfront money.

Was Swingers based on your life?

JON FAVREAU: It wasn't a true story, but it was definitely based on people and places and inspired by events that I had experienced.

When you write from that, you're incorporating a lot of things that are very real and well understood by you. And the script inherits a certain sincerity and a certain subconscious vision that you might not even be aware of when you're doing your first script, if it's a personal one. It becomes much more difficult later on to do that.

But if you stick to things that you know and understand and people that you know, it allows a very true voice and you tend to come off as a better writer than really are, because you're incorporating so much of reality into your piece.

Did you write it for you and Vince Vaughn?

JON FAVREAU: I wrote things that I knew that they could do well. But at that time, Vince had not really played a character like the persona that was presented in Swingers, even though it was based very closely on him. The characters that he had played never really played into his rapid-fire delivery or his sense of humor. He was always playing it much more straight as an actor. I don't think he saw himself as a comic actor as much as a good-looking, leading man type.

So I was tapping into something I knew he could do, from knowing him so well, but I didn't really know whether or not he could deliver, because he hadn't done it before. It's good to have those touchstones.

What really got us there was that we had done so many staged readings of it, to try and raise money, that it served as almost a rehearsal period. So that by the time we got to the set, where we didn't have a lot of time and we were shooting a lot of pages a day, we had already gone through the material so much and had chemistry from our relationship in our personal life, and that certainly made things easier. There was no learning curve in the relationship by two actors that are cast opposite each other. Everybody already had a level of familiarity that helped to keep the process a little more streamlined.

When did you realize how much fun audiences would have with the phone message scene?

JON FAVREAU: Not on the set. The crew was not very entertained by it. We shot all the apartment stuff in a day and a half, so about a quarter of the movie was shot in a day and a half on paper. So that was one of those things that was crammed into a very crowded day at that location.

And there were concerns. Doug Liman (the director) was concerned that it was too many messages. But I felt pretty strongly about it, having read it in front of audiences live, at staged readings.

It wasn't until the whole movie was cut together and the significance of that moment, where it fell in the story, it was definitely a pivotal point in the film. And because you were so emotionally involved in that moment in the movie, the audience was engaged with the film. And had they not been engaged with the character, that scene would not have been as funny or as poignant. It was because of the work that had been done by everybody involved up until then that it was funny.

Now I think people enjoy it alone, because they remember the movie. But had that just been done as a sketch, it might have been a clever thing, but I don't think it would have had the impact that it does in the context of the film.

It all goes to emotion. If you're emotionally engaged, everything is going to be funnier, more satisfying, scarier, everything. It's that emotional connection that you feel with these guys. And the reason you feel that is because the story was so personal and sincere, and that's a very hard thing to maintain as you do bigger and bigger movies.

It's the one thing that you really have going for you in a small movie, that you're doing something that's so really and usually so personal that you have a level of emotional engagement that you will not get in a high-budget, high-concept movie.

Full Metal Jacket Diary: From Book to iPad

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post if from actor and filmmaker Matthew Modine.  His latest project represents a nice example of  how filmmakers can encourage collaboration from other members of their team and extend their work into new realms.  In this case, even after the death of the filmmaker.

While making Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, I kept a diary. I was portraying a combat journalist, so it made sense to both Kubrick and myself to take some notes along the journey. Sometimes between set ups, Stanley would ask me to read out loud what I had entered in my small cloth-covered book. Being put on the spot like that made me realize that I’d better keep a detailed, accurate, and hopefully, entertaining description of the film’s events. Stanley also allowed me to photograph the filmmaking process. No snapshots would do on a Kubrick set. I used my beautiful 2 1/4 x 2 1/4-inch Rolleiflex camera. I made prints of a number of photographs and gave them to Stanley and the other actors as gifts. Once the filming was over, I returned to my home in NYC and put the photos and my diary in a box.

After several years, I began to think about exhibiting or publishing the photos, but only if it would be something Stanley was in concert with. At the time, Stanley had begun pre-production on what would become his last film, Eyes Wide Shut. While he was busy preparing, I was compiling the photos that would be used in my book of FMJ photographs. I had found a publisher, who loved the photos, but felt the images needed a narrative context. So, I began transcribing the diary I had kept while filming. The result of this effort eventually became the limited edition hardcover book, Full Metal Jacket Diary. I only wish I had begun the book earlier so that Stanley could have seen and held it. You see, It was my goal to make it something he would be proud of and possess the integrity of his own work. The first edition of FMJ Diary was limited to only 20,000 laser-etched numbered copies and featured, literally, a metal book jacket. Upon release, it was well reviewed, awarded a prize for its design, and sold out rather quickly. For years now, fans of the film and Kubrick have been asking when a paperback edition might be released. The fact is, I wanted the 20,000 copies to be collector’s items and I never intended to publish a paperback version.

Last spring I was gifted an iPad. It’s an interesting device. I downloaded a couple of iBooks and different apps. It’s pretty cool. I also owned a Kindle, but wasn’t enthusiastic about the experience of reading on it. My friend and I were talking about the experience of reading on electronic devices and imagined that if a developer could make the experience more cinematic and interactive, then digital books could take the reader on a unique journey. I realized then, that my friend and I could do just that and the iPad could be the perfect platform to re-release my book. My friend became my design partner and the producer on the FMJ Diary app. Now we are creating an immersive interactive experience which includes not only my text and photographs, but audio, sound effects, and original music. As with the book, it’s very important to me that we create something Kubrick would be proud of and want to own.

In August, 2010, we began recording the diary. It was amazing to read out loud. It brought back memories and I realized how much I’ve changed since the life-altering Kubrick experience. With almost two hundred pages of text recorded, our sound editor really has her work cut out for her. In addition to adding sound effects, I hope to have Stanley’s daughter, Vivian, compose original music for the app. She composed the original FMJ score (as Abigail Mead) so it would be great if she completes this part of the audio book experience.

With this FMJ Diary app, I will be including photographs that I didn’t put in the hardcover book. We’ve been looking through folders of scanned photos and sifting through original contact sheets and negatives to find bonus images that will further enhance the app and make it unique from the book. I want owners of the book to have a new experience; one that takes them deeper into what the two-year Kubrick journey was like. What seems amazing is that, Full Metal Jacket continues to be as relevant today as it was when it was first released. Many of my photographs from the film set look like they could have been taken today in Iraq or Afghanistan. I believe Kubrick was saying, with several of his great war films (Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove) that war is war. While the dates, uniforms, and places change, the outcome is always the same. Stanley was a peaceful man. I’d say, from my time with him, that he felt that if we could not find a way to solve our problems and our differences with peaceful solutions, the outcome would be, because of the proliferation of more and more powerful weapons, the recipe for absolute disaster.

