A Filmmaker's Life

Responsible Filmmaking - sketching the blurry line between the creative and the careful

2009-06-30T08:55:00.000-07:00

When I decided to shoot a short film about the day a 14 year-old girl decides to give up her virginity called "My Last Day On Earth", I was not at all thinking about the various practical and ethical issues that it might engender. I was just thinking about the film from a creative/thematic/story-telling perspective that is necessarily divorced - at least initially - from the actual process of realizing this idea as a film.

But once the mechanics of making any particular film are set in motion, the reality of what you are putting people through to fully realize your film starts to come into play - and that's when things get thorny, if not downright hairy....and sometimes tragic.

While at dinner one night over at my good friend and creative collaborator Sean Hood's house, I discussed the film off-handedly with him and talented D.P. Fortunato Procopio. The script included some simulated pot-smoking and , at the time, a couple of shots of simulated sex. I told them I wanted to cast a true 14 year-old to maintain a sense of autheticity and they made it clear that this was not a good plan. They informed me it was not only irresponsible, it was illegal. I was a little surprised by their reaction and (mis)read some moral indignation in their tone. So, of course, I decided to needle them by pretending I didn't care and suggested that America's cock-eyed puritanism was not going to influence my creative judgement.

What emerged was a fascinating, contentious (and perhaps irritating for them) debate about the conflict between personal responsibility and creative ambition. I'm the first guy to criticize filmmakers for not demanding more from their films and doing all that is necessary to create a truly unique and arresting film - filled with authenticity, complexity and power. But on the other hand, I have seen and heard about filmmakers so blinded by their own obsessive "vision" that they have put actors and other crew members in harm's way both physically and emotionally.

In my case, I was going to ask a young girl to simulate a very sensitive and profound adult experience that she may, in her own life, be nowhere near comprehending - let alone experiencing - the fact of which, my friends argued, may cause irreparable harm to her psyche. Although they acknowledged there are many girls who may actually be sexually experienced at 14 years old, there is no way of me knowing that nor the circumstances surrounding those experiences. I argued that this was a rather tame simulation and that there are films where girls of similar age are doing much more shocking and egregious acts. I made the point that each girl is different and this, then, becomes a personal decision - one that should be made jointly by the girl and her parents.

Carson Goodwin and Daisy O'Bryan (laying down)
rehearsing for "My Last Day On Earth".

Of course, they countered with the point that there are many desperate stage parents whose judgement is clouded by the ambition they harbor for their child and will let them do just about anything. As for the films that had children engaging in more graphic behavior, there's no way to know the psychological toll such "acting" took on their lives.

Good points. I would never want to be responsible for willfully causing any kind of permanent harm - physical, emotional, mental, spiritual or otherwise - to any cast or crew member no matter how "important" realizing the film in a specific way might be to me. Even accidents, such as the ones that killed Brandon Lee and Vic Morrow would haunt me forever and make it perhaps impossible to ever make another film.

Of course, a death is an extreme example. But there are many other things short of that which can happen that would thoroughly suck - mental breakdowns being a rather common occurrence on shoots that test the limits of a cast member (or entire cast/crew's) endurance. And I certainly would not want to be even partially responsible for transforming a sweet, innocent 14 year-old girl into a potentially promiscuous, drug-using, shop-lifting, therapy-needing basket case of an adult.

But I recently saw a beautiful, but gut-wrenching short film from Iceland at the Los Angeles Film Festival called "2 Birds". It was gut-wrenching for one particular scene that **SPOILER ALERT** graphically depicted the rape of an unconscious teen-age girl. This was not an 18 year-0ld playing a 14 year-old. This was truly a 14 year-old, which was obvious from her body type since she was nude in the scene. This gave the film a sense of authenticity and power that was absolutely horrifying. As a cautionary tale, it was even more profoundly disturbing for having this veracity. As a work of creative ambition, this choice made the film's final moments even more deeply affecting.

