Related posts:

1. Jon Reiss Interview – Think Outside The Box Office [Podcast]
2. Feature Film Editing and Kickstarter [Podcast]
3. Film School – Triumphs and Failures [Podcast]

I remember when The Diving Bell and the Butterfly came out one teacher said, “the cinematography will make you jiz your pants.”

I always thought that would be a pretty sweet compliment to receive for an image you create, and Diving Bell was quite stunning (though after viewing my pants remained dry).

Fast forward to a few days ago, with me messing around with the EX1, and I wondered what it would look like if you put a Lensbaby on a video camera through a 35mm adapter. (Lensbabies are these cool little 35mm lenses that let you control the bellows, so you can get very selective focus and do all kinds of weird things, like make landscapes look like miniatures)

So I’m unpacking my ridicoulsy heavy box of magazines I refused to toss when I left Tallahassee, and I have an unopened American Cinematographer magazine from January of 2008 (it’s off their website now, but it’s the There Will Be Blood issue).

So in one of the smaller articles, it talks about the cinematography of Diving Bell and guess what – they used a Lensbaby to shoot practically the entire first third of the movie. Apparently Lensbaby makes a motion picture camera mountable lens for this type of work. So now I know what a Lensbaby on film looks like.

Kaminski and Diving Bell use it well, but I’ve been looking at some other footage and at times it can look really, really cool, while other times it looks like a cheesy 80s filter.

In other cool articles from around the web, the NY Times Magazine had a great feature article on Spike Jonze and his upcoming Where the Wild Things Are.

Like all NY Times articles, it goes beyond the film and is basically a biography of Spike Jonze, all his past work, and how he came to be doing a $100 million studio film. There’s also a lot of good stuff on the workings of Hollywood and how Jonze has been able to do what he wants while still being part of the Hollywood system.

Related posts:

1. First Director’s Prep
2. Cinematography – Biblio Film School
3. RED: The Ultimate Guide Interview with Author Noah Kadner

Geoffrey Gilmore Leaves Sundance For Tribeca | /Film

This makes me really happy, and gives me hope for the NY film scene. Geoffrey Gilmore (whom you’ll remember from our numerous adventures) is leaving Sundance to become the Chief Creative Officer of Tribeca.

This is exciting news. He’s helped make Sundance what it is today, and now he can bring that magic to the East Coast.

Here’s to new beginnings and the continuation of film festivals being an important part in film culture.

Related posts:

1. The Return of Geoffrey Gilmore
2. Red Eye Flights and Geoffrey Gilmore [5 of 5]
3. The Visitor and Geoffrey Gilmore [4 of 5]

Two articles from indieWIRE got me thinking this morning. The first is from the all too familiar Geoffrey Gilmore in ‘Evolution v. Revolution, The State of Independent Film & Festivals.’

A lot of it echoes Mark Gill’s much buzzed ‘The Sky is Falling‘ essay from last year. Basically independent film is in a slump for a few reasons. The main two are the economy sucks so the  distribution companies that didn’t get shut down are not buying much¹, and using submissions to Sundance as a gauge of how many independent films are produced a year, that number has gone up fourfold in the past 10 years.

What does this mean? Compared to 10 years ago, there are four times as many movies with less money to buy and distribute them. The pipes are clogged. Why? Because it’s so cheap and easy to make a movie.

Before I go on, there are two separate issues here: lots of crappy movies and no money to buy and distribute. We’ll start with the crap.

Is Your Idea Worth a Million Dollars?

Film is very expensive. No surprise there. Not only do you have to pay for the film stock, but you have to pay just as much to have it processed and then even more if you want it scanned so you can edit on the computer.

Yet this cost prohibition formed a filter. Crap wouldn’t be made. Because a film is so expensive to make, you’d need people to finance and believe in your project. You’d have to pitch them your idea, which means your idea and story would have to be somewhat decent for them to give you their money. If there was no story, or if you wanted to just film 2 hours of crap, you wouldn’t have the money to do it, and thus the crap would never exist.

Today it’s still just as hard to make a movie well, but because it’s so cheap and easy to make a movie, the crap gets made. When Sundance gets 4000 submissions you know some gems will be overlooked. About 6 years ago I could get my short films (once they were legitimately qualified) to IMDb without an issue. Today my films keep getting wait-listed, and I suspect that’s because anyone who’s made a little film and thrown it on YouTube has submitted it to IMDb, and now they have to sort through thousands of submissions to figure out what’s legit and what’s Charlie biting on fingers.

