The meeting today was great. This guy very much knew what he was talking about. Lots of great information which I will write about as it becomes relevant. He is reviewing the project and my limitations now to see where he feels he can fit in. I liked that he understood where I am at and respected it.
That was the inspiration.
The insecurity is just those constant second guessings. "Is this really the movie I should be doing? Is it the right time? Will it work? What will happen if it doesn't work? Shouldn't I really be following my heart and making something strange? Wouldn't I really be better at something with a lot more youth fashion in it - something a little more designed, a little more artsy surreal? What if I don't understand my audience? What if..."
What if is probably a natural question for people who tell stories. It is obviously something we think about a lot. It may, however, account for the neurosis of most filmmakers and artists. Being so close to the "what if" and so responsive to it can be as destructive as it can be constructive.
One thing actors must learn is how to stay in the moment - not consider everything - stop thinking about the lights and crew or audience or anything other than the scene or what the character would be distracted by. People could do the same, but consider their entire life the stage. Staying present in the moment.
All those good thoughts spoken. I still am second guessing myself a lot. It's a lot of money - I don't think it's unnatural to be afraid of losing it. I think this is an advantage of youth. When I was just out of college, I hadn't quite yet had the really lousy experiences which earn a good deal of second guessing. Until you've been really incredibly slammed a few times by bad choices - you don't quite have the degree of insecurity that you gain later on. Some caution is maturity. Too much is perhaps heading back in the other direction. Awareness and caution are decent things - but not when they freeze you from taking action.
There is power just in the making of a decision regardless of the end result.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Tidbits
Renamed the movie! The new title sounds so much less B-movie horror and much more like a drama. I like it that way. Never cared for the other title. There was meant to be a slight irony in it which was lost on... everyone... including me after a while.
Starting to talk to people to potentially get involved now. Sticking to my minimalist crew plan.
Spoke to someone today about a potential presales plan - but the logistics seem wrong. Wouldn't mind selling a country or two - but the whole point of self-financing was to push the project forward. Still, not bad to have some distributors aware of the project. It did, actually, make me start thinking that maybe I should put a package together for "the other" film which would be salable at Cannes based on the package alone. I would need to make a couple more attachments. But that might be the thing to put together. Could cut some existing footage with some new bits of sample art and make a little presentation for it. Hmmmmm... Doesn't help this film much - but I'm adamantly non-myopic on this. I don't want to make this movie my career - it's just the first step. As I said early on, I want to move into preproduction on movie 2 immediately after finishing movie 1.
Whatever the artist working on concepts can come up with in time, we can include those into the package as well.
One thing about Cannes... would have been nice to have enough footage to cut a trailer together - but I don't really see that as possible if I start shooting in mid April verses April 1. Unless I let someone else edit while I'm shooting and then just use whatever we shoot in the first 2 weeks.
Starting to talk to people to potentially get involved now. Sticking to my minimalist crew plan.
Spoke to someone today about a potential presales plan - but the logistics seem wrong. Wouldn't mind selling a country or two - but the whole point of self-financing was to push the project forward. Still, not bad to have some distributors aware of the project. It did, actually, make me start thinking that maybe I should put a package together for "the other" film which would be salable at Cannes based on the package alone. I would need to make a couple more attachments. But that might be the thing to put together. Could cut some existing footage with some new bits of sample art and make a little presentation for it. Hmmmmm... Doesn't help this film much - but I'm adamantly non-myopic on this. I don't want to make this movie my career - it's just the first step. As I said early on, I want to move into preproduction on movie 2 immediately after finishing movie 1.
Whatever the artist working on concepts can come up with in time, we can include those into the package as well.
One thing about Cannes... would have been nice to have enough footage to cut a trailer together - but I don't really see that as possible if I start shooting in mid April verses April 1. Unless I let someone else edit while I'm shooting and then just use whatever we shoot in the first 2 weeks.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Budget Round One
Today is the first day I've had enough information that I could assemble a budget that had any sense of reality. It's about twice what I'd like it to be which means - it probably can't be what I'd like it to be.
I am budgeting in an unusual way this time. Normally I follow the standard budget form, but this time I wanted to organize it in a way that made sense for this kind of production so what I've done is make four categories which I felt would be equal parts. I'm doing this to make sure the film is balanced. I don't think it is a good idea to spend 50,000 on your set and then shoot on DV because the equipment rental becomes 5,000. That seems imbalanced to me. So, the logic behind finding four separate categories is to think if you can get your set for 5,000... then it makes sense to get your camera for 5,000 too.
I've never seen anyone think of a budget this way - but somehow it is making sense to me on this project.
My categories are:
I am budgeting in an unusual way this time. Normally I follow the standard budget form, but this time I wanted to organize it in a way that made sense for this kind of production so what I've done is make four categories which I felt would be equal parts. I'm doing this to make sure the film is balanced. I don't think it is a good idea to spend 50,000 on your set and then shoot on DV because the equipment rental becomes 5,000. That seems imbalanced to me. So, the logic behind finding four separate categories is to think if you can get your set for 5,000... then it makes sense to get your camera for 5,000 too.
I've never seen anyone think of a budget this way - but somehow it is making sense to me on this project.
My categories are:
- Cast & Crew & Workers Comp
- Equipment & Stock & Processing
- Art Department & Sets
- Post Production & Legal & Insurance
InDigEnt
I'm going to talk about an article I read because it applies to what I'm doing. The article is here:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70074-0.html?tw=rss.index
The basic premise is that it is impossible to make money of DV movies and they are using InDigEnt as an example. However, there is a logic gap in the conclusion. First of all, Pieces of April made 2 million at the box office - plus whatever it brought in on video. That movie alone probably paid for the other 16 movies - and I thought that this was the whole concept. You make a lot of money hoping for one or two of them to break out. And other would have seemingly made profit. I can't imagine "Tape" cost that much to make and it's boxoffice was in the hundreds of thousands - again, just domestic box office.
The largest logic gap is this: Part of their model was to allow celebrities or established people make their own films that no one else would make. But just do it cheaply. Wait, roll back the tape. These are movies that apparently despite a celebrity attachment - a bunch of other financial sources deemed would not make enough money to be worth financing.
So... where's the shock? The whole strategy therefore is that you're making a niche market movie. A movie that is really meant to be of interest to one particular audience. And, if you're lucky, it will crossover. "Paris Is Burning" is a great example of a cross-over movie. I'm sure the filmmakers weren't thinking "Oh boy, this will be a national hit" as they were documenting the drag queen competitions in New York.
And "Pieces of April" did just that - it crossed over and even earned an Academy Award nomination for one of it's actors. Hello! This sounds like a success. Maybe they were hoping for more crossovers. In order to do that, they would have to start aiming at more mass appealing material at which point they will be competing with larger studios and their charter will be broken.
Last point on this. I have see a few InDigEnt movies and I will say that all of them have a very "indie" feel to them. Hand held cameras, nothing slick. Seems like that is the style. Tape, notably, seems like it was shot live with just a guy sitting in the room with a camera. But that's sort of what seemed to make it cool. But that's not a big popcorn audience movie.
There's an audience for that... just not a big one.
Myself, I like well designed, solid movies. I see movies as the modern form of opera. I want the grandeur. Even in a simple story - I want every sense touched. Unless the story calls for it, I don't want a film looking like a home movie. By breaking established film style with a cinema verite, you are not avoiding artifice - you are making a definite statement. A strong one.
So, what am I doing differently?
Good question. First - I'm picking an established genre. I feel like Hitchcock was making "art films" in established genres. I like to think that just as you can choose to make a movie verses a novel, you can pick a genre which is an established form of communication to tell your story. People obsess over Shakespeare's greatness, but rarely mention what a genre writer he was. He just did it well and put some heart into it. That's the key. Don't get hung up on the labels, and don't RELY on the label either. Second - I plan to shoot it like a "real film." It's not a cinema verite. I'm going to use one of my cheats and bring in the ability to make things looks "cinematic" (and I don't mean make video look like film... I mean make anything look like "cinema.") Thirdly - I'm also trying to go for a niche audience with my casting.
I read a book a couple years back that I recommend called "Cult of Marketing." One of it's points was that even if your base/core audience/customer might not be the largest - they are the most dedicated and you must feed that because they are the ones who provide the base for the rest of the customers. Many other good points in that book.
Will all of this thinking work?
Tune in to find out.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70074-0.html?tw=rss.index
The basic premise is that it is impossible to make money of DV movies and they are using InDigEnt as an example. However, there is a logic gap in the conclusion. First of all, Pieces of April made 2 million at the box office - plus whatever it brought in on video. That movie alone probably paid for the other 16 movies - and I thought that this was the whole concept. You make a lot of money hoping for one or two of them to break out. And other would have seemingly made profit. I can't imagine "Tape" cost that much to make and it's boxoffice was in the hundreds of thousands - again, just domestic box office.
The largest logic gap is this: Part of their model was to allow celebrities or established people make their own films that no one else would make. But just do it cheaply. Wait, roll back the tape. These are movies that apparently despite a celebrity attachment - a bunch of other financial sources deemed would not make enough money to be worth financing.
So... where's the shock? The whole strategy therefore is that you're making a niche market movie. A movie that is really meant to be of interest to one particular audience. And, if you're lucky, it will crossover. "Paris Is Burning" is a great example of a cross-over movie. I'm sure the filmmakers weren't thinking "Oh boy, this will be a national hit" as they were documenting the drag queen competitions in New York.
And "Pieces of April" did just that - it crossed over and even earned an Academy Award nomination for one of it's actors. Hello! This sounds like a success. Maybe they were hoping for more crossovers. In order to do that, they would have to start aiming at more mass appealing material at which point they will be competing with larger studios and their charter will be broken.
Last point on this. I have see a few InDigEnt movies and I will say that all of them have a very "indie" feel to them. Hand held cameras, nothing slick. Seems like that is the style. Tape, notably, seems like it was shot live with just a guy sitting in the room with a camera. But that's sort of what seemed to make it cool. But that's not a big popcorn audience movie.
There's an audience for that... just not a big one.
Myself, I like well designed, solid movies. I see movies as the modern form of opera. I want the grandeur. Even in a simple story - I want every sense touched. Unless the story calls for it, I don't want a film looking like a home movie. By breaking established film style with a cinema verite, you are not avoiding artifice - you are making a definite statement. A strong one.
So, what am I doing differently?
Good question. First - I'm picking an established genre. I feel like Hitchcock was making "art films" in established genres. I like to think that just as you can choose to make a movie verses a novel, you can pick a genre which is an established form of communication to tell your story. People obsess over Shakespeare's greatness, but rarely mention what a genre writer he was. He just did it well and put some heart into it. That's the key. Don't get hung up on the labels, and don't RELY on the label either. Second - I plan to shoot it like a "real film." It's not a cinema verite. I'm going to use one of my cheats and bring in the ability to make things looks "cinematic" (and I don't mean make video look like film... I mean make anything look like "cinema.") Thirdly - I'm also trying to go for a niche audience with my casting.