However, given what I had gone through trying to cast my film, I couldn't help but wonder what parent would let their child do this and how this scene might have affected the actual young actress playing the victim. Shot in Iceland, I simply assumed they may not have the same laws protecting minors that we do here in the States. But beyond the legalities, what were the ramifications? And was the end result that was achieved worth those ramifications or even the risk of adverse ramifications even if there were none? I personally could not answer that because I was so bowled over by the film.

In my thinking, most films that take obvious creative risks and/or convey an authentic and palpable sense of the character's experience are going to rise head and shoulders above all other films. And the bigger the risks, the bigger the potential payoffs...and potential failures - on screen and off. So when are we taking it too far? When is the true life experience of making the film too dangerously secondary to the art we are attempting to create? And is the lasting cultural/social impact of that art ever more important than the lasting personal impact of its creation?

I really don't know the answer since the lines blur for me at a certain point. And I really don't think there is a single answer that an be applied to all filmmaking situations. But I think the answers are less important than the questions. Legalities aside, if you aren't even asking yourself these questions, then you are perhaps dangerously self-absorbed.

With my film, it simply boiled down to a practical/legal matter. If I wanted to show simulated sex, I would have to get an actress over 18. Otherwise, parents would rail in disgust and perhaps torch my home. But also, I could get arrested. The other option was to cast an authentic 14 year-old, but remove the simulated sex and keep everything at the level of suggestion. This second option seemed like the more elegant and poetic choice and, therefore, the choice I made. And I don't regret it. My film didn't need anything more graphic. But some films do demand more if they hope to realize their full power and potential. Tough choices are made. And, perhaps, not without consequence....

"The Revenant" WINS the Audience Award for Best Narrative Feature Film at CineVegas 2009!

2009-06-16T06:50:00.000-07:00

Check it out! -
http://www.cinevegas.com/cv/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=748&Itemid=313

Also, we got this great review from Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News!:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41413

Does that mean the picture is finished and perfect. NO! I my opinion, there's still some work to be done as we rushed it through to it's World Premiere. Also, despite all of the accolades, there were some valid criticisms we need to address. But all relatively simple stuff that is easily addressed.

So, It's all good! We're off and running!....

"The Revenant" at CineVegas 2009

2009-06-07T15:08:00.000-07:00

A film I helped produced is having its WORLD PREMIERE at CineVegas 2009. Hopefully, you can make it out there and/or spread the word to peeps that can. It's gonna be a blast!!!

See ya there!!

http://cinevegas.bside.com/2009/films/therevenant_cinevegas2009

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) Rocks! - Great Directors Festival in June!

2009-05-30T11:56:00.000-07:00

...at least, their programming often rocks. Not sure about their corporate policies. There is some ridiculously bad stuff on fairly frequently, but even that can sometimes be enertaining. Besides, if they only programmed great stuff, I'd never get anything done.

In June, they are having mini-festivals of great directors every day - including Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, Federico Fellini, Martin Scorcese, Orson Welles, John Huston, Francois Truffaut, Akira Kurosawa and many more. Obviously, there are nights that are more exciting for me than others. And there are many great directors not represented (including, unforgivably, NO women). But it's still awesome for what it is - which is like free film school for a month. Here's the line-up:

Schedule June 2009

1 Monday - Leo McCarey and John Ford
2 Tuesday - Victor Fleming and Frank Capra
3 Wednesday - John Sturges and King Vidor
4 Thursday - Sam Wood and Ingmar Bergman
5 Friday - Carol Reed and Steven Spielberg
6 Saturday - William Wyler
7 Sunday - Michael Curtiz
8 Monday - Fritz Lang and Stanley Donen
9 Tuesday - Michael Powell and Fred Zinnemann
10 Wednesday - George Sidney and Preston Sturges
11 Thursday - John Huston and Akira Kurosawa
12 Friday - Jacques Tourneur and Woody Allen
13 Saturday - Billy Wilder
14 Sunday - Howard Hawks
15 Monday - Clarence Brown and Elia Kazan
16 Tuesday - Robert Wise and Orson Welles
17 Wednesday - Tony Richardson And William A. Wellman
18 Thursday - Jules Dassin and Francois Truffaut
19 Friday - Blake Edwards and Martin Scorcese
20 Saturday - Mervyn LeRoy
21 Sunday - Vincente Minnelli
22 Monday - Edward Dmytryk and George Stevens
23 Tuesday - Otto Preminger and Ernst Lubitsch
24 Wednesday - W.S. Van Dyke II and Stanley Kubrick
25 Thursday - Budd Boetticher and Federico Fellini
26 Friday - David Lean and Norman Jewison
27 Saturday - Alfred Hitchcock
28 Sunday - George Cukor
29 Monday - Sidney Lumet and Cecil B. DeMille
30 Tuesday - Robert Z. Leonard and Anthony Mann