While it may sound like I want to set off some world-wide EMP and bring us all back to the dark ages (or at least go back to celluloid), I do think overall the digital revolution is great. We just have to have more self control and ask “Is this film worth spending months of my life on?” Or more importantly, “Is this worth two hours of someone’s time?”

Is a Movie a Movie if it’s not in the Movies?

The second problem – no money to buy and distribute films. Here’s the fictional lead from the other article that caught my attention today, ‘Not Picked Up in Park City? Filmmakers Look Forward to DIY Release Options.’

The year is 2014. Joe the Filmmaker just found out he’s going to Sundance with his debut film. His trailer is online the next day. He’s got posters at the printer, and a marketing consultant on the phone. In the days leading up to the festival, he hits up bloggers for press, notifies all his Facebook friends and buys ads both online and in print. After winning a special jury prize for innovation during the final day of the festival, he plugs his movie into the IDN (Indie Distribution Network), selling it directly to indie-minded audiences around the country for viewing on their Internet TVs and iPhones, while a percentage of the proceeds feed directly into his bank account. Done.

This is an echo of what I keep reading – Being picked up by a distributor and getting a theatrical release should not be the only goal. Here’s the standard distribution chain a film follows: it gets theatrically released, goes to DVD, gets on Pay-per-view, then a premium channel (HBO, Starz), cable channel, broadcast.

The internet has shaken that up and challenged that model. When do you put the film on iTunes? Hulu? Do you need a theatrical release? What if you release on DVD and On Demand at the same time? What if it’s available online, ad supported?

The internet has opened a lot of doors. It’s possible to screen, sell, and market your film all by yourself.

But you have to ask yourself, should the goal be “I want people to see my movie” or “I want people to see my movie properly?” There isn’t a single filmmaker who got into directing because they want to premiere their films on someone’s iPhone. If I was Danny Boyle and I saw someone watching Slumdog Millionaire for the first time on their iPhone, I’d shit a brick.

While this argument may sound pretentious, the plain fact is if you’re watching a film on a 3 inch screen in an environment open to distractions you’re missing part of the film.

Again, I don’t want my EMP to wipe out all iPods and iPhones from playing video. Being able to watch anything, anytime, where ever you want is great. I just think some types of media, such as shorts and some docs, work on a computer or iPhone, while others require a theater to get the full experience.

I have my share of movies I love on my phone, and I think it’s the greatest thing that I can watch Jizz in My Pants when I’m stuck in JFK. What’s important to me is first viewing, that magical experience when you pop your cherry with a film.

It goes back thousands of years to the caveman days, sitting around the campfire at night, telling stories. There’s something embedded in us that draws us to this communal experience.

You’re in a dark theater with people you don’t know, experiencing this one story together, going through the same emotions. For two hours you can shut out the world, escape from your problems and share in this experience. You can home theater your house up all you want but you’ll never be able to match the theater experience. Wedding Crashers will never be as funny as the first time I saw it in a packed theater.

Here’s my hope with theaters, and it’s helped in large part with the digital revolution. It’s digital projectors.

Right now most films are still screened from a 35mm print, even if it’s shot digitally. They’re bulky and heavy (expensive to ship) and one print, for one theater, costs thousands of dollars. That’s why it’s expensive and risky to release a movie. Even if you’re doing a very limited release in a few cities, you’re still looking at least $100k to transfer the film, make enough prints and ship them to theaters.

Now here’s the scenario with a digital projector. The film is either sent on a hard drive or over the internet. It’s loaded into the projector and screened. Fast, cheap, and easy.

But it gets better. When a theater books a film it’s a big commitment. They’re saying that you’re film will occupy one of their theaters (they only have 5-24 of them), for the entire week. One, maybe two movies can occupy a theater, because it’s a big hassle to have to switch that huge print to play something different. What if it bombs the first day and then they have six days of an empty theater when they could have put The Dark Knight in there and be bringing in the cash.

Now here’s the digital world. There’s no cost for a print, you just have to get a digital copy to the theater. But they don’t have to play just one movie a day, they can play five different movies throughout the day in the same theater, and stretch them over the week, adopting more of a TV schedule. If a movie does well, they can screen it more. If not, well at least it had a shot that wasn’t an option before.

And what if theaters adopt the technology that powers YouTube and viral videos. Movies are rated, commented on. The more popular movies get more showtimes. Same technology from the web, better viewing experience.