I’m thrilled to be working on this new iPad app project. You can follow my progress on the new FMJ Diary website (www.fullmetaljacketdiary.com) You can sign up for updates and also purchase limited edition fine art prints of six iconic images (more may soon be added). I will be using this site, along with our FMJD Facebook page and Twitter account to include people in the creative process going forward.

Thanks!

Matthew

It's All in the Backstory

It's that time of year when everyone starts looking back over the past year. And that got us thinking about backstory.

Just as in real life, people have a past, so do characters who populate a movie world. And that past (or backstory) will affect what they do in the story. Whether we realize it or no, every character in a movie has a backstory. But it primarily affects the main characters.

Characters who only show up for a limited amount of screen-time are often written as stereotypes or cliches. Why? Because a cliche allows the audience to supply a ready backstory in their own mind for them.

But, you don't want the main character to be a stereotype. You want round characters who do surprising things to hold our attention. That's where backstory may come in.

A character's past affects how that character may or may not react to a situation. It may be revealed in various ways; through flashbacks, narration, or dialogue. But the key to using backstory is to know when to reveal the backstory. All at once? A bit here and a bit there?

We have found that when it comes to backstory, we often write it into an early draft of a screenplay, using overt dialogue or flashbacks. Then, once we're comfortable that that information is part of our character's past, the dialogue/flashback is tweaked and rewritten to be leaner and less obvious.

However, occasionally an overt reference to backstory is left in the script because we're not sure if we will need it or not. It is filmed, but then it is often taken out during the edit. Sometimes it's better NOT to know too much backstory. We can get caught up in a backstory when we need to focus on the actual story.

Which is why there's that old adage about not dwelling too much on the past...

What Can Indie Film Learn From Etsy? Let’s Make A Pledge

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Etsy ran at a profit for the first time last year, and the NYTimes recently ran an article examining how well they’ve managed their growth while still creating a community dedicated to having their buying habits reflect their values.  With 7 million users, revenues possibly as high as $50 million, Etsy certainly has a lot to teach other non-corporate creators.

Etsy looks at Ebay for lessons and the big takeaway appears to be to keep the focus on community and not to get hung up on increasing profits.  It has always felt to me that the major difference between Art Film or Indie Film and Hollywood’s product is the community experience.  It was the community part of the infrastructure that the industry allowed to rust as they adopted the Hollywood practice of pursuing profit margins first and foremost.  It is the community aspect that we need most to focus on if we want a sustainable creative community in this country, IMHO.

Like Etsy’s efforts to create an intimate relationship between buyers and sellers, if we want a Truly Free Film culture to flourish, we need to increase the intimacy between audiences and creators.  We need to erase those lines so it is a truly united community.  Etsy works to do this through daily emails:

Etsy is working to ensure that as the site gets bigger, it still feels more like a treasure trove of goodies than a chaotic sidewalk sale. The company sends out daily “Etsy Finds” e-mails that are usually put together by a staff member or a popular merchant. These display a handful of items arranged around a central theme or color scheme.

When I say that being a filmmaker requires being a curator, I am speaking of the responsibility of filmmakers to get others’ good work seen and appreciated.  You say you made a film in the last two years?  Well how many movies did you also actively encourage your friends, family, fans, & followers to watch? And how did you do that?  What if you made a pledge to this year write up at least two passionate pleas to watch a new truly independent film this year.  And what if you wrote in such a way that actually put in both a cultural and personal context so it might really resonate with readers.  And what if we found a way to get that out to the community?  If I got fifty pledges from filmmakers to actually do that, I will make sure we got a good platform (starting here) to launch it further.

Update:  12/28 648PM EST: It was just pointed out to me that Brian Newman ran a nice post back in November on Etsy’s doc profiles on their various artists.  It’s great work and Brian was right on with his post.

Marching Orders For The New Year

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

For those of us that love diverse and ambitious work and/or desire a truly free film culture, this is what we need to do most now (IMHO):

1.     Recognize the time we are living in;

2.     Reposition our mindset;

3.     Redefine our content;

4.     Reorder our priorities;

5.     Rebalance our emphasis;

6.     Restructure Our Primary Business & Creative Relationships;

7.     Create New Methods & Processes;

8.     Create New Tools;

9.     Work to make it better, together.

SIMPLE, right? !!  I am sure you have some ideas on what we need to do on each of these 9 items.  I know I do.  I look forward to discussing them further with you in the new year.  Thanks for all the help this past year in trying to figure it out.

And for those that didn’t help, I hope you do this year, or stop taking advantage of those that truly want a diverse and ambitious culture — just leave the field altogether.  Time is short and there is a lot to do.  No one can afford to be patient or silent any longer.  Creativity can not be limited to the work itself; we need to create the world that will allow it to flourish for all.

Building The Community Web-Those Already Doing This

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is Pt 2 of 2 from 2010 Brave Thinker Of Indie Film Sheri Candler.

I have investigated some artists already building their communities (and sustaining themselves) and thought you should use them as examples to follow.

Examples of artists who have built a community web

In addition to the Grateful Dead, a group most all of you are aware of, there are  examples of artists from many areas who have successfully built up a community around themselves and their work.

Kevin Smith is a great example. Smith says he can spend up to 9 hours a day online and started this back in 1995. He has never put his career only in filmmaking, saying he never expected THAT to last. Instead, his community has been introduced to a variety of his activities; a SModcast, comic books, stand up comedy, regular writing contributions to various magazines. Smith isn’t tied to only one avenue of revenue and in fact can make a living off many things outside of making films. He was able to pinpoint exactly what his fans liked about him early on and he reaches out to them continually. If I had to suggest something, I would ask him to allow a community aspect on his site so that fellow fans can contact each other.