I read a book a couple years back that I recommend called "Cult of Marketing." One of it's points was that even if your base/core audience/customer might not be the largest - they are the most dedicated and you must feed that because they are the ones who provide the base for the rest of the customers. Many other good points in that book.
Will all of this thinking work?
Tune in to find out.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Another Producer's Perspective
Just spoke with the prolific producer and he had a few interesting thoughts. I'll keep them bullet pointed and simple:
- Horror is good now despite what anyone says.
- Currently in the industry the middle ground stars are starting to go away. It's a big pay day star and then everyone else. Backend offers are becoming more and more common.
- I should call agents myself and not even worry about a lawyer's work on it. The deal will be the deal. A one page memo deal - the rest will be the SAG contract and that's not negotiable anyway. (I thought this was interesting actually.) He is emailing me over a pay or play offer deal which I can base my offer on.
- Expect weeks of trouble getting a response from an agency. They are not super excited about scale offers despite the back end. That's going to be the hurdle.
- Absolutely focus on name talent. Non name talent movies are very difficult in today's market. He thought the names were okay - not super strong. Wanted me to put my "famous friends" in as much as possible.
I'm still working on how much backend to offer and how to work backend offers in to crew.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Just Researching and a Delay
Just doing more research today. Find new location options. Find out how much sets and flats would cost. Starting to look for team members. Starting to figure out compensation methods. Will be speaking to a very prolific producer tomorrow about some things and that ought to be enlightening.
Started sketching out set and prop pieces.
I'm doing double duty this week with the other job and keeping this moving forward. It's a lot of work.
I heard a rumor that one of my TV actors might be doing a movie with a huge actress - this would not bode well for my chances of getting her. We shall see. Probably the sooner the better for contacting them, but I cannot contact them until I have all my elements lined up or I'll seem to flimsy.
That said, I think I'm going to delay the movie 2 weeks. If I'm having to build a set, I need to have some extra time or face a lot of additional expense from the production trinity ("Fast, Good, Cheap - pick two").
Started sketching out set and prop pieces.
I'm doing double duty this week with the other job and keeping this moving forward. It's a lot of work.
I heard a rumor that one of my TV actors might be doing a movie with a huge actress - this would not bode well for my chances of getting her. We shall see. Probably the sooner the better for contacting them, but I cannot contact them until I have all my elements lined up or I'll seem to flimsy.
That said, I think I'm going to delay the movie 2 weeks. If I'm having to build a set, I need to have some extra time or face a lot of additional expense from the production trinity ("Fast, Good, Cheap - pick two").
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Location 01 review
Saw the first option for locations this morning.
I don't think it will work. It didn't seem like there was a good way of making it cheaper and, frankly, I'm not sure it is healthy to be there. Lots of lead paint chipping everywhere. Too many strikes, it's out. The cost of california security is ridiculous. It makes any free locations expensive.
I am going to call realitors and ask about the basements of any empty retail spaces. Also now contacting people about the cost of building on a stage or warehouse. It's a pretty simple set, but large.
I am going to push my start date by 2 weeks to April 15.
I don't want to approach cast until I have several things figure out.
1. Who will negotiate the contracts. I have used a lawyer in the past, I need to touch base with him.
2. I need to set up an LLC for liability, so will need to have that started at least.
3. I need to know I will be able to afford the dang location without outbalancing the movie.
I don't think it will work. It didn't seem like there was a good way of making it cheaper and, frankly, I'm not sure it is healthy to be there. Lots of lead paint chipping everywhere. Too many strikes, it's out. The cost of california security is ridiculous. It makes any free locations expensive.
I am going to call realitors and ask about the basements of any empty retail spaces. Also now contacting people about the cost of building on a stage or warehouse. It's a pretty simple set, but large.
I am going to push my start date by 2 weeks to April 15.
I don't want to approach cast until I have several things figure out.
1. Who will negotiate the contracts. I have used a lawyer in the past, I need to touch base with him.
2. I need to set up an LLC for liability, so will need to have that started at least.
3. I need to know I will be able to afford the dang location without outbalancing the movie.
Monday, January 23, 2006
The Crew
How few people can I shoot with?
Well, there will be about 2 to 5 cast members at any point in time...
Director - Me
Line Producer/AD/Production Manager
Art Department/Costumes/Props
Make Up/Hair... hm... that might not be enough for one job all the time.
DP
Grip/Electric/Swing
AC/Swing
Sound/Boom (doubling his job.)
Production Assistant/Catering
Totally crazy thought... I wonder if my make-up or Art person could hold a boom. :)
No, I'm not kidding.
I think people like having things to do. I want everyone there to be a part of the team and I'd rather pay one person more than pay for two people if it comes down to that.
The PA (who I'll give a better credit) is the person who can leave the set. You always need someone who can leave. And him or her handling catering will be enough of a job. I imagine that my Line Producer will also be able to leave the set if necessary.
Nine people. It costs to have people on the set. In addition to paying them, you have to feed them. You have to have a place for them to park. Now... pay... this will be interesting to figure out. It's going to have to be the lowest possible or it will rock the balance.
One thing I know for sure. I will know these people before the first day of shooting. Even one person can totally throw off the vibe of a production. And the vibe is very important.
Behind the scenes there will be prop makers and other specialists. A lighting crew for the first couple days. A strike crew. Set Dressers and Art Department for a couple days in the start (especially for on location... about five people on that).
Well, there will be about 2 to 5 cast members at any point in time...
Director - Me
Line Producer/AD/Production Manager
Art Department/Costumes/Props
Make Up/Hair... hm... that might not be enough for one job all the time.
DP
Grip/Electric/Swing
AC/Swing
Sound/Boom (doubling his job.)
Production Assistant/Catering
Totally crazy thought... I wonder if my make-up or Art person could hold a boom. :)
No, I'm not kidding.
I think people like having things to do. I want everyone there to be a part of the team and I'd rather pay one person more than pay for two people if it comes down to that.
The PA (who I'll give a better credit) is the person who can leave the set. You always need someone who can leave. And him or her handling catering will be enough of a job. I imagine that my Line Producer will also be able to leave the set if necessary.
Nine people. It costs to have people on the set. In addition to paying them, you have to feed them. You have to have a place for them to park. Now... pay... this will be interesting to figure out. It's going to have to be the lowest possible or it will rock the balance.
One thing I know for sure. I will know these people before the first day of shooting. Even one person can totally throw off the vibe of a production. And the vibe is very important.
Behind the scenes there will be prop makers and other specialists. A lighting crew for the first couple days. A strike crew. Set Dressers and Art Department for a couple days in the start (especially for on location... about five people on that).
Perfs
An addenum to my last post.
The 35mm numbers were based on shooting 4 perf. If I am finishing HD, it makes sense to shoot 3 perf instead.
"Perfs" are the number of holes on the side of film per image. 4 perfs makes for a 4:3 image, 3 perfs makes for a 16:9 image.
It literally aves 25% on stock and processing to shoot 3 perf with nothing lost on my end.
Even if you are shooting totally 35mm, finishing on HD makes a lot of sense and therefore using 3-perf is an option.
The 35mm numbers were based on shooting 4 perf. If I am finishing HD, it makes sense to shoot 3 perf instead.
"Perfs" are the number of holes on the side of film per image. 4 perfs makes for a 4:3 image, 3 perfs makes for a 16:9 image.
It literally aves 25% on stock and processing to shoot 3 perf with nothing lost on my end.
Even if you are shooting totally 35mm, finishing on HD makes a lot of sense and therefore using 3-perf is an option.
Cameras and Numbers
Had a great meeting with the DP.
This blog is serving as a scratchpad today and will get into the nuts and bolts a little bit.
We've worked together enough that we didn't spend a great deal of time talking about "the look." He knows my tendencies, I know he can make things happen. The only potentially unique piece of information is that because of the nature of "The Location" - I want to make sure I have a limited Depth of Field because I want to make sure that I can control where people's eyes are. This is a notable issue in shooting with digital forms.
One thing I talked to him about that I will state here is that I am trying to be very conscious that no area receives too much of the budget. For example, the location cannot absorb 30 percent of the budget.
That said, this rules out a completely 35mm shoot because rule of thumb is that it costs at least $60,000 in stock and processing for shooting 35mm.
Now, because of the nature of the location, this should be fine. However, we do have several scenes which are exteriors with a lot of limiting conditions for lighting. We may, in fact, shoot these scenes in 35mm and use a degrainer (his suggestion) during telecine to remove the grain to fit in with the rest of the film. Since the look would be so drastically different anyway - I'm not sure anyone would really notice. Also - because those locations are rather remote, it might be easier to shoot film out there (another comment he made).
So - for the bulk of the shoot this basically leaves two options: The F900 HDcam or the HVX200 DVCPro100. In either case I would require special lenses for the depth of field. The HVX200 is a brand new prosumer camera. It would absolutely be the least expensive option. It will just barely be on the market by the time we are shooting. The F900 is what most TV shows that shoot in HD are using. The F950 shoots to HDSR which would be great, but prohibitively expensive. The HVX with a 35mm adapter and appropriate amount of p2 storage would be around $12,000 as a purchase. Could definitely turn it around for a 20% loss, keep it and use it, or rent it through a friendly rental house. But worst case actual cost to production would be around $3000 on a purchase/sell turnaround. I'll need to see sample footage with the camera/lense combo before deciding if it is really an option.
F900 with the lens package I need for my DoF obsession would be about 1750/day at 3 day weeks, for 3 weeks. $15,750 The 35mm camera would be about this plus stock (.57/ft) and processing (.12/ft) and minimum 200/hr telecine to HD (350 if you don't have a deal anywhere) at a 3.5:1 ratio.
Here's a little movie math for anyone interested:
90 minute movie shot on 35mm at a 10:1 ratio (don't assume you can shoot less than that, everyone does and goes over budget. Maybe 8:1 if your strict. 2:1 if you do 1 take and have no coverage. "The who shot Primer did it in a 1.5:1 ratio" - yes, and regretted it, listen to his commentary.)...
that's 81000 feet = 55,890
15 hours of telecine = 3,000
and... hey! that's 58,890. And the rule of thumb holds true!
Since in my film we're talking about 10 minutes of exterior stuff at the most, I can divide that by 9 and get: 6543. I'll see what I can do to reign that in. S16 is not an option. It's too grainy and would never match the HD.
also note that this exterior stuff will be shot over a weekend and therefore be a one day rental on all the equipment which means it will make sense to shoot it outside of the solid three weeks of the rest of the shoot. Which give me 18 days to shoot about 80 pages, about 4.5 pages a day.
What I did not talk to the DP about was his lighting and grip package. We did talk about the lighting method and were in agreement that for the most part we want to try to use practicals. This will give a lot of extra time to get the performances right - and the dolly moves. I'm adamant about the camera moving a lot. I will have to email him and ask him his thoughts on a grip package.
The other point of budgeting interest we figured was that we could get away with 1 swing grip/electric and 1 camera assist. We will need a handful of guys for 1 or 2 days at the start to prelight the set.
I'm realizing that this blog will be required reading for whomever ends up coming on to help run the production.