For the full schedule of films - with specific titles, synopses and times - go here:
http://www.tcm.com/schedule/month/?cid=N&timezone=EST&oid=6/1/2009

Speaking of festivals, a bit of advice for filmmakers....

2009-05-30T08:19:00.000-07:00

The previous blog was about what filmmakers should consider when selecting festivals and competitions to enter. But, coincidentally, a friend just emailed me telling me her film was in a festival, she was leaving for it today and what advice could I give her.

Well, I was all a-flutter. It was so last minute. Luckily, I had some hints/tips stashed away from missives past and was able to simply pass it on to her. Then it occurred to me to pass it on here, as well - especially as a companion piece to the previous blog.

Some of what is below has become too late in the game for for her to address. But hopefully not for you....

FESTIVAL HINTS AND TIPS (for filmmakers in the fest)

Prior to attending any festival as a filmmaker, there are three key things to do:

1. Research the festival. Where the hell are you going, anyway? What reputation does the festival have? Who goes to it? What do other filmmakers say about it? What does it offer in terms of professional goals? What does it offer in terms events and activities? Is it someplace really cool? Hopefully, the festival offers at least one thing that is worth the trip, otherwise why would you go? And why would you have applied in the first place?

2. Set realistic goals for yourself. Once you know what the fest is about, you can begin setting realistic goals for yourself based on that information. For instance, it is pointless to set a goal of meeting 10 agents and managers at a festival that does not attract any industry. But you may simply set a goal of promoting your screenings, or seeing 1 movie a day, or meeting 5 filmmakers, or meeting wealthy patrons of the festival, or building buzz for your DVD release, or getting shit-faced every night or simply enjoying the city.

3. Be prepared. Once you've set realistic goals for yourself, then prepare for them. Ask yourself what you need to do to accomplish them. That may mean getting in shape if you plan to do a lot of running around - or just plain running. That may mean printing posters, postcards and business cards, or making DVDs of your film or RSVPing to all the official and non-official festival parties (or investigating where and when they even are). It can mean all sorts of things as you think through the accomplishment of your goals. Jump on those things and make sure you have nothing to kick yourself about once you are at the festival.

All that said, once you are at a festival, the chips will fall where they may. But here's a bunch of general guidelines to follow to make sure the festival is the best experience you can possibly have.

• Drink lots of water. And rest when your body needs it.

• Be Active - Take part in everything offered to you.

• Read and respond to all of the stuff you get from the festival staff.

• Meet and engage with the fest programmers, who can give you the inside scoop on all the great things about the fest and the surrounding city. They'll also handle problems quickly with a personal connection.

• Always be gracious and appreciative when dealing with festival staff - even when you need to complain about something. Killing them with kindness works great with stressed out festival staff.

• That said, don't be afraid to complain about stuff. The squeaky wheel does get the oil. Things to look out for - Is there proper printed info about your screening/film in the festival's materials? Are they doing their best to attract an audience? Are you getting the best projection quality the festival is capable of? Are you getting clear and comprehensive information about the fest and all its activities? Is the fest delivering to you everything that it promised you?

• Meet other filmmakers - with whom to build a community of support and with whom you can exchange info, resources, connections, bong hits, etc., etc.. They are your extended family and future collaborators.

• Wherever you go, DON'T BE AFRAID TO TALK. But, please, don't sell. Chat. Be invested/interested in who you chat with. That simple approach can lead you in all kinds of exciting directions.