Matthew Ebel is another example. Ebel is rock pianist who is now forging a path into the transmedia world on his next project which involves an album, a novel, a graphic novel, and a radio drama. He continually infuses his music with stories and characters which helps to draw in the listener. Ebel regularly blogs and has his own podcast which has grown his community of supporters. He acknowledges that these activities exploded him out of obscurity and credits them with his ability to make a living as an artist. He releases new music through a subscription service on his blog as well as touring the world and he encourages his fans to take his music and create something new from it. I will be exploring Mike Masnick’s CwF+RtB=$$ in  a future post with Ebel as a good example of someone doing this successfully. Ebel regularly engages with his fans on his Facebook page as well as in comments on his blog.

Jonathan Coulton is a musician who left his day job in 2005 to write music full time. When he was first starting, he released a new song a week (Thing a Week) to his site under Creative Commons where anyone can take his music and do whatever with it as long as it is non commercial. This experiment served to self discipline him to stay on track with his writing; he made himself achieve this goal. It also built up his fan base who regularly needed to be fed content and who enjoyed interacting with him. Within 2 years, Coulton said he was making more at songwriting than he had been from computer programming, the job he left to start his musical career. He also found during this time that his community did not just want to buy music from him, they wanted to be his friend.  Community members have drawn artwork for each song, contributed their own versions of his music, given him tips about other revenue streams he could be investigating. Coulton doesn’t see his work as a musician simply to sit around strumming a guitar and thinking up song ideas. He actively engages his community every day. For more on this story see a NYT article on him from 2007.

A roadmap

My friend Ross Pruden has been giving me feedback on this post while I have been writing it and even though I said I am not going to give you 10 steps to guarantee community, he insists that I give you SOME kind of guidance on beginning this process.

Goals-as I mentioned before, start with small steps. If you are starting from zero, try to get your first 500 true fans in the first year or two. It takes a lot of time to find, nurture and consistently maintain this community. You must be committed to doing this work and perhaps have someone help you.

Interaction-Not only do you want your community numbers to go up, but you want the engagement to rise. This is easily seen on the new Facebook analytics if that is a place you have chosen to speak from. It should also be seen on your Google analytics through your site traffic numbers and from the number of comments on your posts. Don’t get TOO caught up in measurement. The goal is building a worthwhile community, not gaming numbers, but it gives you a good idea of what is working and what is not so you can adjust.

Allow for creative connection-Ideally, you want a community involved in your work and to connect with each other. Allow them to riff on your content, remix it to share with others, become part of this “in” crowd. View this spread of your content and ideas as a way to enlarge your community, not as revenue lost. More on this to come.

Connect to others with communities-You aren’t the only artist looking to build an audience. There surely are other similar artists, maybe in another medium, with similar fan interests. I saw this quote on Twitter today from John Maeda “Talent recognizes other talent and shows appreciation for it, instead of envy.” Live this quote, connect yourself and your community to like minded communities in order to widen the circle. Don’t be selfish and egotistical, traits like that will not allow you to have a community. You will be widening your circle incrementally, welcoming in new members who become exposed to your work and ideas through others.

I just need a community and all will be well?

I will acknowledge that while you are beginning to  build your web, you will have to reach out much more using traditional methods. Advertising, publicity, affiliations are all tools in the mix and they can work a bit faster than connecting with people one by one. Be mindful of where you place these, again the goal isn’t everyone, just those most interested in what you have to offer. You are issuing an invitation to connect when you talk about your community, not an invitation to buy something. Refer back to Bob Moczydlowsky’s equation for financial success. DON’T make the film first and hope it finds an audience. Build your web first, then make the film. I will restate that this work is going to take a lot of time and effort. This isn’t “buzz” building, it is a long term strategy to building a sustainable career. One where you can live as an artist free to make whatever content pleases you and delights your community while making a living.

PS added later: another artist building her own community is Amanda Palmer. Palmer has such a following that she now works with other artists. She has fan art, she has her own store, she has a street team called The Reconnaissance with a bootcamp to teach one how to become part of the team, there is a forum on her page where fans can interact with her and with each other. Palmer uses Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Youtube and Flickr to update and talk to her community and she gives away content as well as selling all manner of merch in her store. She famously went on Twitter one Friday evening and started talking with fans when she came up with the idea of selling tshirts about what losers they all were for being home on Twitter on a Friday night. She sold over $11,000 in merch within 2 hours that night! As she said, her record on a label to that point had made her $0. Check the post here.

Sheri Candler is an inbound marketing strategist who helps independent filmmakers build identities for themselves and their films. Through the use of online tools such as social networking, podcasts, blogs, online media publications and radio, she assists filmmakers in building an engaged and robust online community for their work that can be used to monetize effectively.

She can be found online at www.shericandler.com, on Twitter @shericandler and on Facebook at Sheri Candler Marketing and Publicity.

Quotable Thursday | As the Angels Give

"If instead of a gem, or even a flower, we should
cast the gift of a loving thought into the heart of a friend,
that would be giving as the angels give."
George MacDonald
(1824-1905)


[Photo courtesy of Mogens Engelund]

Building The Community Web Around an Artist

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post (part 1 of 2) is by 2010 Brave Thinker Of Indie Film Sheri Candler.

I think I have been promising this post for a while, ever since I wrote the New Independent Filmmaker’s Business Model. If you haven’t read that post, give it a little peruse so you can see what I am on about. The key premise is that all artists should be building a tribe (a Seth Godin term as it relates to marketing) or an engaged audience for their work. One that transitions from one project to the next throughout your career and indeed your life. These supporters will be your friends, your evangelists, your patrons and if you cultivate this relationship, you will not have need to reach a mass in order to make a comfortable living. I have been thinking though that maybe the idea should be compared to a web.

In looking through some other advice on this, I can see why some can be turned off by the idea. It seems most of the advice focuses only on how to lure people in just so you can sell them something, kind of like how the spider spins her web. It’s a strategy I guess, but that isn’t what I am going to tell you to do here. I am a firm believer that self promotion is about helping other people. What I propose is offering value, sharing knowledge and genuinely wanting to connect with people and connect people you know who should know each other. Perhaps it is better described as a web, an interconnected community. One that you lead, but is dependent on everyone’s interactivity. To me that is much more palatable to an artist because it is authentic, no ulterior motive, which is refreshing in today’s society. But reciprocity does happen because it is really human nature to help someone who has helped you, in fact in this scenario, it is expected.