Speaking of which - we also spoke about the possibility of using his production company because they have insurance and accounting in place already. This may work out well. I won't get into the details until I get to that part of things.
This blog is serving as a scratchpad today and will get into the nuts and bolts a little bit.
We've worked together enough that we didn't spend a great deal of time talking about "the look." He knows my tendencies, I know he can make things happen. The only potentially unique piece of information is that because of the nature of "The Location" - I want to make sure I have a limited Depth of Field because I want to make sure that I can control where people's eyes are. This is a notable issue in shooting with digital forms.
One thing I talked to him about that I will state here is that I am trying to be very conscious that no area receives too much of the budget. For example, the location cannot absorb 30 percent of the budget.
That said, this rules out a completely 35mm shoot because rule of thumb is that it costs at least $60,000 in stock and processing for shooting 35mm.
Now, because of the nature of the location, this should be fine. However, we do have several scenes which are exteriors with a lot of limiting conditions for lighting. We may, in fact, shoot these scenes in 35mm and use a degrainer (his suggestion) during telecine to remove the grain to fit in with the rest of the film. Since the look would be so drastically different anyway - I'm not sure anyone would really notice. Also - because those locations are rather remote, it might be easier to shoot film out there (another comment he made).
So - for the bulk of the shoot this basically leaves two options: The F900 HDcam or the HVX200 DVCPro100. In either case I would require special lenses for the depth of field. The HVX200 is a brand new prosumer camera. It would absolutely be the least expensive option. It will just barely be on the market by the time we are shooting. The F900 is what most TV shows that shoot in HD are using. The F950 shoots to HDSR which would be great, but prohibitively expensive. The HVX with a 35mm adapter and appropriate amount of p2 storage would be around $12,000 as a purchase. Could definitely turn it around for a 20% loss, keep it and use it, or rent it through a friendly rental house. But worst case actual cost to production would be around $3000 on a purchase/sell turnaround. I'll need to see sample footage with the camera/lense combo before deciding if it is really an option.
F900 with the lens package I need for my DoF obsession would be about 1750/day at 3 day weeks, for 3 weeks. $15,750 The 35mm camera would be about this plus stock (.57/ft) and processing (.12/ft) and minimum 200/hr telecine to HD (350 if you don't have a deal anywhere) at a 3.5:1 ratio.
Here's a little movie math for anyone interested:
90 minute movie shot on 35mm at a 10:1 ratio (don't assume you can shoot less than that, everyone does and goes over budget. Maybe 8:1 if your strict. 2:1 if you do 1 take and have no coverage. "The who shot Primer did it in a 1.5:1 ratio" - yes, and regretted it, listen to his commentary.)...
that's 81000 feet = 55,890
15 hours of telecine = 3,000
and... hey! that's 58,890. And the rule of thumb holds true!
Since in my film we're talking about 10 minutes of exterior stuff at the most, I can divide that by 9 and get: 6543. I'll see what I can do to reign that in. S16 is not an option. It's too grainy and would never match the HD.
also note that this exterior stuff will be shot over a weekend and therefore be a one day rental on all the equipment which means it will make sense to shoot it outside of the solid three weeks of the rest of the shoot. Which give me 18 days to shoot about 80 pages, about 4.5 pages a day.
What I did not talk to the DP about was his lighting and grip package. We did talk about the lighting method and were in agreement that for the most part we want to try to use practicals. This will give a lot of extra time to get the performances right - and the dolly moves. I'm adamant about the camera moving a lot. I will have to email him and ask him his thoughts on a grip package.
The other point of budgeting interest we figured was that we could get away with 1 swing grip/electric and 1 camera assist. We will need a handful of guys for 1 or 2 days at the start to prelight the set.
I'm realizing that this blog will be required reading for whomever ends up coming on to help run the production.
Speaking of which - we also spoke about the possibility of using his production company because they have insurance and accounting in place already. This may work out well. I won't get into the details until I get to that part of things.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Meetings
Meeting my DP tomorrow. In addition to being a notably good DP, he has a great and reasonable sense of production and we communicate well.
Absolutely I'm trying to recruit him to the project. Beyond that I want to talk to him about... well, to put it bluntly, how few people we could get away with on his crew. I want to have as skeleton a crew as possible.
First thing I ever shot on film (other than super 8) I had a crew of 4 total - all departments. We were all just out of school, so we had limited experience - but we shot fast. Sometimes a big crew slows you down. People not wanting to step on each other foot and "do things right" can be a huge slow down. Additionally, sometimes with the advantage of experience comes the disadvantage of lackadaisicality.
I have some thoughts on what my crew will be, but I will write more on that and many other things tomorrow as I'm going to be getting a lot more information in on Monday.
At the moment I've been mostly focusing on researching cast and scheduling the movie.
I'm hoping to call January 31st my first day of preproduction.
So much is riding on casting in my mind. Despite what the film rep says about value, my gutt says something else. I might have to manipulate myself a little internet buzz about the casting (once done) to make distributors feel it, but I have a feeling about it.
Absolutely I'm trying to recruit him to the project. Beyond that I want to talk to him about... well, to put it bluntly, how few people we could get away with on his crew. I want to have as skeleton a crew as possible.
First thing I ever shot on film (other than super 8) I had a crew of 4 total - all departments. We were all just out of school, so we had limited experience - but we shot fast. Sometimes a big crew slows you down. People not wanting to step on each other foot and "do things right" can be a huge slow down. Additionally, sometimes with the advantage of experience comes the disadvantage of lackadaisicality.
I have some thoughts on what my crew will be, but I will write more on that and many other things tomorrow as I'm going to be getting a lot more information in on Monday.
At the moment I've been mostly focusing on researching cast and scheduling the movie.
I'm hoping to call January 31st my first day of preproduction.
So much is riding on casting in my mind. Despite what the film rep says about value, my gutt says something else. I might have to manipulate myself a little internet buzz about the casting (once done) to make distributors feel it, but I have a feeling about it.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Revised To Do
Once I approach the actors I want everything to seem in place. If someone asks a basic question, I need the answer.
So - I am adding to my to do list:
Continue to hunt a location (so I can be sure of what the location and art budget are)
Schedule the movie (within 80% accuracy)
Schedule the preproduction necessary so I know a real shoot date
Budget the film (within 80% accuracy)*
Decide on backend share division. (Will the supporting chars get as much as leads.)
Decide on any cast that will be from friends and attach them.
I would also like to do a reading of the script. I'm not going to make that a requirement before approaching actors because it's been rewritten a few times already. It would be fantastic if I could get my real cast to record a reading of the script so that I could build my previs** to that. Doubtful. But I do want to hear it so that I can work on any potential weak points in advance.
I want all of this done by the end of this week, so that at the beginning of next week I can make my calls to talent. That will be my cut off. If I can make the calls by the end of this week - so the scripts go out this weekend. Even better.
By having a set of things to do, I'm hoping to avoid letting any other distractions derail me.
It's January 21 today, if I make January 31 the deadline for contacting the cast, then allow 2 months of preproduction. I will be shooting April 1.
This would work as it would mean the film would be totally completed with effects and sound by July. This won't be a difficult movie to edit and the effects are totally reasonable. The only reason I'm even giving 3 full months is that I may end up having to do so many things on my own for cost considerations. I think the first edit would be done in 4 weeks. Final edit by 8 weeks with most effects. Then music and sound for the last 4 weeks. I want to keep the finishing process quick because for me, time spent on this movie is paid in "opportunity cost" - an economics word to describe the phenomenon that something has a cost by the fact that you are not making money from another opportunity.
This whole time I want to be developing and packaging another project (most likely "The Other Project") such that I can launch into preproduction the moment this project is completed. I am adamantly not going to be waiting to sell this project before doing my next film. There are so many directors who have done even fabulous first efforts and then don't direct again for four years. I've done all my waiting.
I'm sure there will be distractions and challenges. Some of the may be good ones - like what if the TV show actually gets buzzing. What if my "day job" gets a huge and high profile account? Many things like this - but I think they are all manageable.
*(Budget - At somepoint to determine the budget I will have to address the issue of what format to shoot on, 35mm, HD, S16, HDV. I'm making it a priority to NOT overly concern myself with this issue at the moment because that's a huge trap with such a simple answer based on a balance between budget and preference. I'll make a post about this at some point.)
**(Previs is the process of "previsualization" for a movie. This can include story-boards (pictures of each shot), animatics (animated sections which are usually done with computer animated characters today), vocal tracks. It's everything that helps a director to determine how the story is going to play out for the film and helps everyone understand what needs to be shot.)
So - I am adding to my to do list:
Continue to hunt a location (so I can be sure of what the location and art budget are)
Schedule the movie (within 80% accuracy)
Schedule the preproduction necessary so I know a real shoot date
Budget the film (within 80% accuracy)*
Decide on backend share division. (Will the supporting chars get as much as leads.)
Decide on any cast that will be from friends and attach them.
I would also like to do a reading of the script. I'm not going to make that a requirement before approaching actors because it's been rewritten a few times already. It would be fantastic if I could get my real cast to record a reading of the script so that I could build my previs** to that. Doubtful. But I do want to hear it so that I can work on any potential weak points in advance.
I want all of this done by the end of this week, so that at the beginning of next week I can make my calls to talent. That will be my cut off. If I can make the calls by the end of this week - so the scripts go out this weekend. Even better.
By having a set of things to do, I'm hoping to avoid letting any other distractions derail me.
It's January 21 today, if I make January 31 the deadline for contacting the cast, then allow 2 months of preproduction. I will be shooting April 1.
This would work as it would mean the film would be totally completed with effects and sound by July. This won't be a difficult movie to edit and the effects are totally reasonable. The only reason I'm even giving 3 full months is that I may end up having to do so many things on my own for cost considerations. I think the first edit would be done in 4 weeks. Final edit by 8 weeks with most effects. Then music and sound for the last 4 weeks. I want to keep the finishing process quick because for me, time spent on this movie is paid in "opportunity cost" - an economics word to describe the phenomenon that something has a cost by the fact that you are not making money from another opportunity.
This whole time I want to be developing and packaging another project (most likely "The Other Project") such that I can launch into preproduction the moment this project is completed. I am adamantly not going to be waiting to sell this project before doing my next film. There are so many directors who have done even fabulous first efforts and then don't direct again for four years. I've done all my waiting.
I'm sure there will be distractions and challenges. Some of the may be good ones - like what if the TV show actually gets buzzing. What if my "day job" gets a huge and high profile account? Many things like this - but I think they are all manageable.
*(Budget - At somepoint to determine the budget I will have to address the issue of what format to shoot on, 35mm, HD, S16, HDV. I'm making it a priority to NOT overly concern myself with this issue at the moment because that's a huge trap with such a simple answer based on a balance between budget and preference. I'll make a post about this at some point.)
**(Previs is the process of "previsualization" for a movie. This can include story-boards (pictures of each shot), animatics (animated sections which are usually done with computer animated characters today), vocal tracks. It's everything that helps a director to determine how the story is going to play out for the film and helps everyone understand what needs to be shot.)
Distractions
A box of tapes was delivered to me today. A project that is not this one needs finishing.