Here’s one of the more thought provoking paragraphs from Geoffrey:

The “long tail” of availability, the keeping of films in the market for longer periods of time is especially important for independent film. And that a film’s release is ordered by an antiquated theatrical universe is one of the fundamental obstacles facing the independent arena.  Indeed why are films “seasonal” instead of “evergreen?”  The practice of dating films, i.e. assigning a year of release, strikes me as a holdover from the marketing past. How and where films will be made available depends on the establishment of new outlets and new strategies. It simply makes no sense that most of the year’s quality films are all released against each other in a cutthroat fall campaign.  In the future perhaps festival platforms could further serve to give films long-term visibility. At the very least new web venues, transformed marketing strategies and dynamic new concepts for consumption are at the core of making films available.

There’s no denying the internet and new media is the future. I think we’re seeing all this hoopla surrounding it because the William Goldman quote still holds true. Nobody knows anything. But it’ll be exciting when someone finally does.

Agree? Disagree? Please share your thoughts below?

1. For a very quick primer on the traditional distribution model, you’d make a film, hope it gets into a prestigious festival such as Sundance, a buyer from a distribution company sees it and loves it, buys the film from you and distributes it making money mainly for them, and if you’re lucky for you as well. Possibly more importantly, you’re film would have had a theatrical release, be known and seen, garnered critical acclaim and awards, and start your career. ↩

Related posts:

1. The Visitor and Geoffrey Gilmore [4 of 5]
2. The State of the Documentary [Panel]
3. “Hiring a Marketing Producer” and Other Great Stuff

State of the Fest | Part one: Do festivals matter? – The Circuit

In the pantheon of viable choices for getting your film seen, film festivals continue to thrive (seems there’s a new one born every minute, right?), and that’s because, putting aside economic factors for the moment, film festivals still provide the perfect environment for the cultural, communal celebration of cinema, where films can be presented in context, with optimal picture and sound, and where audiences can yield, uninterrupted, to the original experience created by the artist.

Interesting article on film festivals. The opening graph mentions event-style films, which is the way I think more films should go.

Instead of keeping a film in a theater for a week were it does mediocre business, make it a Friday night event with cast and crew, charge more for the tickets, and in one evening you’ll have made more than an entire week and have a more satisfied audience.

Related posts:

1. The State of the Documentary [Panel]
2. Afterschool – Miami Film Fest
3. Did the Digital Revolution Screw Over Cinema?

To continue my tail of un-hiring woes, we must first go back a few months to the first time I drove Geoffrey Gilmore around.

As I said in summation, driving Geoffrey around brought me a lot closer to Paul Cohen, an independent distributor¹ who is the business side of show business in one man.

I guess I did a good job with Geoffrey because Paul really seemed to like me. Over the next few months (the Geoffrey chauffeuring was back in February), we met and had coffee a few times and finally had a ‘thank you’ dinner.

Paul moved to Tallahassee not to leave the business but to move to a less expensive town, so he’s starting up a new distribution company in conjunction with the school to serve as a learning environment for the business side of filmmaking.

He asked if I wanted to intern and work on distributing and marketing real movies. How about ‘yes.’

So to skip a bit, and because we’re under non-disclosure agreements so I can’t talk about it much, there’s about eight of us interning, working in a separate building virally marketing the Germs biopic What We Do Is Secret.

You can see some of my handy work if you search for the What We Do Is Secret group on Facebook (over 400 members) as well as some write-ups on music blogs.

Oh yes, this internship also involves a trip to the Toronto Film Festival.

1. That means he buys films and releases them in theaters, on DVD, etc, with the idea being he makes more money back than the purchase price. ↩

Related posts:

1. Red Eye Flights and Geoffrey Gilmore [5 of 5]
2. Can I Get You Some Coffee, Mr. Gilmore?
3. The Visitor and Geoffrey Gilmore [4 of 5]

Below are my notes from the one panel I attended at Full Frame – The State of the Doc. It’s a little more cheerful than Mark Gill’s outlook on independent cinema, though re-reading this now, some panelists seemed to be predicting what was going to happen.

It was moderated by Liz Ogilvie of Docurama Films. On the panel was Nancy Abraham (HBO Documentary), Christopher Black (Starz Entertainment), Greg Kendall (Balcony Releasing), David Laub (THINKFilm), Tom Quinn (Magnolia Pictures), Molly Thompson (A&E IndieFilms), and Thomas Zadra (Netflix’s Red Envelope Entertainment).

Q: How do you define success in broadcast TV?

HBO – Good ratings, reviews, press, buzz, recognition.

A&E – Docs are ratings challenged. We try to launch them theatrically to get the branding out there, make people aware of the film for television. Considered successful if financially we break even.

