Amazing art!

Next time you think your movie needs lots of talky dialog, watch this video, and remember that we trade in a visual medium.

$50 horror flick 'Colin' takes Cannes by storm

Well, actually it was fifty pounds (Sterling), but I don't have the British keyboard settings enabled. Still, pretty cheap.

Colin is a no-budget movie by London director Marc Price, which tells the story from the zombie's perspective. A nice twist, playing on the American Werewolf theme.

Price took 18 months to organize (and write?) the project, cast and staffed entirely with volunteers from his Facebook group. The project garnered acceptance to Cannes, and awards at many smaller festivals worldwide. It has done so well, in fact, that it has an extensive theatrical release schedule! Not bad for fifty bucks.

No doubt many in Hollywood will trash the movie, and call attention to all it's low-budget production faults, instead of focusing on what a determined young director was able to do with no money. Smart studios will see this as a great way to mitigate their risk. As with Texas' own Pink: The Series, and the recent Uruguayan director who made a 5-minute version of War of the Worlds for $500, studios are making big offers to small indy filmmakers who prove that they can attract eyeballs in the vast Internet wasteland, and proving once again that it doesn't have to cost millions of dollars to make good movies; Hollywood just doesn't know any other way.

Tweeting during auditions

I'm not sure if this is bad form or not.

Daryl Eisenberg of DE Casting in New York, NY, has been using the popular insta-blog service Twitter during her casting sessions, though not during the actual auditions, she claims. As an actor, I feel empathy for the people who feel slighted by her actions, and am maybe a bit icnredulous that she was not doing it during actual auditions, though I give her the benefit of the doubt, since I wasn't there.

However, it's instructive to read what she was actually tweeting. The feedback is honest and blunt, which is what most actors need. I don't think reading the tea leaves of a casting director's musings will make us better actors per se, but it can certainly help identify and eliminate behaviors these CDs feel is "unprofessional" or even just plain old annoying.

Different CDs have different likes and disklikes, and being able to listen in on their thoughts, especially during a live casting session, seems to me like invaluable acting intelligence.

What do you think?

$4.5 million gross profit on indie feature

Yeah, that got my attention, too.

My friend Joe McReynolds hipped me to Lance Weiler's feature film site. I had heard of Lance's Workbook Project, but hadn't put his face to the films. Weiler claims to have made $4.5 million from self-distribution of his first feature, The Last Broadcast. His Workbook Project is wildly popular, and has returned him more money than a book advance he turned down to start it.

DIY DAYS LA - When the Audience Takes Control - panel

MPAA says show biz creates jobs

No surprise, the lobby industry for Hollywood published an "impact report" that says show business is good for the economy.

In fact, it says the average salary for "core production staff" (whatever that means) is almost $75,000, over 20% higher than the national average for other jobs. It also points out all the tax money the industry brings to the coffers of state governments.

I certainly don't think the movie industry is bad for any state's economy, and it definitely helps put food on the table of people who work in that industry. But the numbers in this report appear skewed:

Most people (including most actors) involved in the making of any movie, even $20 million-plus films, make nowhere near $75,000. They are paid a decent, but not exorbitant daily rate. For example, most extras on a film set (who arguably have the worst job on set), are paid around $75 for a 12-14 hour day. In non-union states (like Texas), that might be as low as $50 per day.

The "average" salary is highly inflated, both by the grossly large salaries of a few key stars, and a few key studio executives, while those on the front lines do OK during the three months of a shoot, but then are left wondering when and where their next job will come.

Some argue that this is the reason why we need greater union participation. Others argue that stronger unions will only serve to drive up production costs, and make filmmaking a more risky and less profitable business.

My take is that the MPAA is talking out of both sides of its mouth. When it serves the industry, the MPAA will talk about how much money it loses to piracy, star actor profit participation, union demands, and state taxes. But on the other hand, this report touts how much money the industry makes and generates for it's workers and host states.

Any veteran of the music industry will instantly recognize this sort of rhetoric- the same type of stuff the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) spouts. It serves to remind us that Hollywood is big business, no different than Enron or AIG. And we all know how great those companies were for the economy.

Look, movies are business, period. If you make movies to make money, learn the game. As with most industries stiffled by large oligopolies, it helps to look at what innovators like Blake Calhoun and Mike Maden, Robert Rodriguez, Trent Haaga, and others are doing. Just make your own damn movie.

Take me to your NEW podcast, Earthling!

Latest Texas Film Scene podcast is up. Interview with Clay Liford, writer/director/producer of the new indie sci-fi film Earthling. Bonus interview with Austin actress Amelia Turner, and Clay's dogs. Lots of fun, this one.

Clay's got two entries in SXSW, so check out the podcast, then check out his films.

Breaking news

TV news report about The Vern.

;-)

Coen Brothers do it again, dammit

I just watched No Country for Old Men, and was absolutely knocked out... for the first 118 minutes. The last four, as with other Coen Brothers movies, just made me wonder, "Um, what was the point, here?" But then, maybe that was the point.