It's just another challenge to my resolve.
If I am fearing this project, I will let it consume me. If I am ready, I will manage it so that it does not overly distract me.
It's important to keep some income happening. Until I can switch entirely over to film production, it's reasonable to continue to do some other work. But it is important to sacrifice the amount of work and living situation as much as possible so that the movie continues forward.
Everyday - it must move forward.
People let things consume them in order to avoid things which contain emotional strength - good or bad. It's not just bad things that people avoid, they avoid things which simply involve the possibility of loss.
It's just another challenge to my resolve.
If I am fearing this project, I will let it consume me. If I am ready, I will manage it so that it does not overly distract me.
It's important to keep some income happening. Until I can switch entirely over to film production, it's reasonable to continue to do some other work. But it is important to sacrifice the amount of work and living situation as much as possible so that the movie continues forward.
Everyday - it must move forward.
People let things consume them in order to avoid things which contain emotional strength - good or bad. It's not just bad things that people avoid, they avoid things which simply involve the possibility of loss.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Industry Responses
Okay - so I've been getting reactions from various industry people.
My friend who is a former studio VP was very encouraging. I expressed my nervousness about contacting the two "TV actors" and he assured me that since I'm offering something without asking for an audition and neither have done theatrical work, the offer of scale plus 10% backend is perfectly fair and would be taken seriously. He likes the script and thinks that's where his confidence lies.
Interestingly enough I spoke with a Producer's Rep today who said that the actors I have in mind have zero sales value for distributors except for the value of their good performances. But from a "name on the box" standpoint, they felt it was of no added value. I tossed out a couple names of people I have contacts with to see what her reactions were and it seemed that many people were "not of real value." Now, I know that a lot of these people even charge a lot per movie, so someone must be thinking they bring value beyond their performance. This is just one Rep though and you can never take one person's opinion as the rule. I respect her interest in story and performance though. In a past conversation the comment had been made that ther are a lot more movies coming to distributors now than in years past and because movies are becoming easier to make, the quality is dropping.
A Producer's Rep, by the way, is someone who takes your finished film and negotiates a deal with a distributor. Usually they get 10% of the deal. This is a hugely lucrative job if you have the contacts obviously.
So, my reaction to this is mixed. I feel that my little casting brilliance might not be as solid as I had thought. HOWEVER... I think these people would be awsome in the movie anyway - their performances, so maybe I don't care and push forward anyway. It's just that as the person investing in this, I'm hoping to at least get my money back so I can make another.
Yes, this is one more thing which has encouraged me to reconsider what movie I'm doing. But, it falls back to that you can live your life evaluating, determining, considering, or you can make do something.
Again - fear. When does reasonible evaluation become dangerous? At what point does our concern become simple fear?
I did come up with two great casting ideas for the lead of the other movie (both actos accessible through friends, one who I saw last night even). Nice to have that as a back up option if this movie starts to derail, but that one would take a while to put together. Maybe. Feels like it would at least.
When does having a back up plan take away energy from your primary plan? Happens fast.
At what point can you look at two options and say, "Both?"
At what point to resources become a secondary consideration to the power of momentum?
My friend who is a former studio VP was very encouraging. I expressed my nervousness about contacting the two "TV actors" and he assured me that since I'm offering something without asking for an audition and neither have done theatrical work, the offer of scale plus 10% backend is perfectly fair and would be taken seriously. He likes the script and thinks that's where his confidence lies.
Interestingly enough I spoke with a Producer's Rep today who said that the actors I have in mind have zero sales value for distributors except for the value of their good performances. But from a "name on the box" standpoint, they felt it was of no added value. I tossed out a couple names of people I have contacts with to see what her reactions were and it seemed that many people were "not of real value." Now, I know that a lot of these people even charge a lot per movie, so someone must be thinking they bring value beyond their performance. This is just one Rep though and you can never take one person's opinion as the rule. I respect her interest in story and performance though. In a past conversation the comment had been made that ther are a lot more movies coming to distributors now than in years past and because movies are becoming easier to make, the quality is dropping.
A Producer's Rep, by the way, is someone who takes your finished film and negotiates a deal with a distributor. Usually they get 10% of the deal. This is a hugely lucrative job if you have the contacts obviously.
So, my reaction to this is mixed. I feel that my little casting brilliance might not be as solid as I had thought. HOWEVER... I think these people would be awsome in the movie anyway - their performances, so maybe I don't care and push forward anyway. It's just that as the person investing in this, I'm hoping to at least get my money back so I can make another.
Yes, this is one more thing which has encouraged me to reconsider what movie I'm doing. But, it falls back to that you can live your life evaluating, determining, considering, or you can make do something.
Again - fear. When does reasonible evaluation become dangerous? At what point does our concern become simple fear?
I did come up with two great casting ideas for the lead of the other movie (both actos accessible through friends, one who I saw last night even). Nice to have that as a back up option if this movie starts to derail, but that one would take a while to put together. Maybe. Feels like it would at least.
When does having a back up plan take away energy from your primary plan? Happens fast.
At what point can you look at two options and say, "Both?"
At what point to resources become a secondary consideration to the power of momentum?
Location review scheduled
I've set up a meeting to check out "The Location" next Tuesday. I'm increasingly concerned though with the amount of money that the location would absorb from the budget. I think I really would need to see if somehow the whole thing would be more like 10k than 20k. Almost takes out the advantage of having a one location movie if it is too expensive for the one location.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Location, Location, Location
Lots of location information today. Got on the phone first thing and spoke with a few very helpful people.
First of all. The Los Angeles location turns out to be $300/day... not bad... ah, there's more... but $54 per hour per security guard and it might be that one guard is needed per every 10 people! Let's say I can get just 1 guard, but do 12 hour days plus one hour lunches. That's about 1000 per day. That's $18,000 - plus move in and out days. So, it isn't the happy 10,000 or the shocking 40,000. It's a workable number. But it needs to be worked some more.
They are going to call me back, I will go take photos and speak to them about options - like hiring my own security at a lesser price or if there is any sort of bulk rate. Three weeks is a very long time for this type of location I would imagine.
Okay - on to New Mexico. New Mexico has a bunch of incentives for productions to shoot there. Very few of them apply to me (like 0% loan which requires having distribution being in place which is usually only achieved by a studio). Many require 60% of below the line to be hired in New Mexico (which is fair enough since it means you are not housing people). And while the 20% rebate is very intriguing... what I'm most interested in... are the locations.
I spoke with JB Smith who is their locations person and this is what I've gleaned:
locations generally fall into the 400 to 500 or 1000 to 2000 per day category. However, the security restrictions are not as strict and the labor for it is usually just $20/hr. Police run $25 or $50/hr for state police with a patrol car.
Like everywhere, 1 million in liability property insurance is required.
But... there are 800 state buildings which are fee free. (Like the Caltrans starz locations.)
They usually require one security at 20/hr. - the math is saying $260.
There is also a lot of state trust land which would be free. No security on land.
Obviously - this is pretty appealing! The only "catch" is the logistics of getting a cast and crew out there - especially for this horror film which really doesn't require a lot of locations.
And I'd bring my keys - so I'd be housing like 8 people for 3 weeks. Probably in the neighborhood of $8,000 in hotels. Sort of balances it out.
However... if the film was "The Other Movie." It might make perfect sense. Plus the other movie requires a lot of exotic locations and warehouse type interiors and such.
So, for now, I'm going move forward thinking that I will shoot this in LA. Actors prefer to shoot in LA generally because it interrupts their lives less. Unless it's somewhere really exotic and exciting and all expenses paid.
First of all. The Los Angeles location turns out to be $300/day... not bad... ah, there's more... but $54 per hour per security guard and it might be that one guard is needed per every 10 people! Let's say I can get just 1 guard, but do 12 hour days plus one hour lunches. That's about 1000 per day. That's $18,000 - plus move in and out days. So, it isn't the happy 10,000 or the shocking 40,000. It's a workable number. But it needs to be worked some more.
They are going to call me back, I will go take photos and speak to them about options - like hiring my own security at a lesser price or if there is any sort of bulk rate. Three weeks is a very long time for this type of location I would imagine.
Okay - on to New Mexico. New Mexico has a bunch of incentives for productions to shoot there. Very few of them apply to me (like 0% loan which requires having distribution being in place which is usually only achieved by a studio). Many require 60% of below the line to be hired in New Mexico (which is fair enough since it means you are not housing people). And while the 20% rebate is very intriguing... what I'm most interested in... are the locations.
I spoke with JB Smith who is their locations person and this is what I've gleaned:
locations generally fall into the 400 to 500 or 1000 to 2000 per day category. However, the security restrictions are not as strict and the labor for it is usually just $20/hr. Police run $25 or $50/hr for state police with a patrol car.
Like everywhere, 1 million in liability property insurance is required.
But... there are 800 state buildings which are fee free. (Like the Caltrans starz locations.)
They usually require one security at 20/hr. - the math is saying $260.
There is also a lot of state trust land which would be free. No security on land.
Obviously - this is pretty appealing! The only "catch" is the logistics of getting a cast and crew out there - especially for this horror film which really doesn't require a lot of locations.
And I'd bring my keys - so I'd be housing like 8 people for 3 weeks. Probably in the neighborhood of $8,000 in hotels. Sort of balances it out.
However... if the film was "The Other Movie." It might make perfect sense. Plus the other movie requires a lot of exotic locations and warehouse type interiors and such.
So, for now, I'm going move forward thinking that I will shoot this in LA. Actors prefer to shoot in LA generally because it interrupts their lives less. Unless it's somewhere really exotic and exciting and all expenses paid.
Storyboards, Time, Designers, and More
Today (Monday) turned out to be a holiday, so I wasn't able to make any of the informational phone calls I needed to. That will all happen tomorrow.
I did however gather more information.
I spoke to my props friend about certain make up effects and sets and was not shocked at what I heard. What I was mostly looking for was the shocking price on something. The special effects lenses for the eyes might end up being more expensive than I would like, but I actually had suspected this already.
I also sent out letters to several producers and producer reps asking advice on how to approach the agents for the actors I want.
I also began to address storyboarding. Now... my absolute favorite way to storyboard is to actually use photographs of live actors and I may end up doing this - but I have been experimenting with using poser with some luck. The advantage of live shots is that it goes so incredibly fast compared to any other method - even included the necessary post fixing.
With either method I still sketch really really rough thumbnails on paper first just as a list of what I want. It's part of the brainstorming process. It's fun. Low pressure, very creative - and absolutely essential. Do not go into your first film without having boards. Seriously. You don't need to stick to them, but you will absolutely want something to fall back on.
Another thing to do is mount your boards for everyone to see them on a set. Mount them on an easel. You would be surprised at how much this can help motivate everyone. Everyone knows what you're going for and what is coming up.
Be careful with letting people know that the lighting in the boards does not indicate the set lighting (unless it does) - because DP's and gaffers will sometimes think the boards are an indication of this.