First elements to understand when constructing you community web:

Permission-You must have permission to talk to people. Permission? Yes, you will only be talking to people who have opted in to hear what you have to say. You will NOT be eblasting everyone you ever met once a week. You will NOT be spamming hundreds of strangers who don’t want to hear from you. You will have “the privilege of delivering anticipated, personal and relevant messages to people who want to get them.” (Seth Godin).  How do you get permission? It starts simply by communicating with people on a one to one level. Aren’t you doing that now? You should be, that’s what social media is for. Not automated, canned message, advertising social media but real conversations. So think of what online services you can use, that you feel comfortable using for communicating every day. It doesn’t have to be hours every day, but some amount of time every day.

Trust-We need to trust you. We need to know you are listening, you understand us, you will help us as we will help you and each other. We need NOT to feel that you are using us.

It’s not you, it’s we-Although this post is directed at building the web around yourself, it is really more about taking a leadership role that is missing from a community. There are lots of people in the world with similar interests and outlooks on life. Artists can contribute a lot to bringing these people together around ideas and creativity. Without leadership, they are just a crowd, unconnected to one another. You and your work are the catalysts that bring them together, if you actively step up to that role.

Building it, getting them to come

I have been reading a book this weekend by David Meerman Scott and Brian Halligan called “Marketing Lessons from the Grateful Dead” and it has helped me to think of how you should be looking at building your web. No one can tell you “do these 10 things and you will have a community,” but you can start by setting goals for yourself and thinking through the small steps you can take to achieve them. A goal could be to start building an email list of names so that you can speak directly with your community. This is exactly what The Dead did starting in 1971, long before social media made it easy. They placed a call to action postcard in the album sleeve of the famous “Skull and Roses” asking “Dead Freaks Unite!” by sending in their addresses. The band used this list to communicate directly, gauge where the tours would be booked, offer exclusive content, they even gave priority ticket offers for the live shows to list members. Their list of hundreds of thousands was built over 30 years and continues to this day, despite the fact that the official band no longer exists. The community lives on.

First start with you. What’s your story? What can you share with us that helps us to know if we are kindreds? This clearly means that you will not be attracting everybody. Everybody should not be your goal. Everybody isn’t loyal. Trying to attract everybody is like cat wrangling, way more trouble than it is worth. You want the RIGHT people, those who are most open to wanting to contribute to something greater than themselves. Those are the people who are going to enlarge the web, to help you weave it.

Give us the genuine signals that you care and are passionate about what you do. We can sniff out the disingenuous; those who are only in this for money and fame.  Make us believe in you and that you want to know us as people, not as targets. We won’t join you if you want to manipulate us. We have everything we need. We don’t need yet another commodity, another product.  Make us different people for having known you and your stories.

Then, find us. If you know yourself and what you are interested in, you can figure out where we live. Think about your throughline. Many people say that they are interested in many different things, but if they really analyzed all of those seemingly different areas, they will find a commonality. That’s your throughline and those most likely to connect with you will have the same. When you know what characteristics those are, it will be easier to find your community. Start to embed yourself in the places where we already gather.

I have heard some say that it is difficult to move people from one community to another. I personally have found this isn’t the case once they know you and I have advised people on how to embed themselves and have seen their personal community numbers grow. It takes time  and constant attention, but it will work. Your web will become intertwined in others so the goal isn’t to move people, it is to become an extension.

Build the platform. Give yourself a place to speak from and a place for the community to gather. This may be an interactive website, it may just be a blog, it may start with a Facebook page (though ideally you’ll want your own dedicated platform!). You may grow your community by starting in another one, but eventually you need a place of your own, a little place your community can grow and thrive.

Think of ways to delight us, to keep us coming back. As the propagator of your web, you need that connection to stay strong. Sometimes community members are lazy and forget to check back in. There should be a fresh serving of something noteworthy on your site at regular intervals. I saw a great reminder email the other day from a community with which I am involved. Just a message telling me what was going on over there, new discussions that were happening, new members who had joined and an invitation to check back in. It was very effective in catching my attention and letting me know that they had missed me, like they actually know I have been out for a while. Was it somewhat automated? Probably, but it still made me want to check back in and see what was happening. Someone should be thinking up and executing content that will keep the community engaged and involved.

This PMD person, how is this going to help?

This is the person who can keep the content on track and keep the community interested. I don’t think you should turn your personal identity over to a PMD (Producer of Marketing and Distribution), but a PMD can have access your community while helping to spread the web to other influential individuals and groups and help to figure out the best way to get your film out to them. Ideally, the person you choose to help you is either already in your web or someone you introduce to them as a helper to you. Back to the Grateful Dead example, it was Eileen Law who became the community manager for the Dead’s fans. She was one of the band’s earliest fans. Eileen put together the newsletters, collected and organized the fan list, her voice was the one fans would hear on the message machine when they called for priority tickets. The Dead had a record label, but the label wasn’t talking to the fans and much of the turnout to their shows came by word of mouth from the band. You still must keep engaged, but this person will serve as your liaison while you are in the creative process. All in the community must be kept aware of what is happening, transparency is important here. Believe me, once you start getting a community built up who expect regular interaction, this person will be vital.

Next post: Artists who are doing this and a roadmap…

Sheri Candler is an inbound marketing strategist who helps independent filmmakers build identities for themselves and their films. Through the use of online tools such as social networking, podcasts, blogs, online media publications and radio, she assists filmmakers in building an engaged and robust online community for their work that can be used to monetize effectively.

She can be found online at www.shericandler.com, on Twitter @shericandler and on Facebook at Sheri Candler Marketing and Publicity.

Sathish Kalathil on "Jalachhayam"

Jalachayam is the first Malayalam digital movie shot exclusively on a Mobile phone.

What was your filmmaking background before making Jalachhayam?

SATHISH: Earlier, I filmed a documentary named Veena Vaadanam about the origin- growth-and the evolution of painting, with a Nokia N70 mobile phone in 2006-2007.

This documentary had been released on in 2008 at Thrissur and it had been screened in 16mm, successfully. Until now, this documentary has been screened in various film festivals and is renowned as the first mobile phone film in India, which has received the certificate of Central Board of Film Certification in 2008.

The success of Veena Vaadanam instilled in this team the confidence to make a feature film. That is Jalachhayam.

Why did you decide to produce it on a mobile phone?

SATHISH: Less production cost and a novel method of movie making.

What were the best and worst things about shooting it on a mobile phone?

SATHISH: The best thing was the ease of use of the instrument. It was an easy way for people who are interested in movies -- even a rural people -- can experience their own interests in movies. It’s also an easy way to fight against social evils -- even for a single person. The worst things are lighting control and capturing wide shots.