Magnolia – Bad Box Office for docs in 2007. Magnolia had three high profile releases – Crazy Love, My Kid Could Paint That, and In the Shadow of the Moon. Other outlets have proved successful. Cocaine Cowboy is one of the top selling films on X-Box. The new strategy is to marry content with distribution.

Starz – Starz makes docs for their film library. Create events to help branding. Lots of press is low cost.

Balcony – King Corn’s (doc about the farming industry) filmmakers sold the DVD through their site for $29.95 (cheaper now) and had community screenings for $300 and did very well. People want to see films with their community, not at a theater (I think this was meant more towards small towns). There’s a separate group of people that buy online than in the store.

Red Envelope – Their software can determine how many people want to watch since the films are on Netflix and determine the price. Since Red Envelope was formed, they have 125 titles. 40%-50% are docs.

Q: Do you think audiences are consuming films differently?

Balcony – Some like films in the theater, on TV, the web, community screenings. You get more coverage in the NY Times when you open on Wednesday.

A&E – If a film doesn’t get enough Box Office the theater can kick it out.

Magnolia – The state of specialized films is depressing. We’re all generally screwed. The theatrical experience is unmatched. To survive, we need to learn how to do it differently.

Red Envelope – In four months, Helvetica was seen 120,000 times. Half were streaming through Netflix.com.

Starz – Primary goal of documentaries is to pay off credit card debt and fund the next film. Theatrical release is an unhealthy obsession.

Balcony – Many films shouldn’t be in theaters. It’s a waste of everyone’s time. Not being in theaters feels like a failure, but that might be the right thing to do. Filmmakers always want it, that’s why they made the film.

Q: What do you see changing in the future?

A&E – Social networking growing. Bring people that have a common interest in films together (Facebook).

Magnolia – Theatrical experience is broken. We put a lot of Jesus Camp clips on YouTube, but that backfired, because then people didn’t need to see the movie.

Balcony – Make theatrical an event. One night only. You can make more money in one night than a week. We need to convert the theatrical system.

Audience Questions

Q – How can you get a deal in pre-production?
A – Generally depends on the subject, filmmaker, and if there’s that money shot (Antarctica for March of the Penguins). Typically docs are bought after they’re done.

Q – Thoughts on aesthetic quality. Concerned about viewing docs on iPod?
A – The ability iPods provide to watch during commute are great. One panelist saw 8 people watching content in the subway. Certain forms are better for iPod, while some are better on the big screen. More choices bring a larger audience, which is the end goal.

If a film works on a 3″ screen, you know it will work anywhere.

Q – Biggest mistake films make?
A – (Sort of a round robin of replies):

• Not writing name and phone on DVD
• Go for best quality you can afford. Sometimes stuff is turned down because quality doesn’t meet standards.
• Picking subject that doesn’t sustain the length.
• Not pushing hard enough. Push the subject.
• Being too long
• Subject covered a lot of times before
• Unrealistic expectations with music licensing.
• Not enough stills for Press Kit
• High Quality (True HD) if possible
• Follow the delivery schedule companies have. Missing a few elements can make a film unreleasable.

Q – Thoughts on short docs outside festivals.
A – Other options include iTunes, attachment to Op-Eds on NY Times site. Many documentarians with similar subjects/themes can ban together and offer one package with a bunch of shorts, perhaps on DVD.

Moment of Zen

If you want to avoid piracy, make a bad movie.

Related posts:

1. American Teen and How it Was Made [Documentary]
2. Bigger, Stronger, Faster [Documentary]
3. State of the Fest – Do festivals matter?

This is part four of a five part adventure that involves driving Geoffrey Gilmore (the Director of the Sundance Film Festival) around Tallahassee, Diet Cokes, private jets, The Visitor, tea, a 4 am flight, and of course, coffee. Part one and Part two, and Part three.

Friday felt a lot like Thursday. Geoffrey was going to screen the mystery film again, but this time for all the film students.

The movie was The Visitor, from Tom McCarthy, who also did The Station Agent. After The Station Agent, he got the usual studio offers to do films, but turned them down. When he decided to do The Visitor, he was adamant that the lead had to be Richard Jenkins. I thought he was a fairly known actor, mainly from watching him on Six Feet Under, but apparently not.

The original financiers  were going to fund the film as long as the lead was someone more famous than Jenkins. McCarthy was adamant that it had to be him, and he lost the investors. Eventually it was funded by one of the founders of eBay.

Like the casting in The Station Agent, Jenkins was great and perfect for the roll, and it touched on a lot of good issues (immigration, cultures, mid-life change). Afterward, questions were brought up about how to market this film. From the issues I mentioned, it covers a lot of topics and isn’t a straight ‘life changing story’ or ‘love story’ or ‘culture clash story.’