During the thumbnail process, you really need to have broken down your script first. You need to really understand why each character is there, what they want in that scene and you want to place your camera to comment on that in some way. You don't have to. Kevin Smith certainly doesn't - but it's always good to think of have everything you do from designing a set to designing a shot comments on the story of the moment. Mammet in the book I suggested actually contradicts this notion in some ways - but not totally. My feeling is that no matter what you do, you are making a comment. If you just walk in there with a camera on your shoulder, you are making a comment - so you'd better make sure you are making the right comment. The comment that helps tell your story is the right comment. Unless your goal is to confuse your audience. I like surreal films, but I don't like confusing films.
The other thing you're figuring out is flow. If you're on a budget you might need to be thinking about shot economy as well. There are only so many times you can move the camera in a day. There are definitely a limited number of times you can move lights. That's the break down in time:
Location
Set
Angle or Time of Day
Camera
lens
This is the order in which things are difficult to change while shooting. Location is at least 1/2 a day. Set (at the same location, e.g. a room change) is around 3 hours depending on many factors. Angle or time of day is like 30 minutes to an hour or so. Camera position without a lighting change is about 10 minutes. Lens is about 3 minutes.
I'm making up those numbers and conditions vary wildly - it's just to get you thinking about factors like this.
So - figure out how fast you think you can shoot (hopefully something you can evaluate by experience). Then cut it back some because something always slows you down. Then calculate how many shots you can actually get. For example: If you're shooting 18 10 hour days... and you have a mix of angles per scene, maybe you can get 16 shots off per day. 288 shots in your entire film (not cuts, because you can come back to your same shots many times in a scene). So, you have 288 shots to tell your movie with. That doesn't seem like a lot does it? Make them count.
By the way - I know you can shoot a lot faster than this. But you can also shoot a lot slower than this.
The important thing at this stage - is just to keep in mind that you have a limited number of shots. 3 per page according to our previous calculation if your script is just shy of 100 pages. Now, in actuality, if you can get clever and do some lens changes - take a medium shot and then swap lenses to a close up, you can cheat a few extra shots. DP's will sometimes want to tweak lighting on a shot that will appear for a split second. You need to let people know when a shot will be on screen for 12 frames. You are responsible for the balance of effort on your film. Don't let a prop designer spend 4 days on something which is 20 feet from the camera and 1 hour on the thing the camera sits on. For every key on your movie (a key is the head of a department) - they need to know what the importance of each aspect is. It's your job to tell them. There is no way for them to know otherwise. If the movie is called "The Locket" - they might guess the locket is very important... but outside of that, they don't get a lot of clues. Baz Luhrman believes every aspect of his costumes and props has to be designed in tremendous detail. That's great if you can afford it. If you're reading this, you probably can't. So get clear before they ever start.
Since I'm talking about designers, I might mention this: This is one of the few quotes I can attribute to myself....
Speak to designers in adjectives; speak to actors in verbs.
And limit the amount that you speak to either. Let them speak back to you to make sure that they understood you.
Designers understand a statement like, "This room is foreboding, cold, shadowed, sinister." They can visualize these things and come back with samples. Not so easy for an actor though you might think you could say these same things. It's very hard to "play" sinister without resorting to an archetype and usually actors do that timidly and the performance goes away. For actors focus on what the want and what they are doing to get that. It isn't a bad idea to explain the scene from the characters point of view. I may launch into a discussion of talking with actors as it is something I have a lot of thoughts on as I was actually a theater major in college and continue to workshop and study. But I will save that for a later blog. I've been tangential enough.
Okay back to the movie:
Right now I'm feeling the actual production is quite manageable. I think a lot of effort put into the right props and set items and prepping the set will create for a smooth shoot.
The location, the cast - these are the primary factors which will determine the go ahead on this. I'm thinking of March/April as the shoot date. The reason for this is that I need about 3 months to meticulously prepare for everything.
On a side note, I'm actually thinking about not working on movies one day a week. It's a crazy thought... but it might be healthy. Not sure what I would do though. Probably going to see a movie wouldn't really work.
I did however gather more information.
I spoke to my props friend about certain make up effects and sets and was not shocked at what I heard. What I was mostly looking for was the shocking price on something. The special effects lenses for the eyes might end up being more expensive than I would like, but I actually had suspected this already.
I also sent out letters to several producers and producer reps asking advice on how to approach the agents for the actors I want.
I also began to address storyboarding. Now... my absolute favorite way to storyboard is to actually use photographs of live actors and I may end up doing this - but I have been experimenting with using poser with some luck. The advantage of live shots is that it goes so incredibly fast compared to any other method - even included the necessary post fixing.
With either method I still sketch really really rough thumbnails on paper first just as a list of what I want. It's part of the brainstorming process. It's fun. Low pressure, very creative - and absolutely essential. Do not go into your first film without having boards. Seriously. You don't need to stick to them, but you will absolutely want something to fall back on.
Another thing to do is mount your boards for everyone to see them on a set. Mount them on an easel. You would be surprised at how much this can help motivate everyone. Everyone knows what you're going for and what is coming up.
Be careful with letting people know that the lighting in the boards does not indicate the set lighting (unless it does) - because DP's and gaffers will sometimes think the boards are an indication of this.
During the thumbnail process, you really need to have broken down your script first. You need to really understand why each character is there, what they want in that scene and you want to place your camera to comment on that in some way. You don't have to. Kevin Smith certainly doesn't - but it's always good to think of have everything you do from designing a set to designing a shot comments on the story of the moment. Mammet in the book I suggested actually contradicts this notion in some ways - but not totally. My feeling is that no matter what you do, you are making a comment. If you just walk in there with a camera on your shoulder, you are making a comment - so you'd better make sure you are making the right comment. The comment that helps tell your story is the right comment. Unless your goal is to confuse your audience. I like surreal films, but I don't like confusing films.
The other thing you're figuring out is flow. If you're on a budget you might need to be thinking about shot economy as well. There are only so many times you can move the camera in a day. There are definitely a limited number of times you can move lights. That's the break down in time:
Location
Set
Angle or Time of Day
Camera
lens
This is the order in which things are difficult to change while shooting. Location is at least 1/2 a day. Set (at the same location, e.g. a room change) is around 3 hours depending on many factors. Angle or time of day is like 30 minutes to an hour or so. Camera position without a lighting change is about 10 minutes. Lens is about 3 minutes.
I'm making up those numbers and conditions vary wildly - it's just to get you thinking about factors like this.
So - figure out how fast you think you can shoot (hopefully something you can evaluate by experience). Then cut it back some because something always slows you down. Then calculate how many shots you can actually get. For example: If you're shooting 18 10 hour days... and you have a mix of angles per scene, maybe you can get 16 shots off per day. 288 shots in your entire film (not cuts, because you can come back to your same shots many times in a scene). So, you have 288 shots to tell your movie with. That doesn't seem like a lot does it? Make them count.
By the way - I know you can shoot a lot faster than this. But you can also shoot a lot slower than this.
The important thing at this stage - is just to keep in mind that you have a limited number of shots. 3 per page according to our previous calculation if your script is just shy of 100 pages. Now, in actuality, if you can get clever and do some lens changes - take a medium shot and then swap lenses to a close up, you can cheat a few extra shots. DP's will sometimes want to tweak lighting on a shot that will appear for a split second. You need to let people know when a shot will be on screen for 12 frames. You are responsible for the balance of effort on your film. Don't let a prop designer spend 4 days on something which is 20 feet from the camera and 1 hour on the thing the camera sits on. For every key on your movie (a key is the head of a department) - they need to know what the importance of each aspect is. It's your job to tell them. There is no way for them to know otherwise. If the movie is called "The Locket" - they might guess the locket is very important... but outside of that, they don't get a lot of clues. Baz Luhrman believes every aspect of his costumes and props has to be designed in tremendous detail. That's great if you can afford it. If you're reading this, you probably can't. So get clear before they ever start.
Since I'm talking about designers, I might mention this: This is one of the few quotes I can attribute to myself....
Speak to designers in adjectives; speak to actors in verbs.
And limit the amount that you speak to either. Let them speak back to you to make sure that they understood you.
Designers understand a statement like, "This room is foreboding, cold, shadowed, sinister." They can visualize these things and come back with samples. Not so easy for an actor though you might think you could say these same things. It's very hard to "play" sinister without resorting to an archetype and usually actors do that timidly and the performance goes away. For actors focus on what the want and what they are doing to get that. It isn't a bad idea to explain the scene from the characters point of view. I may launch into a discussion of talking with actors as it is something I have a lot of thoughts on as I was actually a theater major in college and continue to workshop and study. But I will save that for a later blog. I've been tangential enough.
Okay back to the movie:
Right now I'm feeling the actual production is quite manageable. I think a lot of effort put into the right props and set items and prepping the set will create for a smooth shoot.
The location, the cast - these are the primary factors which will determine the go ahead on this. I'm thinking of March/April as the shoot date. The reason for this is that I need about 3 months to meticulously prepare for everything.
On a side note, I'm actually thinking about not working on movies one day a week. It's a crazy thought... but it might be healthy. Not sure what I would do though. Probably going to see a movie wouldn't really work.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Cinema Reverence
Growing up and probably to this day still I've had a great reverence for cinema. It's importance has multiplied over the years as I've made a many difficult decisions which favored a life of working in movies than a life of... well, living. I'm not alone, there are many people - some who do not even make an effort to work in films who have the same reverence for the medium. There are still people who will line up for days (and at least hours) for a movie and discuss it adamantly with friends afterwards - maybe for days.
So many filmmakers will love film with the passion others reserve for family.
It's strange and sad then that this is not a requirement for becoming a director. In fact, it is most likely a hindrance because reverence results in intimidation.
Passionate filmmakers respect the medium so much that they have a hard time viewing it as a product. See? Some of you imaginary readers just cringed when I said that word. But it's true. At the end of the day, it's a product.
I've mentioned before that I've worked on a lot of movies. I've probably been involved enough in a movie such that I've met the director on nearly 100 movies. I know, that's a lot. And I can tell you two things:
1. More than half of these directors were not as passionate about making movies as you are. In fact, many of them just thought it would be something interesting to do, but they actually do other things with their lives.
2. And here's the really amazing one... It doesn't always make them a worse filmmaker.
Yes, it's the tragic truth. One's passion for the medium is superficial. The film doesn't benefit from a passion for the medium. A movie benefits from one thing only - an understanding of how to convey the movie's story.
People love to be entertained - whether intellectually or pruriently - it's entertainment. The secret of entertainment is as simple as someone telling you a really great story in your living room.... or anywhere. Can you remember when someone was telling you a story and you were captured by it? Why? Because you were curious what was going to happen. Sometimes you have the advantage of knowing something about the characters in advance - but sometimes it's a story that you know no one. That's the heart of everything. You can tell a story without ever uttering a word. A 30 second silent commercial can tell a story, a music video can tell a story, a single frame of film can tell a story... Photographers have been telling stories for years. The directors who understand that are making the good movies. Some of them will be passionate about movies as an art form and will expound upon occasionally interesting theories of cinema and filmmakers. Others understand this and just keep it simple - they stick to telling the story and don't attach a lot of hoopla to it.