• Listen. Pay attention to conversations. Some are great to jump into and can lead to wonderful connections. Some have great information which can lead you to get more details. Some just have great dirt.

• Don't waste time handing out postcards/flyers to random people. Put up posters, if you absolutely need to, but if you hand out postcards/flyers to passing strangers, they just end up in the trash. Keep postcards with you in case you engage somebody, then give it to them. In that case, the card has real meaning for them.

• If you are going with your crew/homies/family/friends, spread them out. Don't just hide away with them. Have them help you meet people. Make them your publicity/promotional force.

• Stay fluid - A lot of things happen on the fly or out of the blue. Some of those things are great. Allow yourself room to flow with them.

• Watch films. Watch great movies and be creatively inspired by them. Watch bad films and consider thoughtfully what made them what they are and are not.

• Be yourself!! Whatever you do, don't be desperate! People will naturally be drawn to you if you're relaxed and having fun.

• Go to lots of parties. Get free drinks. Eat free food. Maybe "hook up". In general, just relax and have a great time.

• If the festival simply sucks ass, go explore the surrounding city/area. Even if a festival is in the armpit of the world, there's usually somewhere nice within a short drive. Go out and see it. Turn your bad festival experience into a good life experience.

Competitions and Festivals - managing the lottery mentality

2009-05-19T19:01:00.000-07:00

As you may or may not know, Filmmakers Alliance has been in the submission phase (thru June 19th) of a competition we are presenting called the Ultimate Filmmaker Competition.

It's been interesting witnessing a competition from the perspective of the organizer - just as I once got to witness a festival from the perspective of a festival-maker when we did "DigiDance" up in Park City in 2002.

Festivals and Competitions are a lot of work. It's tough to manage and evaluate submissions. And on top of that, festivals additionally have to create and manage screenings, panels, parties and other interesting programs/events. It is a gargantuan, overwhelming endeavor. But on an emotional level, it's also tough to manage the expectations of the entrants for both festivals and competitions. Especially since I am a filmmaker myself.

The filmmakers' expectations show up in nervous questions about why they should submit - what is the submission process, what are their odds of being selected, what are the benefits of winning, etc. They get stressed out about deadlines and whether or not their submission has everything it needs to be "picked" or if the submission was received at all by the organizers. Hope (often desperation and sometimes flat-out delusion) is the engine that drives them - and that energy is often exploited by competition and festival organizers. These "opportunities" play on the lottery mentality of filmmakers (of our current culture in general, actually) that makes them feel "If I could just win, it will mean blah, blah, blah...". That could be a big "if" depending on the size of the competition/festival. And sometimes, even if you win, it can mean absolutely nothing in the end - in terms of moving your filmmaking life forward (other than what it means for your ego).

Although I truly believe the preponderance of competitions and festivals are on the level, some clearly are not. But even the well-intentioned ones can get caught up in their own needs and grand ambitions and promise things they have no real possibility of delivering. Or, at least, they have little to offer the thousands who submit versus the handful (or single winner) that is selected.

So, why should filmmakers ever bother submitting to things? Well, there are a few key, good reasons, and two of them have nothing to do with actually winning a competition or being selected for a festival. However, winning or being selected is indeed the primary benefit. It's the old lottery-mentality adage: You can't win the race if you aren't IN the race. Or the other one: SOMEBODY's gotta win. And despite my disparaging of the lottery mentality - and as much as our hope, desperation and delusion are exploited - these adages are, nonetheless, true. If you are doing top-notch work (that is also appropriate for the goals of that competition/festival), you will always have a shot - but only if you submit that work for consideration. And if you win the right competition or get into the right festival - your hopes, desperation and delusions can be addressed with real-world and meaningful benefit. But there are so many factors involved in selection (as I know well from the "inside") that you can never be sure of winning or getting selected no matter how great or appropriate your project is. So, it then becomes a sort of numbers game. You submit to enough places and you will probably strike gold with one of them. Sadly, it's no different than trying to find a life partner. You have to kiss a lot of frogs, as they say....But you can't apply to EVERYTHING - nor do you want to. Not all competitions and festivals are worth the price of admission - or even worth your time preparing a submission. There are things to research and consider before buying that lottery ticket.