I feel like the trailer does a pretty good job of summing the film up, incorporating all the topics instead of just covering one and marketing it to different groups.

This is a crap year for independent films, and The Visitor will be one of the few indy films to get critical acclaim, be well received by audiences, and a decent box office.

Later that night, I drove Geoffrey and his entourage to the University President’s House for dinner. I went and got a Joey Bag of Donuts at Moe’s (I think I got the better deal, because the following day the Dean was sick with food poisoning).

It would have been neat to go inside the house, but apparently I didn’t miss much after it was noted that the interior design was kind of lacking¹.

This night there was no after party, and I was successfully able to drop Geoffrey off at his hotel for the evening.

1. After checking out that video I see what was meant. They have a library with no books. ↩

Related posts:

1. Driving with Geoffrey Gilmore [Part 3 of 5]
2. Red Eye Flights and Geoffrey Gilmore [5 of 5]
3. Adventures with Geoffrey Gilmore [Part 2 of 5]

Geoffrey Gilmore is actually more of a tea drinker. While his name probably doesn’t sound very familiar (unless you’re thinking of Happy), Mr. Gilmore has had a hand in launching the careers and films of practically every famous independent film and filmmaker that has emerged in the past 20 years. Reservoir Dogs, El Mariachi, Sex Lies & Videotape, Clerks, Hoop Dreams, American Splendor, Hustle & Flow, Memento, 28 Days Later and Napoleon Dynamite, just to name a few.

He’s the Director of the Sundance Film Festival, and I drove him around town and assisted him as he visited Tallahassee.

This was back in February, a few weeks after Sundance and a week after the Berlin Film Festival, which he attended, so he was pretty exhausted. The main reason for his visit was to be a speaker at Tallahassee’s Seven Days of Opening nights. The $25 tickets were sold out weeks before to hear him speak and see a film that just screened at Sundance, though specifics such as a title or director were kept secret.

I almost let this opportunity pass me by. I got an email from the Dean’s assistant, asking if I was interested in being Mr. Gilmore’s assistant when he was in town. I thought this was a mailing list email until a few days later I noticed it started with ‘Joey.’ I had the ‘Oh shit, am I too late?’ moment and quickly responded.

A few days later I met with the Dean and Paul Cohen, an independent producer and distributor who just joined the faculty and longtime friend of Geoffrey, and went over my responsibilities. I was to drive Mr. Gilmore around, be on call if he needed anything, and basically make sure he had a great Film School experience.

This is part one of a five part adventure that involves driving around Tallahassee, Diet Cokes, private jets, The Visitor, tea, a 4 am flight, and of course, coffee.

Related posts:

1. Geoffrey Gilmore is Switching Coasts
2. Driving with Geoffrey Gilmore [Part 3 of 5]
3. Adventures with Geoffrey Gilmore [Part 2 of 5]

“So, what are you going to do after you graduate?” is a question I’ve been hearing a lot more frequently. Sometimes it’s followed by, “New York or LA”?

While the upcoming thesis cycle and finishing school seem to be the only things I have to worry about, I do realize that in 8 months I’ll be out in the real-world.

What do I want to do? Everything. I should restate that, and say I enjoy everything (just about). But only in Film School can you change positions weekly and with such ease.

I started out wanting to direct – as did most of my classmates. I still do, but I also wouldn’t mind producing. And I’m undecided if I want to stick with fiction or go documentary. Hopefully I can dabble in both.

So for now my answer has been, “Direct and Produce. Either fiction or documentaries.” I can feel them rolling their eyes in their head. Everyone wants to direct.

I’m non-discriminatory with TV or theatrical. I just want my work to be seen.

New York or LA? I’d be fine in either, but I’ll probably venture out west. I also wouldn’t rule something out with the BBC in London. It all depends on where I can get a job.

Right, job. The majority of the class above me got internships in various production or post-production companies. A few are paying; most are not. I wouldn’t turn my nose at an internship, but it wouldn’t be my first choice.

I think I would rather be a director or producer’s assistant during production. You’d be at the heart of the action, meeting important people, and learning a lot. In exchange, I wouldn’t mind the coffee runs or possible odd requests.

But as for my ‘what do you want to do’ response, I need to come up with something a little more polished for Friday.

“Conquer the world.” (?)

(And yes, I would like my own Academy Award)

Related posts:

1. How I Used My DVR to Set My Career Goals
2. FSU Film School Q&As
3. Paul Battista Interview – Independent Film Producing [Podcast]