How did you handle editing and post-production?

SATHISH: The same way as in the film industry.

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

SATHISH: I have learned how to direct and prepare a movie whole.

Let’s Choose Our Future

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

We can determine the future.  It is within our control, our power.

But you must decide, which reality do you want going forward?  And you must act to bring that choice forward.   It is a choice that effects not just your film, career, your company, or your national cultural industry, but this choice & your decision has global & long-lasting implications.

Door #1:

Massively centralized,  corporate control of the funding, production, promotion, distribution, presentation, and appreciation of culture.

Door #2:

Creators & their collaborators being able to fully support themselves through their art & work, by aligning & collaborating with specifically defined and dedicated audiences.

Where's that Laughter Coming From, Charlie Brown?

A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965) is one of the longest-running Christmas specials aired each year on television.

It was the first time that Charles Schulz's Peanuts gang made it off the comic strip to the small screen. It was done on a shoestring budget, which meant there were glitches. The animation was also somewhat choppy. The executives at CBS were worried. The special was going to break a lot of the accepted "rules" of children's animated holiday specials...

This included the decision to use the voices of real children (as opposed to adult actors who could sound like children); and a jazzy soundtrack by Vince Guaraldi.

And Charles Schulz was adamant that there be no laugh track. He figured the kids watching should know if something was funny enough. They didn't need to be told.

CBS executives were particularly nervous when Charles Schulz also insisted on using the final narration by Linus on the true meaning of Christmas (which used words straight out the Bible).

But, as it turns out, sometimes executives get nervous about the wrong things.

When the Christmas special was aired, it was a hit. It went on to win an Emmy. And, even though it's 45 years old this year, the program is still aired annually and has become a Christmas classic.

Sometimes you never know when something will work. For the Charlie Brown Christmas Special, Schulz stood by what he wanted for the show.

And it paid off.

If I were a filmmaker going to Sundance….

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Today’s guest post is by Orly Ravid of The Film Collaborative (TFC), the first non-profit, full service provider dedicated to the distribution of independent film.  Orly was featured as one of HFF’s Brave Thinkers Of Indie Film, 2010.

* This is part 1 of 3 parts to this Sundance focused blog.

* Part 2 will be written during the festival.

* Part 3 will be written in the aftermath of the glow of the fest.

If I were a filmmaker going to Sundance, and let’s say that I had a film with no recognizable press-generating cast that would be attractive to a distribution company for a large MG… What would I do? Seriously, I asked myself that question. And I realized how tempted I would be, even I, to find some sexy publicists and rockstar agents or sales company so that I could get the hot sexy sale at Sundance and make all my dreams come true.

What can a distributor do for you that you cannot do yourself with just a little bit of money, not even a lot, and some low fee consultation? And above all, what are you giving up by not building community for your film before and during the fest, instead letting other people run your show, potentially losing out on the momentum of the festival?

Let’s look at some films from Sundance last year that were in this position and the routes they took and what they may have netted. These are films that cut distribution deals of some kind and got less than wide releases from their distributors:

A Small Act (Doc): Distributed by HBO, I don’t know exact sale price but suspect it was less than $150,000 and they did not need a sales agent to do that.  They are also a TFC client for festival distribution. TFC handled film festivals for the filmmaker though by the time we got involved HBO had aired the film and that hurt our festival bookings and hence diminished potential revenues to the filmmaker. The director, Jennifer Arnold, is presently closing a DVD deal as well that she got herself.

*Gasland (Doc): Distributed by HBO, TFC consulted at Sundance along with their lawyer Michael Donaldson, and they did not need anyone to help them get a good HBO deal though they did have help handling offers and pursuing interest. The deal came to them directly and would have come to them regardless.  They did some self-distribution for theatrical (Box office $30,846) and festivals. The film is now available for DVD.  Zipline did PR and the film got its good rightful share of it.  The filmmakers received a deal that has worked out very well, with some great PR and it played lots of fests. It’s shortlisted for the Oscars too.

*Extenuating circumstances: Debra Winger executive produced this film and she definitely helped a lot. Josh Fox is a very committed activist and spokesperson of the film’s critical message so he is very embedded in the community that would be most interested in this film. It’s a great example of a film that got a lot out of being at Sundance and the filmmakers got a deal they are happy with and they probably recouped as a result given the low budget of the film.

A Film Unfinished:  Distributed by Oscilloscope. I will say that $320,000 theatrical box office is very very good (I have no idea what they spent though to release the film but it’s likely some money was made on the theatrical). The film had a sales agent (CINEPHIL from Israel) and I am almost positive the MG was less than 6-figures. My judgment is that the filmmakers could have done just as well releasing on their own with just some money set aside for a booking agent and a publicist, especially for this niche.  It is a doc that hits a niche audience that works consistently and is lucrative and I can’t say that the filmmakers needed a sales agent and a distributor to be in between the film and its audience. I doubt the filmmakers will make as much money as they would have handling the film on their own with just some low fee consultation.

The Dry Land – reported budget from imdb $1mil, box office  $11,777

Most likely a service deal since it was theatrically released by Freestyle Releasing. Freestyle service deals are not cheap; most of their releases involve budgets of $200,000 + (though sometimes less) and most for-profit service deals involve fees of tens of thousands of dollars). Clearly not a good result here, but we assume hoping to recoup in home video.

Douchebag -Paladin is distributor and so that generally means it was a service deal paid for by the filmmakers. However the filmmaker Drake Doremus told us: “douchebag was not a service deal paid for by the Filmmakers. Paladin bought the film from us for an amount way above the budget of the film.” Bravo! Box office return however was $20,615. Also, not a good return.

Bhutto – Distributed by First Run Features. Just released December 3, to day box office $16,216, only playing 2 theaters. A large advance was not paid and most of what was accomplished could have been done by the filmmakers themselves without large percentages paid.

Taqwacores: Distributed by Strand , most likely a very small advance was given. The box office was $9,347 on 2 screens. Another example of a film that could have done this much better and faired better overall without a distributor involved. With just some low fee consultation, time and money set aside, the filmmaker would still be in control of their film and able to work up the audience.

I am not knocking these deals, simply noting that if one is to do them, one should at least cut out excess middle men and do them smartly, reserve some rights, negotiate carefully on the back end, monitor expenses, maybe even have been better off not doing these deals.  It would have helped all of these films to build community around the film leading up to the festival and exit the festival with a bang, ready to reach audiences immediately. I think a lot can get lost during the time it takes for distributors to bring films to market, especially for the smaller films.