So, you can get away with being a passionate filmmaker, but you'd better really focus on your story at every moment.
If you're left asking, "but what do I do to focus on the story of my movie?" David Mammet has a very good book about this: "David Mammet on Film Directing." Highly recommended. (I'm not going to include a link because I don't want anyone thinking I'm making money off them buying the book.)
So, what do you do with all this passion you have for movies? Just make sure it doesn't make you respect the medium so much that you are afraid to ever do something in the medium. A lot of filmmakers actually get to start making movies simply because they make the decision to do it. They're not afraid of it. They're not afraid of failing at it either - they don't have nearly as much to lose as you. You failing would be like failing for your family or your lover or your best friend or your God. Them failing is hardly even failing - it's just an "oh well, that didn't work." So giving it a shot isn't such a big deal.
So many filmmakers will love film with the passion others reserve for family.
It's strange and sad then that this is not a requirement for becoming a director. In fact, it is most likely a hindrance because reverence results in intimidation.
Passionate filmmakers respect the medium so much that they have a hard time viewing it as a product. See? Some of you imaginary readers just cringed when I said that word. But it's true. At the end of the day, it's a product.
I've mentioned before that I've worked on a lot of movies. I've probably been involved enough in a movie such that I've met the director on nearly 100 movies. I know, that's a lot. And I can tell you two things:
1. More than half of these directors were not as passionate about making movies as you are. In fact, many of them just thought it would be something interesting to do, but they actually do other things with their lives.
2. And here's the really amazing one... It doesn't always make them a worse filmmaker.
Yes, it's the tragic truth. One's passion for the medium is superficial. The film doesn't benefit from a passion for the medium. A movie benefits from one thing only - an understanding of how to convey the movie's story.
People love to be entertained - whether intellectually or pruriently - it's entertainment. The secret of entertainment is as simple as someone telling you a really great story in your living room.... or anywhere. Can you remember when someone was telling you a story and you were captured by it? Why? Because you were curious what was going to happen. Sometimes you have the advantage of knowing something about the characters in advance - but sometimes it's a story that you know no one. That's the heart of everything. You can tell a story without ever uttering a word. A 30 second silent commercial can tell a story, a music video can tell a story, a single frame of film can tell a story... Photographers have been telling stories for years. The directors who understand that are making the good movies. Some of them will be passionate about movies as an art form and will expound upon occasionally interesting theories of cinema and filmmakers. Others understand this and just keep it simple - they stick to telling the story and don't attach a lot of hoopla to it.
So, you can get away with being a passionate filmmaker, but you'd better really focus on your story at every moment.
If you're left asking, "but what do I do to focus on the story of my movie?" David Mammet has a very good book about this: "David Mammet on Film Directing." Highly recommended. (I'm not going to include a link because I don't want anyone thinking I'm making money off them buying the book.)
So, what do you do with all this passion you have for movies? Just make sure it doesn't make you respect the medium so much that you are afraid to ever do something in the medium. A lot of filmmakers actually get to start making movies simply because they make the decision to do it. They're not afraid of it. They're not afraid of failing at it either - they don't have nearly as much to lose as you. You failing would be like failing for your family or your lover or your best friend or your God. Them failing is hardly even failing - it's just an "oh well, that didn't work." So giving it a shot isn't such a big deal.
An Odd Production Approach
If one were to have a lot of locations, I was thinking that this might be an interesting production method (especially for non-SAG productions).
Shoot out a different location every weekend. Rent your camera, light, grip package for the 1 day weekend. Since you can get 3 day weeks, this isn't that impressive alone - but what it buys you is a chance to spend some time getting all your art direction ready for each location prior to a camera ever entering your location. In theory then you could spend all Friday mentally blocking out your shoot and then begin that night and on through until Sunday. Then it gives the crew some time off (except for your driver and/or AC who would need to check out the cameras... An AC would hate this strategy probably, not sure how the rental house would feel). Then, during the week, you could be assembling footage from the weekend if you can get a quick telecine or if you shoot on video. You're building your movie as you go, by the time you are done, your edit is done. You could also take advantage of the time and actually take a day off and make sure your at the top of your game every weekend.
It's an interesting methodology for sure. Maybe if you have one location which you need for a week, you do one full week. Always good to be flexible.
Shoot out a different location every weekend. Rent your camera, light, grip package for the 1 day weekend. Since you can get 3 day weeks, this isn't that impressive alone - but what it buys you is a chance to spend some time getting all your art direction ready for each location prior to a camera ever entering your location. In theory then you could spend all Friday mentally blocking out your shoot and then begin that night and on through until Sunday. Then it gives the crew some time off (except for your driver and/or AC who would need to check out the cameras... An AC would hate this strategy probably, not sure how the rental house would feel). Then, during the week, you could be assembling footage from the weekend if you can get a quick telecine or if you shoot on video. You're building your movie as you go, by the time you are done, your edit is done. You could also take advantage of the time and actually take a day off and make sure your at the top of your game every weekend.
It's an interesting methodology for sure. Maybe if you have one location which you need for a week, you do one full week. Always good to be flexible.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Why not bring on a Producer?
This is a valid question. I'm not adverse to this - but let me explain why I haven't.
Any person you involve in your production has just as much power to slow you down as they do to speed you up. I've been involved in projects in the past with a variety of producers and found myself waiting on answers from them or their contacts and usually the result was an apologetic "They didn't go for it."
What I'd rather have is a group of people who are very dedicated to making the movie in a very specific quantifiable function - but no one for whom I end up needing to wait on.
It's sort of like having a roommate. Suddenly your apartment is shared. The advantage is that you have someone to hang out with whom you have something in common. The disadvantage is that you sort of need to get permission to do certain things now and then... like if you suddenly feel the need to redecorate.
Ideally someone will emerge as a producer organically. Someone who is getting things done and really adding value. I will definitely be getting help from a lot of producers though. And I'll share all the advice.
Any person you involve in your production has just as much power to slow you down as they do to speed you up. I've been involved in projects in the past with a variety of producers and found myself waiting on answers from them or their contacts and usually the result was an apologetic "They didn't go for it."
What I'd rather have is a group of people who are very dedicated to making the movie in a very specific quantifiable function - but no one for whom I end up needing to wait on.
It's sort of like having a roommate. Suddenly your apartment is shared. The advantage is that you have someone to hang out with whom you have something in common. The disadvantage is that you sort of need to get permission to do certain things now and then... like if you suddenly feel the need to redecorate.
Ideally someone will emerge as a producer organically. Someone who is getting things done and really adding value. I will definitely be getting help from a lot of producers though. And I'll share all the advice.
Must I incorporate?
It's been suggested to me that I had better incorporate for reasons of liability protection.
If I do this, not only is it a few thousand dollars, but also a few days of research and effort - but I also will have to decide whether to do it as a C, S, or LLC. A quick google reveals that the decision won't be something which is boolean (a data type which has only two values, true or false).
I add this to my blog because I want to include all the related details which will add distractions from the real goal.
If I do this, not only is it a few thousand dollars, but also a few days of research and effort - but I also will have to decide whether to do it as a C, S, or LLC. A quick google reveals that the decision won't be something which is boolean (a data type which has only two values, true or false).
I add this to my blog because I want to include all the related details which will add distractions from the real goal.
Actor Research
I did a little research about the Two TV Actors I'm interested in and discovered that they are actually at the same agency. That is interesting. It's an advantage on some level because I could sort of package it to the agency - or they would be packing it for me at that point; but there would be no "waiting on the other agency for an answer."
I actually need to decide what to do if one of them doesn't want to do the movie and the other does. For the male, I think I could think of a replacement that would work. I'm not so sure on the female. I don't see them booked on anything on www.imdbpro.com coming up - but pilot season has just begun. I should really try to get a commitment prior to them getting a show. And just be willing to be alter my start date based on if they book or not. No actor will give up a regular part on a series for a low budget movie. No agent would let them do that.
If I don't get either actor - then I will need to decide whether to proceed because the business model has changed. I think a lot would depend on the price of the props and the location. If those are reasonable enough in price then I could replace them with other actors and just base my faith on the story. I could also check how far "The Other" project has come along and see if I change my energy to that instead.
But right now a lot of my excitement in project is based on the package.
I actually need to decide what to do if one of them doesn't want to do the movie and the other does. For the male, I think I could think of a replacement that would work. I'm not so sure on the female. I don't see them booked on anything on www.imdbpro.com coming up - but pilot season has just begun. I should really try to get a commitment prior to them getting a show. And just be willing to be alter my start date based on if they book or not. No actor will give up a regular part on a series for a low budget movie. No agent would let them do that.
If I don't get either actor - then I will need to decide whether to proceed because the business model has changed. I think a lot would depend on the price of the props and the location. If those are reasonable enough in price then I could replace them with other actors and just base my faith on the story. I could also check how far "The Other" project has come along and see if I change my energy to that instead.
But right now a lot of my excitement in project is based on the package.
Single Location
There's an old filmmaker's adage to keep the number of locations limited. Interestingly enough in my location research I am discovering that this may be totally wrong. I know that it helps in the sense that location moves absorbs a half a day and you have less art direction. However, I'm realizing that finding a place that you can totally monopolize for four weeks (3 for shooting, 1 for prep) is a lot to ask. So, there are definitely disadvantages because asking to use a location for a day or two is certainly much more reasonable a request.
I think picking locations which are accessible or non-specific locations would be a really good idea. Mark that one down if you're still deciding what film to make.
I think picking locations which are accessible or non-specific locations would be a really good idea. Mark that one down if you're still deciding what film to make.
Locations
A friend who is a on the production staff of a TV show asked his location manager for some ideas about The Location and sent me a few of the responses. I will have to follow up with these on Monday. Good news though as this is one of my biggest concerns. It's one thing to need a location for a day. It's another to need it for 4 weeks. That's a lot of time. It's hard to get a studio for less than 1500 a day here - the air conditioning alone almost costs half of that. After 28 days that's $42,000 - and that's going to be too much for this movie. Way too much. I'm aiming for something in the 10,000 range. Like if I were to rent on a month to month situation.
But this is why the location is so key. Not to mention this is one of the first thing actors would want to know - is it close to where they live? They like that. A lot.
New Mexico and I believe New Orleans have some great location deals. But then I'd have to fly out my crew and cast and support them plus per diem - that could get very expensive very quickly. When the time comes, though, I'll have to weigh that against any financial benefit of shooting outside of Los Angeles.
Caltrans (California department of public transportation) has free locations (free plus about 300 a day for the security required) - but I'm not sure if any would match my needs. I'll have to investigate that.
Tomorrow I want to scour the script for important props and set pieces and will talk with a friend to get an idea of what these elements could be made for.
But this is why the location is so key. Not to mention this is one of the first thing actors would want to know - is it close to where they live? They like that. A lot.
New Mexico and I believe New Orleans have some great location deals. But then I'd have to fly out my crew and cast and support them plus per diem - that could get very expensive very quickly. When the time comes, though, I'll have to weigh that against any financial benefit of shooting outside of Los Angeles.