But if winning or getting selected is not the only reason to enter, what other reasons are there? Well, you need to ask of the competition/festival, "What do I get if I don't win or get selected? Is there a second place? Third place? What are those benefits? What do I get just for entering?" Frankly, most festivals offer nothing if you don't get in. But they also have multiple slots for programming, so it is not a winner-takes-all proposition. And some competitions offer a wide array of consolation prizes, that open up your chances of getting something worthwhile out of your submission. On the other hand, some competitions/festivals just take your submission fee and that's the last you hear from them. You don't even get a rejection letter. That truly sucks. So the key here is to examine each competition/festival and look at your odds of getting SOMETHING meaningful out of submitting to them. Sometimes it is just feedback - which is plenty worth it for a lot of filmmakers/screenwriters.

Aside from that, what other benefit could possibly come from submitting to a competition or festival? Well, I'll give you an example. I submitted my feature film "The Dogwalker" to the Sundance Film Festival. It didn't get in, but it was seriously considered, and, it seems, admired by at least some of the programmers who were considering it. In fact, they admired it enough to recommend it to other festivals (to which I was subsequently offered invitations to screen the film or submit it with a fee waiver). Also, it kind of put me on their radar, so when I submitted subsequent films, they were looked at as part of a body of work or an evolution of it. My next two films played at Sundance. They were short films, but those are, statistically, even harder to get into Sundance than features these days. And it was made clear to me, once I got to know the programmers, that their awareness of me from my previous submission played a part in those selections.

Of course, the point here is that you never know who is reviewing your work. Competitions often build a panel of judges drawn from successful filmmaking professionals. Festivals do, as well, for their festival awards and also often have very well-connected programmers weeding through the top-tier submissions to make their selections. These people could ultimately be champions of your work in a meaningful way even if you don't win or get selected. Sometimes, especially if you don't win or get selected. They may feel your work, then, needs support more than ever since it failed to gain the benefit of the competition or festival. Or maybe they just become fans of your work and are looking for your next project so that they can get behind it even more strongly.

As a filmmaker, I will continue to submit to festivals and competitions. Especially given how tough it is to find opportunities for emerging and/or independent filmmakers to get their films made. Any bit of support is meaningful. But I submit to these things judiciously. Although each individual submission fee will not break the bank, they add up significantly when you are doing dozens of them. So, I simply ask myself a set of questions about each competition/festival before I submit. If all or most of them can be answered to my satisfaction, then I submit. And the questions are these:

For Competitions:
Is this competition right for my project and is my project right for it? (MOST important question. Otherwise, don't bother).
What is the competition offering as a prize?
What is the submission fee versus what is at stake?
Does the competition have more than one winner?
Are there consolation awards? If so, what are they?
Do you get anything at all for just submitting?
What is the competition's level of prestige/visibility? (will a win at least look good on a resume?)
What is the competition's history and reputation? (If it is the competition's first year, what is the organizer's reputation?)
Who's evaluating and/or judging the submissions?
Does it offer other opportunities to connect with filmmakers and/or beneficial filmmaking professionals?

For Festivals:
Is this festival right for my project and is my project right for it?
What is the festival's history and reputation? (If it is the festival's first year, what is the organizer's reputation?)
What is the festival's level of prestige/visibility? (will selection at least look good on a resume?)
What is the quality of programming?
What is the submission fee?
Does the festival offer awards?
What other events/activities does the festival offer?
Does the festival attract quality filmmakers and/or filmmaking professionals?
Does it offer opportunities to connect with them without stalking them?
Where is the festival located? (Is it someplace I'd like to visit, in any case?)

Obviously, the answers to all of these questions don't have to be ridiculously fabulous. But when assessing the answers, the positives should clearly outweigh the negatives. And if they do, then I roll the dice. And I rarely lose....because I've already proven to myself that something good will come out of it.