I think the decision to cut a deal with a distributor, no matter what, is emotional because even when I put myself in the filmmakers’ shoes I realized the emotional power of having an offer made to just take care of this for me. It signals that what has been made must have value and was done well. It also allows for one to not have to get hands dirty with the money stuff and the business stuff.

But, if you are a filmmaker, you did choose the most expensive art medium in the world and unless you are rich or your investors don’t care about getting their money back, I want you to at least consider this: You don’t NEED traditional distribution. For MOST of you, without special connections or name cast, MOST traditional distribution will not serve you. Most distributors don’t pay enough or do enough or are fair enough, and many of them have to raise P&A anyway, or hire the same service providers you can, so do the math, think twice, and be careful.  And remember, buyers are happy to buy direct, especially many TV buyers and VOD platforms, and you can get inexpensive help negotiating.

The more you can set up to do on your own the better for you and your investors in the long run. You run a risk doing nothing in terms of building community around your film or not setting up a distribution plan, having several layers of middle-men and waiting for Godot.  When you do the math, the Sundance dream often connects up to cast-driven films and just a few rare gems each year, and there are those to be sure, each year, but just a very few.  Most other deals you could get anyway if you wanted them, with someone on the side advising you in a fair way.

PS: Here is additional info on films from Sundance 2010:

* 3 BACKYARDS: Screen Media all rights, no verifiable release.

*12th AND DELAWARE: HBO Films, premiered on 8/02/10,currently HBO OnDemand.

* ANIMAL KINGDOM: Sony Pictures Classics, Box office $1,008,742 and this is a great example of a film that might otherwise have done no business were it not for Sundance.

* CATFISH: Rogue Pictures / Universal with a box office of $1,315,573 and it is definitely a great release for a doc and if the deal is good for the filmmakers then it’s a dream come true. Of course that’s an ‘If”.

* CASINO JACK AND THE UNITED STATES OF MONEY: Magnolia Pictures, $175,865 – and this is directed by Alex Gibney one of the most famous doc directors but sadly probably lost market share to the feature starring Kevin Spacey.

*EXIT THROUGH A GIFT SHOP: Producer’s Distribution Agency (a distribution company set up by John Sloss specifically to handle this film), Box office $3,291,250. I am in love with that film, and it’s to Banksy’s credit the film did what it did and some in the industry actually think it was a financially weak release given how much was spent, estimates are put at over a million. In any case, most filmmakers cannot imitate a set up that had John Sloss turn down a just over 6-figure advance (as far as I know) because he wanted to handle the release himself and he did with the help of Richard Abramovitz and had the reputation and cult following of Banksy, Shepard Fairey , and Thierry Guetta.

*FAMILY AFFAIR: OWN the Oprah Winfrey Network, air-date:  possibly spring.

* THE FREEBIE: PHASE4, the box office was just  $16,613 the deal was allegedly worth low – mid six figures for US & Canada, all rights.  The film was sold by Visit films.) Now I have inspired Phase4 to buy two films I did not take a commission on.  I am not saying Visit films is not great and I am not saying it’s not great to have guidance at a festival or market especially when there is a bidding war, which there was apparently, I am just saying buyers buy films they want, not because of who is selling them.  We hope the filmmakers of all these films weigh in on their overages and overall bottom line.

* FREEDOM RIDERS: PBS with an outreach campaign by outreach campaign by American Experience…www.pbs.org/freedomriders, film to

be shown in May on 50th anniversary of the original rides. Ok that’s cool.

*GROWN UP MOVIE STAR, NO US or INTL distribution, E1 entertainment is the sales agent, Mongrel Media (distributor in Canada)

* HESHER: NewMarket, reported budget $7mil, no release info

* HAPPYTHANKYOUMOREPLEASE (DISTRIB: Anchor Bay, release was supposed to be in March but as far as we know it has not happened yet).

* THE IMPERIALISTS ARE STILL ALIVE: no info

*JEAN-MICHEL BASQUIAT: The Radiant Child (Arthouse Films (which also produced the film), Box office was $250,129. A big hit in France, what a great niche and great doc. The producers did handle their film themselves in the US.

*LAST TRAIN HOME, Zeitgeist Films, released: 9/03/10-TOTAL GROSS: $282,092

(Here is a good example of a good doc sales company from what we hear and a good US distributor and a doc that probably sold well relatively speaking).

* LOVERS OF HATE: IFC –which is primarily a VOD play and some very traditional deal terms.

* MY PERESTROIKA: no info

* THE OATH: Zeitgeist, box office $42,273

* OBSELIDIA-reported budget $500K, still with a sales agent it appears

*THE RED CHAPEL, Lorber Films, opens 12/19/10 at IFC Center, Lorber Films plans a theatrical release of the film in the U.S. and Canada, followed by television broadcast and a DVD release.

* RESTREPO (US distribution: National Geographic Entertainment, Box office $1,330,058 –another Sundance success story to be sure, assuming terms are good for the filmmakers, which we have no information about

* SYMPATHY FOR DELICIOUS: Maya Entertainment (US, media)

* SKATELAND: Freestyle Releasing in March 2011 – and this means most likely it’s a service deal and paid for by the filmmaker. I should note that sometimes Freestyle helps raise the P&A. (though I don’t know what their cut is; one day I will ask).

* TWELVE: DISTRIBUTOR is Hannover House and the box office gross was $183,920 (somewhat shocking given the cast and the director.

*UNDERTOW: (Sundance World Cinema Audience Award Winner) TFC is doing theatrical and worldwide festivals and consulted on the distribution deals. We will be covering this in a case study to be written after the release is completed.

*WASTE LAND, Arthouse Films, released 10/29/10-TOTAL GROSS: $96, 597

Arthouse Films handled the theatrical release later followed by a DVD and digital release on the Arthouse Films label in early 2011…E1 Entertainment holds the international rights and is managing worldwide sales which to date include Australia (Hopscotch), Hagi Film (Poland) and Midas Filmes (Portugal). E1 Entertainment will also distribute the movie in Canada and the UK. Downtown Filmes is the Brazilian distributor.