Caltrans (California department of public transportation) has free locations (free plus about 300 a day for the security required) - but I'm not sure if any would match my needs. I'll have to investigate that.
Tomorrow I want to scour the script for important props and set pieces and will talk with a friend to get an idea of what these elements could be made for.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Organizing the Effort
Last year I did a rewrite of this script when a friend picked it out of a bunch of movies which he thought he could help raise financing. He ended up getting hired on for a job which few could turn down - but it is very much our conversations and the affirmation of this project as being a solid one which has been a great motivating factor.
Before I move onto today's subject matter, I should mention something. I don't really like horror films in general. I was once on a set watching a bunch of monsters fighting and I shook my head and shared to my friend there: "I could never direct a movie with a bunch of rubber monsters bumping against each other. I just don't see it as believable. Obviously, they're monsters, but I don't see it as scary or exciting, it seems so silly." My friend responded, "Then maybe you're the perfect person to direct one because then you will have to push yourself harder than someone who loves it and believes it right off."
Now, this horror film is not filled with rubber monsters, but I think the principle holds true. I am not really directing a horror film as I am a drama which takes place under horrific circumstances. It won't be touted as the "grossest film in cinema history" though. It's not that kind of film.
So, time to organize the effort:
Things I need to line up:
The Location
The Start Date
The Cast
The Budget
And that's the order in which I'll try to arrange them all.
Getting cast is an interesting thing. It's always the chicken or the egg situation. How do you get a cast without a budget?
Well, here is my plan. I have a lot of confidence in the cast I've selected. I don't know really if I'll be able to get them. I'm getting estimates from friends as to what I can offer them without being laughed at. But I'm going to back those offers with my own money.
I decided a couple years ago not to buy a house and instead keep some money to make a movie. Now, little did I know that real estate in Los Angeles would triple in the last three years. (Not an exaggeration, sigh.) But I could back up my offer with the money I would have spent on that house. I think that with them attached (even if pay or play) I could probably interest investors without much troubles. As an insurance provision, I would simply invest the rest myself. I might not have much left over. I might have none left over, but have you ever noticed that most every filmmaker lately has gotten their start by directing something from their last dime?
Hey - life is short and I've waited a while.
Before I move onto today's subject matter, I should mention something. I don't really like horror films in general. I was once on a set watching a bunch of monsters fighting and I shook my head and shared to my friend there: "I could never direct a movie with a bunch of rubber monsters bumping against each other. I just don't see it as believable. Obviously, they're monsters, but I don't see it as scary or exciting, it seems so silly." My friend responded, "Then maybe you're the perfect person to direct one because then you will have to push yourself harder than someone who loves it and believes it right off."
Now, this horror film is not filled with rubber monsters, but I think the principle holds true. I am not really directing a horror film as I am a drama which takes place under horrific circumstances. It won't be touted as the "grossest film in cinema history" though. It's not that kind of film.
So, time to organize the effort:
Things I need to line up:
The Location
The Start Date
The Cast
The Budget
And that's the order in which I'll try to arrange them all.
Getting cast is an interesting thing. It's always the chicken or the egg situation. How do you get a cast without a budget?
Well, here is my plan. I have a lot of confidence in the cast I've selected. I don't know really if I'll be able to get them. I'm getting estimates from friends as to what I can offer them without being laughed at. But I'm going to back those offers with my own money.
I decided a couple years ago not to buy a house and instead keep some money to make a movie. Now, little did I know that real estate in Los Angeles would triple in the last three years. (Not an exaggeration, sigh.) But I could back up my offer with the money I would have spent on that house. I think that with them attached (even if pay or play) I could probably interest investors without much troubles. As an insurance provision, I would simply invest the rest myself. I might not have much left over. I might have none left over, but have you ever noticed that most every filmmaker lately has gotten their start by directing something from their last dime?
Hey - life is short and I've waited a while.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
The "Other Movie"
Ah - but nothing is that easy.
First of all - I finally just finished a huge project (which involved directing) and the final product had so much insatiable fantastically. The endless hours have not only left me a bit tired, but the fantasy has really influenced me. Both are dangerous. The tiredness simply because it cuts down on my intention to focus daily on making this movie (and blog daily about any progress). The influence because it can be a distraction - and it has become one.
The following summarizes the last couple days:
Now I'm going to sound whimsical and say that I'm very much considering doing another movie that I had shelved in the past because it needed a budget. But times have changed and I think I could actually do this new film for quite a low budget. It's sexy, exotic, sweet, epic, slightly surreal and something I've wanted to do for many years. There is even a part for my Famous Friend.
So I got very excited and immediately started gathering some inspirational imagery. (I like having a design book so I can get people on the same page as me early on.) I had dinner with my friend and talked to her about it. After that I called the investor who had told me that if I had a project with Famous Friend then he could probably raise the rest of the money. He is living in a foreign country right now, so we'll call him The Foreign Investor. Now, he's a friend and a good person and I'm sure wants the best for me. But when I spoke to him he began to suggest that in order to really push it through I would need Famous Friend to not only be in it, but to be really pushing it and probably a few more cast members who are well known. Unfortunately at that point, I could go almost anywhere. I think his suggestions are absolutely well meaning, but as we've already discovered - even well meaning people can actually create delays.
So, I'm instantly going back to the Horror Film. However, I'm still very excited about this one and will continue to develop it just in case anything with the Horror film slips.
First of all - I finally just finished a huge project (which involved directing) and the final product had so much insatiable fantastically. The endless hours have not only left me a bit tired, but the fantasy has really influenced me. Both are dangerous. The tiredness simply because it cuts down on my intention to focus daily on making this movie (and blog daily about any progress). The influence because it can be a distraction - and it has become one.
The following summarizes the last couple days:
Now I'm going to sound whimsical and say that I'm very much considering doing another movie that I had shelved in the past because it needed a budget. But times have changed and I think I could actually do this new film for quite a low budget. It's sexy, exotic, sweet, epic, slightly surreal and something I've wanted to do for many years. There is even a part for my Famous Friend.
So I got very excited and immediately started gathering some inspirational imagery. (I like having a design book so I can get people on the same page as me early on.) I had dinner with my friend and talked to her about it. After that I called the investor who had told me that if I had a project with Famous Friend then he could probably raise the rest of the money. He is living in a foreign country right now, so we'll call him The Foreign Investor. Now, he's a friend and a good person and I'm sure wants the best for me. But when I spoke to him he began to suggest that in order to really push it through I would need Famous Friend to not only be in it, but to be really pushing it and probably a few more cast members who are well known. Unfortunately at that point, I could go almost anywhere. I think his suggestions are absolutely well meaning, but as we've already discovered - even well meaning people can actually create delays.
So, I'm instantly going back to the Horror Film. However, I'm still very excited about this one and will continue to develop it just in case anything with the Horror film slips.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Decision Time
I've chosen to do the horror film. I think it's a good film. Several people offered to buy it last year but I didn't have a lot of confidence in the director they choseI worked with a director many years ago who had a simple formula. He spent most of his movies budget on the talent (actors) because he rightly assumed that this was one of the most important selling elements of a movie. Personally, I think he underestimated the value of a touching story. Even a horror film can have a touching story. By "touching" I mean a human element. So many stories in movies lately feel manufactured.
Something I happen to know through my Famous Friend is that actors are quite often looking for something that gives them a real arc. Actors like playing a variety of things - that's what they crave, that's what they do what they do. So, there's always a chance that they'll want to do your film if there is "a part" (as they say) there.
My desire to do this film, though is very much tied to my hope to get two certain TV Actors. A lot of my confidence in it is based on that - so that will need to be one of the first things I confirm. That and "The Location." It's got a very key and tough location.
A producer of many movies once told me about making movies. "Pick the date." That was everything. You pick the day you're going to shoot and make it happen. I've see this to be true as when something is actually happening, everyone becomes more and more inclined to start joining in. Why? Because so much stuff (in Hollywood especially) is all talk and no happening.
I think the end of March sounds good. By the end of January I will try to have a very specific date set.
Something I happen to know through my Famous Friend is that actors are quite often looking for something that gives them a real arc. Actors like playing a variety of things - that's what they crave, that's what they do what they do. So, there's always a chance that they'll want to do your film if there is "a part" (as they say) there.
My desire to do this film, though is very much tied to my hope to get two certain TV Actors. A lot of my confidence in it is based on that - so that will need to be one of the first things I confirm. That and "The Location." It's got a very key and tough location.
A producer of many movies once told me about making movies. "Pick the date." That was everything. You pick the day you're going to shoot and make it happen. I've see this to be true as when something is actually happening, everyone becomes more and more inclined to start joining in. Why? Because so much stuff (in Hollywood especially) is all talk and no happening.
I think the end of March sounds good. By the end of January I will try to have a very specific date set.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Choosing a Project
One of my friends (who I seem to have lost touch with) directed a successful documentary, but he really wanted to direct features. He had a notable agent who would bring him scripts which fit very well into the genre of film that his documentary was in. But my friend turned them all down. He finally decided he'd write his own. But he never did.
It's a thin line between knowing if this phenomenon is simply not liking the material or fearing actually making something.
I directed something last year which a lot of people liked enough that a few people were bringing me scripts and I thought all of them needed a lot of work. So much work, that I felt like I'd rather write my own. Fortunately, I have a few scripts that I've written over the years and still own the rights to.
So, why not just pick one and make it?
Well, that's a great question! Because this is what happens:
(Yes, I'm using "you" and "me" interchangeably.)
I do actually have a "famous friend" and I have actually have had a problem writing something for her. I spent several months last year working on a couple things. One thing is now being considered as a TV show which it is probably more suited for. The other I couldn't finish. Well, I finished it, but I just didn't feel like it was so incredible that I had to make it. So instead of making a movie last year, I spent my time writing new material and meeting with executives (and occasionally actually working), and searching for material when I felt my own wasn't working and it didn't lead me to my goal.
But I'm letting people sway me. Why? Fear.
Right at the end of the year I kept thinking "should I do project A or project B?" Again and again asking myself. I finally realized. I'll do both. Just doing one first.
There is no magic genre that will make a directing career for me. I truly believe that any project you do, you put your heart into and it becomes a reflection of something personal. And do I really want to make my most favorite project as my first film? There is something to be said for learning. I'll have to gamble that I'll live long enough to make a few films. As for my Famous Friend... Maybe there is someway to leverage that - but if not. She's a wonderful friend and I benefit everyday even if she isn't in my movie.
So... time to choose a project.
It's a thin line between knowing if this phenomenon is simply not liking the material or fearing actually making something.
I directed something last year which a lot of people liked enough that a few people were bringing me scripts and I thought all of them needed a lot of work. So much work, that I felt like I'd rather write my own. Fortunately, I have a few scripts that I've written over the years and still own the rights to.
So, why not just pick one and make it?
Well, that's a great question! Because this is what happens:
THE UNKNOWN FILLMMAKER has just looked through a few of his scripts and picked one which he felt would the simplest one to shoot. Least locations, smallest cast - yet it still has good drama. It's a horror film.So you have three friends here who care very much for you. They are trying to help and protect you. But what they've really done is totally stop you. They've given you additional tasks to do instead of remove barriers.