It's de rigeur to cheer on the Coens as they "buck the Hollywood traditions" (like good storytelling). But my initial reaction was that the movie left the audience hanging in the last scene. I have not read the novel yet, but perhaps there was additional thematic insight to be gleaned there. Perhaps I am old school, or just plain old, but I was really hoping for a theme that was not so cleverly disguised that it cannot even be recognized by NYT book critics.

Don't get me wrong- I do not want a movie to hit me over the head with allegory or jingoism. But I would like to be able to suss out a theme from a story, any story, no matter in what medium it is told.

I watched Rashomon last night, the 1950 Kurosawa gem. The acting was over the top, the score was cartoonish, the subtitle translations were blunt, (though the direction and cinematography hold up very well), and yet, the movie's theme was clear enough to provoke discussion and thought. Rashomon left me feeling satisfied, like the story circle had been completed. Earlier Coen Brothers films also feel this way, like Raising Arizona and O Brother. It's not like they don't know how to deliver a theme; they just sometimes choose not to.

Am I just a slave to the Hollywood formula? Aristotle doesn't think so:

[Writers should create a] character between these two extremes - that of a man who is not eminently good and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty. [W]hile reproducing the distinctive form of the original, make a likeness which is true to life and yet more beautiful.

I loved, loved, loved the cinematography, dialog, and acting in No Country. What I didn't like was that (a) I didn't know whose story it was; which is to say, that it suffered from a point-of-view problem, and (b) the story's theme was obscured. Why is (b) important? Well, without a theme, then I'm just watching plot elements- character studies, pithy dialog, pretty shots, random acts of violence. Hell, I can do that by turning on the evening news (in HD, no less). I want a story, dammit, and a good one.

I decided to reach back to the source, poet William Butler Yeats, for some help.

That is no country for old men. The young
In one another's arms, birds in the trees
- Those dying generations - at their song,
The salmon-falls, the mackerel-crowded seas,
Fish, flesh, or fowl, commend all summer long
Whatever is begotten, born, and dies.
Caught in that sensual music all neglect
Monuments of unaging intellect.

[...]

Once out of nature I shall never take

My bodily form from any natural thing,
But such a form as Grecian goldsmiths make
Of hammered gold and gold enamelling
To keep a drowsy Emperor awake;
Or set upon a golden bough to sing
To lords and ladies of Byzantium
Of what is past, or passing, or to come.

Yeats' theme is clear, yet subtle, and not bludgeoning:

People, particularly elders, are not as revered by the young as the things they make; so, then, how do we best leave our legacy?

As an artist, I fully appreciate Yeats' sentiment. As for the Coen Brothers' movie, they succeeded in getting me to talk about it. So maybe that is their point.

What makes a good movie?

This week, I actually watched a few movies.  Mary and I haven't had the chance to do that in quite a while (like, two years), thanks to the combination of Baby Girl and the loft-like, no-bedroom layout of my Fortress of Solitude (now under contract, thank you).  I also met up with my buddies Joe and Javier, to discuss a joint project.  There were several good ideas floated, but I only wanted to commit to making something that was going to be really good, which begs the question:  what makes a good movie?

The variety of stuff we saw ranged from edgy drama to farce, black comedy to uh, regular comedy, short videos to children's movies.  The things that did not make a movie good included:

• big name actors
  
• big name directors
  
• big name writers
  
• big budget
  
• explosions and car crashes
  
• potty humor
  
• gratuitous sex and violence.
  

Some of the things I enjoyed most about the good movies included:

• big name actors
  
• big name directors
  
• big name writers
  
• big name editors (oxymoron?)
• big budget
  
• explosions and car crashes
  
• potty humor
  
• gratuitous sex and violence.
  

Hmm.  Seems like William Goldman was right:  nobody knows anything.  But is that really all we can say about what makes a movie good?

When I watch a film, I watch it as an audience member, but also as an actor/writer/director/editor.  I tend to study the movie, as well as let it wash over me.   Sometimes I need to watch a movie more than once, just to be able to fully enjoy it without being too analytical.

With my auteur hat on, I realize that what I love most about good movies is how the entire package fits together.  A great story premise without great dialog writing will fall flat.  A great script without clear, visionary direction will fall flat.  A great vision without great acting will fall flat.  Same is true for audio, editing, lighting, cinematography, and many other of the dozens of aspects of filmmaking.  Filmmaking is collaborative storytelling.  It is all too easy to forget the collaborative aspect of the process, and only focus on one area. [Even marketing is a collaborative aspect of the film's success, but it is not, strictly speaking, what makes a good movie.]

Big name actors often, but certainly not always, bring good acting.  Big name writers and directors often, but not always, bring good writing and directing.  Not all of these elements need to be great in order for a film to shine, but most of them need to be great.  It's like a balance scale:  if enough of the components are good, it tips the scales in favor of "good movie".  If all of them are good, the scale thumps to one side, like weighing a feather versus a boulder: Oscar-caliber good.  Vice-versa, and you've got a universal stinker.