* WINTER’S BONE: Roadside Attractions, Box office $6,210,516, and this is a great example of a film that would have likely lingered in oblivion were it not for Sundance and the right distributor);

* Other films not listed in detail are Cyrus, The Kids Are Alright, Waiting For Superman, Splice, and The Runaways because they all have big names involved, in a few cases the deals were done before Sundance and not all of them even had great releases in the net analysis.

Orly Ravid has worked in film acquisitions / sales / direct distribution and festival programming for the last twelve years since moving to Los Angeles from home town Manhattan. In January 2010, Orly founded The Film Collaborative (TFC), the first non-profit devoted to film distribution of independent cinema.  Orly runs TFC w/ her business partner, co-exec director Jeffrey Winter.

Quotable Thursday | More Comfortable

"We do not err because truth is difficult
to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because
this is more comfortable."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
(1918-2008)


[Photo via flikr, courtesy of NoMoreHours]

Piracy: (Some Of) The Short & The Long Of It

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

Thankfully, Taylor Hackford recognizes that the film industry needs to wise up and educate itself on piracy. He and I agree on that. And I think we agree on the goal of it all, but I suspect we have completely different approaches to solving the problem.  And that is where I am really concerned.  To solve it, Hackford seems willing to sacrifice greater principles in the service of business, and that is a shame.  I hope I am wrong.

Mr. Hackford, president of the DGA, was recently speaking at the Content Protection Summit and Variety reported on it. Reading the article I remain unclear as to what Hackford’s point is about piracy beyond that it is bad and we need to make it a real concern of the industry. He seems to be saying that if we want to protect our content, we have to be willing to give up on a free and open internet. He claims groups like Public Knowledge and Free Press as enemies. Shutting down a free and open internet is not the path to solving the piracy problem; it is the path to a closed society that favors a class or capital over access and opportunity — and that is the antithesis of what we need to do.

We can not create a system that favors the powerful, the connected, or the well capitalized. The Film Business already favors all those niches quite well, and government and utilities should do all they can to provide for all equally.  Equality under the law and within the society remains one of the greatest ideals, and personally speaking, I would rather have a world that strives for that ideal’s enforcement, even if that striving has to support some bad apples, rather than risk that anyone does not have equal access or equal opportunity.

Hackford was insightful to link Hollywood’s focus on event pictures to piracy, in that if piracy is eroding film’s revenue — or even thought to be — then investors will be more likely to put money into the projects most likely to generate the quickest return and the most unique experience.  The insight would actually make sense if individual investors were backers of event pictures, let alone studio pictures.  They rarely have such opportunities.

Being someone who has depended on private equity for all but a few of my 60+ films, I have never once heard an investor confess concern about piracy (and granted some of that may have to do with their education on the issue).  I do have investors express concern about distribution opportunities, access to markets, cost of promotion, and difficulties to reaching audiences.     I do hear people intrigued about using the systems that have been developed by pirates and copy-forward advocates to reach audiences that they have not reached before.  They know that the system has to change and recognize the realities of the time we are living in.

I have witnessed first hand, and was one of the key witnesses, in a successful anti-trust suit against the MPAA for coercing the studios to take action that unfairly hurt independents in the process.  That case, popularly known as The Screener Ban, used piracy as the fear that prompted excluding the key marketing tool of Award Screeners from all filmmakers’ arsenal.  The powerful often look out for their interests without even consulting the rest of the industry about their practices.  When Dan Glickman took over at the MPAA, he was quite vigilant at soliciting the indie sector’s opinion on the state of the industry, and I hope his successor remains as committed.  I hope whomever takes over the MPAA recognizes the necessity of our culture industry to commit to a free & open internet or else exclude a serious sector of our community.

When it comes to protecting artists’ rights, piracy is a serious issue, but open and free access to a public good (i.e. the internet) is a greater one.  We can not look at short term solutions that have long term repercussions.  The focus on the piracy issue tends to take place at events that exclude a large portion of the film community — namely the truly independent artists that will never have access to the studio system.  We need institutions, organizations, and methods that make sure to include this segment’s voice — and that includes the DGA.

I, and artists everywhere, will not be able to support ourselves — and thus generate new work — if our work is widely stolen and we are not compensated.   Mr. Hackford is right on when he speaks of the need for passion and education when it comes to the issue of intellectual property theft, but as we enter that discussion, we need to strenuously protect the greater ideal of equal access and opportunity.  We also need to recognize human behavior and the current state of things — people want convenience, but they also want other things.  The large media corporations have done little to offer a better option to theft.  Our methods of licensing and distributing work relies on out of date analogue models.  There are actions that can be taken, by artists and businesses, and it is hight time that we begun this discussion in earnest — but let’s not abandon the ideals as we start the march down the road.

Save the internet!

Stephanie Argy and Alec Boehm on "The Red Machine"

What was your filmmaking background before making The Red Machine?

ALEC and STEPH: We both started out by working for others -- Alec in camera, and Steph in post-production and then as a journalist writing about the art and craft of filmmaking. At the same time, we were writing and directing our own short films, as well as commercials, videos, documentaries and short experimental projects.

The big turning point for us was when we made an 11-minute mock newsreel called Gandhi at the Bat (http://www.gandhiatthebat.com/), which ended up playing and winning awards all over the world -- including an award for Filmmaking Excellence at the Baseball Hall of Fame. Like The Red Machine, it's set in the 1930s, and it showed us the incredible range of what's possible, even at a very low budget. After that, we knew it was time to make our first feature.



Where did the idea come from and what was the writing process like?

ALEC and STEPH: In a used bookstore in New Orleans, we had found a book about the U.S. efforts to break Japanese codes during World War II, and in this book there was one tiny little mention -- just a half a sentence -- about how the U.S. Navy intelligence division had used a professional safecracker to help them steal a copy of Japan's naval code in 1920. We love capers and heist movies and had always wanted to make one, and this seemed like the basis for a great caper: U.S. Navy spies? And a thief? Could there be anything better? But we didn't do anything with the story for a while, just let it simmer. Then when we directed Gandhi at the Bat, we met the actors Lee Perkins and Donal Thoms-Cappello, and we realized, "Ah...that's our spy and our thief," and the story caught fire for us.

The script came together relatively easily and was shaped a lot during long bicycle rides. We live near the Hollywood Hills in Los Angeles, and almost every day, we ride up and over Griffith Park, near the Observatory and the Hollywood sign -- very slowly and with considerable pain. But it gives us a lot of time to talk about stories.