THE UNKNOWN FILMMAKEROkay - This is it. I'll do this horror film.PRODUCER FRIEND
Horror films are out now.THE UNKNOWN FILMMMAKER
Oh. Bad timing. Well.... I guess this romantic comedy is the next least locations and --
PRODUCER FRIEND
Romantic comedies are always a tough sell without a cast. And even then - very hit or miss.
ARTIST FRIEND
(chiming in)
You should make something you're really passionate about. You're going to spend a year of your life on this - You should make something you really really care about.
THE UNKNOWN FILMMAKER
Well, I spent a few months writing these already... so I care about them.
ARTIST FRIEND
But is that really the story you would tell... if you only had one movie to tell ever?
THE UNKNOWN FILMMAKER
No - I guess it would be one of these other films, but they're very expensive.
ARTIST FRIEND
Yes - but you're passion with that project will bring money. Maybe it will bring the talent and the talent will bring the money.
FILMMAKER FRIEND
You should put your FAMOUS FRIEND in the movie and then get some financing based on that!
THE UNKNOWN FILMMAKER
But none of the movies I have here really have a lead role for her.
FILMMAKER FRIEND
Well, write one then.
(Yes, I'm using "you" and "me" interchangeably.)
I do actually have a "famous friend" and I have actually have had a problem writing something for her. I spent several months last year working on a couple things. One thing is now being considered as a TV show which it is probably more suited for. The other I couldn't finish. Well, I finished it, but I just didn't feel like it was so incredible that I had to make it. So instead of making a movie last year, I spent my time writing new material and meeting with executives (and occasionally actually working), and searching for material when I felt my own wasn't working and it didn't lead me to my goal.
But I'm letting people sway me. Why? Fear.
Right at the end of the year I kept thinking "should I do project A or project B?" Again and again asking myself. I finally realized. I'll do both. Just doing one first.
There is no magic genre that will make a directing career for me. I truly believe that any project you do, you put your heart into and it becomes a reflection of something personal. And do I really want to make my most favorite project as my first film? There is something to be said for learning. I'll have to gamble that I'll live long enough to make a few films. As for my Famous Friend... Maybe there is someway to leverage that - but if not. She's a wonderful friend and I benefit everyday even if she isn't in my movie.
So... time to choose a project.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
An Introduction
At this point no one knows I'm writing this, so I guess I'm introducing myself in advance to anyone who discovers this blog in the future.
Why "Unknown"?
Mostly because this is not a blog about me. It's a blog about you. You have talked about making a movie. Told all your friends your ideas and how you would make movies better. You've studied movies all your life, you know film, you're ready.
So why haven't you made one?
And this is me. Maybe like you - or maybe like you in a few months or a few years. You've had the singular goal so long that you've started to question if the only thing holding you back is fear.
So, go ahead and say it. "I am making a movie this year."
I hope this blog has some inspiration and perhaps a little education for you as I go through this process.
I hope by remaining anonymous I'm able to keep my and other people's ego out of this and share true experiences.
Why Me?
While I literally am an "unknown filmmaker," I have lived in Los Angeles for many years and have worked on countless films and even made a great number of "industry contacts."
But then I'm not like you?
Well, let me tell you one thing. Unless you're the writer or director or star on a successful or notably discussed motion picture. No one cares. If the movie was hugely successful, you can be the producer or maybe the editor and people will care. That's the way it is right now at least in 2006. Wasn't always like that. I've sat in meetings with studio executives who have literally ten times fewer film credits than I have and yet... They don't care. They are the ones in power in that room. That's okay. They're right. They're serving the purpose of their bosses and their bosses are trying to make successful movies for the company and they have a lot of things to worry about like stockholders and making money. And let me mention something. I spent a year meeting studio executives and every single one of them was very nice. Not once did I encounter anyone who I thought was arrogant or stupid. They are all smart and charming and I enjoyed the conversations.
I am not saying I like all the movies these studios make though. I think there has been a huge generification (I can make up words, it's my blog) of movies is largely due to too many people exerting their own ideas onto projects and the project then losing focus. Really nice people can do this too. But good drama requires specific focus. It's not about flash or flares or timewarps or effects or gun shooting or being drugged up in London - good drama comes dramatic situations. People who can find create that in movies have extra value.
One more thing about all the executives I met: None of them were ever going to be able to give me my first film directing job. Wasn't going to happen. Not for me. Not for you. Took me a year to realize this. One more year of having some reason that I did not get a movie made.
But everyone has one advantage. I think it's really important to find that out and exploit it for all it's worth. Do you have access to a video store after hours? A feature's worth of black and white film left over from another movie? A cabin in the woods? A really talented friend who is endlessly entertaining? Whatever it is - use it.
And what is your weakness? Figure that out and try to turn it around to work in your favor.
I hope that I can use any access or knowledge or experience I've gained and share it with everyone as I go through this process.
Things Are Changing
When I was growing up, my real bonding experience with my father was visiting him on an occasional weekend, eating "It's it's" and watching Siskel & Ebert review movies. And eventually when I realized I wanted to a filmmaker more than anything else, I told myself that I may never win an Academy Award because there is a lot of luck that goes into that - but I would definitely want to get "two thumbs up" from Siskel and Ebert.
Maybe it sounds strange that I wanted something like that with such a passion - but all the things we want, we invent for ourselves to want. And I wanted that. And it will never happen.
No offense to Roeper, I have actually never seen him as I haven't had a TV since Siskel died - but it was a childhood dream.
Someday the Academy Awards may be a footnote in the memory of filmmaker. The word "filmmaking" may even be retired as everyone begins to shoot on digital formats whether it be the Genesis, D20, Kinetta, Red, or whatever else gets invented. It will happen. You can follow all that development on sites like www.hdforindies.com, www.cinematech.blogspot.com, "www.cinematography.com, www.cinematography.net, and so forth. There are many.
Distribution will change. Films will be a much larger variety in length. People will probably program their own video channels which will be base don their own likes and dislikes not dissimilar to www.pandora.com for music.
Everything is changing constantly. And it's really exciting. But guess what? It's been happening for years. VHS changed the way people thought about movies. Killed the revival house market and drive-in theaters. Sound and color were both added to movies at one point. It's constantly changing.
I am coming to terms with the fact that the movie industry I dreamed of being a part of as a child no longer exists.
And that's okay. Like all things that exist - including you and me - they are constantly evolving, changing.
So, focus on the now. Right now, you do know what exists in a practical sense. Plan for now. Don't waste your life anticipating and waiting for the next big thing.
If you wait too long, you'll miss out on the things you dreamed about anyway. And eventually, it won't be just Siskel who has passed away.
You want to make a movie?
Make one. I'll make mine. You make yours. We'll meet at the pass.
Welcome to my blog.
Why "Unknown"?
Mostly because this is not a blog about me. It's a blog about you. You have talked about making a movie. Told all your friends your ideas and how you would make movies better. You've studied movies all your life, you know film, you're ready.
So why haven't you made one?
And this is me. Maybe like you - or maybe like you in a few months or a few years. You've had the singular goal so long that you've started to question if the only thing holding you back is fear.
So, go ahead and say it. "I am making a movie this year."
I hope this blog has some inspiration and perhaps a little education for you as I go through this process.
I hope by remaining anonymous I'm able to keep my and other people's ego out of this and share true experiences.
Why Me?
While I literally am an "unknown filmmaker," I have lived in Los Angeles for many years and have worked on countless films and even made a great number of "industry contacts."
But then I'm not like you?
Well, let me tell you one thing. Unless you're the writer or director or star on a successful or notably discussed motion picture. No one cares. If the movie was hugely successful, you can be the producer or maybe the editor and people will care. That's the way it is right now at least in 2006. Wasn't always like that. I've sat in meetings with studio executives who have literally ten times fewer film credits than I have and yet... They don't care. They are the ones in power in that room. That's okay. They're right. They're serving the purpose of their bosses and their bosses are trying to make successful movies for the company and they have a lot of things to worry about like stockholders and making money. And let me mention something. I spent a year meeting studio executives and every single one of them was very nice. Not once did I encounter anyone who I thought was arrogant or stupid. They are all smart and charming and I enjoyed the conversations.
I am not saying I like all the movies these studios make though. I think there has been a huge generification (I can make up words, it's my blog) of movies is largely due to too many people exerting their own ideas onto projects and the project then losing focus. Really nice people can do this too. But good drama requires specific focus. It's not about flash or flares or timewarps or effects or gun shooting or being drugged up in London - good drama comes dramatic situations. People who can find create that in movies have extra value.
One more thing about all the executives I met: None of them were ever going to be able to give me my first film directing job. Wasn't going to happen. Not for me. Not for you. Took me a year to realize this. One more year of having some reason that I did not get a movie made.
But everyone has one advantage. I think it's really important to find that out and exploit it for all it's worth. Do you have access to a video store after hours? A feature's worth of black and white film left over from another movie? A cabin in the woods? A really talented friend who is endlessly entertaining? Whatever it is - use it.
And what is your weakness? Figure that out and try to turn it around to work in your favor.
I hope that I can use any access or knowledge or experience I've gained and share it with everyone as I go through this process.
Things Are Changing
When I was growing up, my real bonding experience with my father was visiting him on an occasional weekend, eating "It's it's" and watching Siskel & Ebert review movies. And eventually when I realized I wanted to a filmmaker more than anything else, I told myself that I may never win an Academy Award because there is a lot of luck that goes into that - but I would definitely want to get "two thumbs up" from Siskel and Ebert.
Maybe it sounds strange that I wanted something like that with such a passion - but all the things we want, we invent for ourselves to want. And I wanted that. And it will never happen.
No offense to Roeper, I have actually never seen him as I haven't had a TV since Siskel died - but it was a childhood dream.
Someday the Academy Awards may be a footnote in the memory of filmmaker. The word "filmmaking" may even be retired as everyone begins to shoot on digital formats whether it be the Genesis, D20, Kinetta, Red, or whatever else gets invented. It will happen. You can follow all that development on sites like www.hdforindies.com, www.cinematech.blogspot.com, "www.cinematography.com, www.cinematography.net, and so forth. There are many.
Distribution will change. Films will be a much larger variety in length. People will probably program their own video channels which will be base don their own likes and dislikes not dissimilar to www.pandora.com for music.
Everything is changing constantly. And it's really exciting. But guess what? It's been happening for years. VHS changed the way people thought about movies. Killed the revival house market and drive-in theaters. Sound and color were both added to movies at one point. It's constantly changing.
I am coming to terms with the fact that the movie industry I dreamed of being a part of as a child no longer exists.
And that's okay. Like all things that exist - including you and me - they are constantly evolving, changing.
So, focus on the now. Right now, you do know what exists in a practical sense. Plan for now. Don't waste your life anticipating and waiting for the next big thing.
If you wait too long, you'll miss out on the things you dreamed about anyway. And eventually, it won't be just Siskel who has passed away.
You want to make a movie?
Make one. I'll make mine. You make yours. We'll meet at the pass.
Welcome to my blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)