In most of the bad or mediorce films I saw, not enough of the elements were good to make the film a "good movie."   The only one I saw that was a slam-dunk was Notes on a Scandal, with Dame Judi Dench, among several other excellent actors.

What do you think makes a good movie?

That's a wrap!

Director Kat Candler declared a wrap on the shooting of Ninja James & The Beast Boy yesterday, and producer Leslie Langee celebrates here by popping open champagne (a surprise gift from Scott Colquitt).

The day started cold as Hades, about 30' Farenheit, from the 6 a.m. call time until about 8 a.m. But by noon it was a beautiful, cool, sunny, fall day, perfect for filming. The sun fell pretty quickly starting about 4:00 p.m., but by that time, we were all done except for some quick audio and close-ups of Savanah's character, my wife "Jane".  The cast and crew have been absolutely fabulous. Everybody worked so hard to make this a success.  

There is still the grueling post-production 

remaining, but from my vantage point, it 

was waaaaay smooth. I am sure that it was not that smooth from Kat and Leslie's view, but that's what makes them pros: they kept all that hidden from us meat puppets. 

There was absolutely no whining on this set at all (except maybe by me, when I was freezing my nipples off!). It was a wonderful esprit de corps, and my hat is off to the entire cast and crew, 

starting with Kat.

I hope to work with these talented filmmakers again.

Photo by Larry Furnace

Is that thing loaded?

Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail, and editor of Wired Magazine, wrote a terrific article on how shooting digitally affects the performance of actors.

Big-name directors that Anderson spoke with, such as Tony Bill (Flyboys, Untamed Heart) explained that shooting digitally eliminates the actors' fear that every take was costing hundreds or thousands of dollars of film, and thus put the actor more at ease.

Photo by Larry Furnace

It also allowed directors to eliminate rehearsals and roll on every take:

It's "the difference between pointing a loaded gun at someone and a toy gun. You point a loaded gun at them and they're going to act different. A film camera is a loaded gun. Digital is not."
--Tony Bill

Having shot on both multi-camera 35mm sets and indie digital sets of various sizes, I have to disagree just a bit. It is true that film is expensive. For an indie filmmaker with a nano-budget, shooting even 16mm is often prohibitive. Robert Rodriguez' book Rebel without a Crew explains this well.

However, there are usually other factors at work that are even more prohibitive than the cost of film, such as crew costs, limited location availability, daylight, and the number of takes an actor (or director) has in them. Actors are like racehorses who wait, wait, wait, in their stalls, while the crew dresses a set, makes up the actors, rigs the lighting, sets the props, and grabs focus. By the time the director yells "Action!", the actors are often emotionally spent. It's like war: hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of sheer terror.

In the still shot above, for example, I am freezing my nips off on a 40' F morning, with a 30' wind chill, while pretending that it is 90' outside. [Photo by professional set photog, industrial videographer, and all-around mechanical genius Larry Furnace.]  But when director Kat Candler called action, we all had to be ready to go, knowing that we had limited time and resources for getting this shoot wrapped.

Even in my former life as a musician, digital media did not change the economics of hourly studio rental and producer fees.  When we rolled, uh, RAM... it was much the same as rolling expensive 2" tape:  time is money.  Time is always money.  Maybe not yours, but somebody's.  And if you are a professional, you appreciate other people's time, and do not waste it.

Digital definitely allows long tail movie-making. But it does not preclude common sense and pre-planning in the process.

Making money with movies

In a post last week, I discussed the cloudy future of big-budget Hollywood movies. As movies move inevitably towards free, how will filmmakers, and cinemas, make money? Austin's Alamo Drafthouse has one answer: The Team America Sing-Along.

The feature film showing was more than your usual cinema fare. It was a combination movie and comedy club, and drunken frat party. Well, not quite that radical (it was the 7 p.m. showing, after all), but it was value-added interactive entertainment. It was... an event.

My wife Mary and our friends Robert and Sherri Dugan were handed a goodie-bag of American flags, glow sticks, balloons, poppers, and sparklers. After the customized patrio-parody opening trailer collage, a live host laid down the ground rules for the film, which included speaking and singing along to the "Fuck yeah!" choruses, standing and cheering, tossing streamers and balloons, and then following the host down 6th Street after the show, waving our sparklers and singing the Team America theme song acapella, as a group, er, mob.

Did I mention that the Drafthouse serves food and alchohol?

If I wanted to just watch a movie, I can do that quite well in the comfort of my own home, thank you very much. Big screen, hi-def home theater has never been so affordable, and movies were never so cheap and easy to get.

No, what I want is an experience, a reason to get off the couch and go sit in a room with a bunch of like-minded instant friends and have a trascendent experience. In short, I want an event.

And this July 4th weekend at the Alamo's Team America Sing-along, that's what I got.

Fuck, yeah.

P.S. - Thanks to Beth Burroughs for learnin' me 'bout this here event.