It helped to know that we were writing for Lee and Donal, because it let us shape their characters to them. The story and the world coalesced around their characters.

Even though the alleged event that sparked our curiosity happened in 1920, we decided to set the story 15 years later, in 1935, because at that point, the state-of-the-art technology was code machines, which were used to encipher secret messages -- and a code machine seemed like a great thing for our heroes to steal.

How did you fund the film?

ALEC and STEPH: By working on other people's projects, we had saved up a certain amount of money. Friends and relatives were encouraging us to buy a house with that, but we decided to use it to make a movie instead. In retrospect, we're very glad we did.

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

ALEC and STEPH: We used the Panasonic HVX200. Before we shot, we did a lot of camera tests, and we decided that the HVX200 was the best camera for the story we wanted to tell and the way we wanted to tell it. Its basic look was very close to the aesthetic that we wanted for the movie, and shooting digitally meant that we could afford to do more takes, and therefore give the actors more chances to try things -- which was important to us, because we wanted to do whatever we could to help them give the best possible performances.

We also did quite a few effects shots in the movie, and it was really nice that we could just drop the camera's files right into Adobe After Effects and get going with that part of the work. In a few cases, there were takes that we wanted to use for performance, but that had technical problems -- for example, a boom shadow, or a fly buzzing through the frame -- and we were able to fix those technical problems so that we could use exactly the performance takes we wanted.

The worst thing about the HVX200 was that the image is really 'thin' and doesn't give you much to work with during color correction. A friend of ours who's done a lot of color correction said that grading HVX200 footage is like working with wet tissue paper, so we did bump up against that a little -- especially because we challenged the camera with a lot of very low-light scenes, including some that were lit only with a single candle. (At a candle store in Culver City, we did find "triple-wick candles," which were much brighter than regular candles, but it was still a lot to ask from the camera.)


What were the biggest challenges of doing a period film for little money?

ALEC and STEPH: No matter what film you're making, it always feels as though you have too little money. (We read how even on a movie as big as 'Titanic,' they could only afford to build one side of the boat...)

But we did come across a lot of little tricks that helped:

• The most important -- have a wickedly brilliant production designer. Ours was Mel Horan, and he created an amazing array of props and set dressing. There's an ongoing motif of documents all through the movie -- government forms, newspapers, sheets of code, maps, menus, charts, everything is paper-based -- and Mel designed all those, then found ways to print them up big and cheap. (Note for low-budget filmmakers: you can make really huge black-and-white copies for very little money, and those cover a lot of wall space and keep the walls from being bare and skimpy-looking.)

• Find very resourceful costume designers. We had two -- Annemarie von Firley of Revamp Vintage (http://www.revampvintage.com/) custom-tailored all the women's costumes for our actresses using patterns from the 1930s, while Kathy Pillsbury found all the men's costumes and uniforms and did a lot of work to customize those.

• Look for the telling detail. Mel was great about finding one or two key props for each setting that would guide the eye and signal the audience that they're in a different era. It helps a lot if your key props are very familiar and widely used now, but looked different back in the movie's era -- a phone, for example, or a typewriter, as opposed to a computer.

• Write to your limitations. Knowing that it would be easiest to control indoor sets, we wrote the movie to take place mostly in day interiors.

• It really helps to be able to do effects work, so that when you do go outdoors, you can create digital matte paintings and set extensions. (We mostly made our own -- though we did have one gorgeous shot, the exterior of the Office of Naval Intelligence, that was done for us by a renowned matte painter named Mark Sullivan.)

• Find a location that has a lot of set dressing and props. Our main location was a 92-acre former home for juvenile delinquents, now owned by the state of California and used exclusively for movie shoots. All over the facility, we'd find great old period furniture, which Mel and the art department would drag from building to building, so we didn't have to rent any of that.

Honestly, though, it didn't seem that much harder to make a period movie than a contemporary one -- no matter what movie you're making, you have to think about and control everything that's in the frame, so with a period movie, you just have to be a little bit more careful about what you choose to show.

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

ALEC and STEPH: The smartest thing we did was casting really good actors. Eleven of them, including Lee and Donal, we had worked with before; others came to us through our producer Ken Cortland and our casting director Sam Christensen (who cast the TV show M*A*S*H for many years). The actors' skill and commitment really helped the world seem plausible -- they live in that world so convincingly that it makes it much easier for the audience to enter into it, too.

And the dumbest thing...maybe it was not realizing how much of our lives would be consumed by the movie. You keep thinking you've reached some kind of finish line -- the end of pre-production, the end of shooting, the end of post, the first film festival -- but then you realize that there's way more ahead of you. But the great part of that is that you do keep learning all through; honestly, we learned about 100 times as much in post as we did in production, then learned about 100 times as much traveling with the movie as we did in post.

You do get impatient to move along to the next project, and it's tempting to succumb to that and walk away from movies that may still have enormous life left in them. But there are rewards to helping a movie go as far as possible, and while the journey has been longer and much more difficult that we ever imagined, it's also much more wonderful, and the movie keeps surprising us with new adventures.

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

ALEC and STEPH: Oh, boy, where do you start?

• It seems as though almost any problems we encountered were fundamentally problems with communication, so it's important to make it very clear to people what you expect from them, what they're doing that fits into your vision for the movie, and what doesn't -- and to bring up problems right away, because they never fix themselves.

• It's very easy to get buried in small details, so you have to remind yourself to pick up your head and look around to see the whole world.

• Put aside a lot of money for promotion, film festivals and marketing -- we continue to be stunned at how much we've been traveling with the movie. And our actors have been phenomenally supportive -- they joined us at so many festivals and really made those screenings special for the audiences -- but we would have liked to have been able to pay for all their travels, too.

• The movie is everything, but it isn't the only thing.

An Endless Cycle Of Diminishing Returns

This entry was originally published at Hope For Film

• This is how it goes…
  • Decreasing global value of non-blockbuster filmed content
    • leads to decreasing funding which
    • leads to decreasing budgets
    • which leads to decreasing scope of execution
    • which limits content & style
    • which often reduces audience size & impact.
  • Lower budgets lead to 
    • lower fees which leads to
    • reduced access to international stars, which
    • lowers value estimates of the film
    • which reduces budgets and fees further,
    • which reduces creative individuals ability to support themselves in the field.
    • Which reduces availibility of quality product
    • Which reduces audience satisfaction and faith in the industry
• Which gets us to the world we live in today.