Jarmusch's "The Limits Of Control"

2009-05-07T07:46:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite things at Filmmakers Alliance is the various discussion groups we sporadically hold. Small groups of us get together to discuss anything related to film and filmmaking. And any member of the organization can arrange to have them. Often, they are around various filmmaking topics such as "Point Of View", "Color and Composition" or even "What is Cinema?" and sometimes they are set up for argument such as "Do We Need Antagonists in Film?" or "The 3-Act Structure: Time For It To Die?". Other times, we'll simply go see a film and discuss it. This is what we did last night.

Sometimes the more difficult (or even unpleasant) a film is, the more room there is for discussion. This couldn't be more true for Jim Jarmusch's new, inscrutable film "The Limits Of Control". I say inscrutable, although there is much in the film that seems completely obvious - even sorta campy. But the bulk of the film is anything but obvious. I don't want to have to give a spoiler alert so I'll avoid giving any details about the film - which is tricky given that I want to talk about what the film stimulated in our discussion - without giving away the specific elements in the film.

What I will say is that the discussion quickly became an investigation - with all of us trying to solve a mystery or put together a puzzle built from a number of cinematic set pieces. In Jarmusch's films, the director's hand is never hidden - sometimes it's directly in your face, even to the point of obscuring your own experience of the film - so it's easy to assume that everything you see is by design,...by intention. You can then just as easily fall into the trap - as we did via a post-screening discussion - of trying to figure out the "meaning" of what we saw. Or, I should say, trying to ascertain the director's intent. But the conversation became much more interesting when we each began assigning our own meanings to the film and making our own connections without trying to justify them through "directorial intent".

But if there is an intention to embrace in Jarmusch's film - and his work, over-all - it is to eschew clear intention all-together. I don't think he cares a lick about whether or not you get his "meaning". To me, he seems more concerned with investigating things for himself and allowing anything to be brought into question for the audience. He throws a lot of stuff at us that feels like red herrings - roads that seemingly lead nowhere and repetitious actions/sequences whose purpose is never made completely clear to us. But I don't believe they are as much red herrings as they are simply very idiosyncratic and personal back alleys Jarmusch enjoys exploring more than the path most familiar to audiences. Maybe they are a bit of both. No doubt Jarmusch enjoys playing with both form and content in his films.

This kind of stuff, of course, infuriates narrative traditionalists. When A plus B does not clearly equal C, some people begin to feel jerked around and angrily denounce the filmmaker as "self-indulgent", or, hit them with the even more dreaded epithet, "boring". Even for those of us that embrace non-traditional narratives - are starved for them, actually - there is much that can annoy us in Jarmusch's new film. His studied "cool", his use of interesting actors mouthing quirky, self-conscious, pseudo-profound dialogue, his sometimes obvious/silly film references and his occasional sledge-hammer thematics can all conspire to pull me out of his films at various times. Watching Jarmusch's films is, for me, like digging for buried treasure except Jarmusch is wielding the shovel and I am his captive, silent partner. Where he chooses to dig and how deep is beyond my control. I partner with him, nonetheless, because I know he will always find enough "treasure" to make it worth my while even if I'm not always compelled by where he chooses to dig and what he happens to find.

JIM JARMUSCH - ONE COOL CAT

But in the discussion after the film, we ultimately did our own digging and found some of our own treasures. We were able, at some point, to let go of what we think Jarmusch's work means to him and focus on what it means to us. And, indeed, not everything we found was treasure. Or even pleasure. But how many films or filmmakers allow you to take your own journey - for better or for worse - inside their films? Many do, actually, but they are not always easily found. Jarmusch gets to do this kind of work with relatively substantial budgets and roll his films out on a scale that doesn't make it a chore to find the film. Is that a good or a bad thing? Depends on your perspective. Is this a "good" or a "bad" Jarmusch film? Again, it's all about perspective. But for me, those kind of subjective judgments are pointless and limiting. The film made us see, think and feel...and then discuss what we saw, thought and felt at length. It took us beyond the parameters of the cinematic experience. In that, lies the film's value...and, to my mind, it's true purpose.

In a Jarmusch film, the journey always seems more important than the destination - as it should be in life (since we all end up at the same lifeless destination, eventually). But my feelings about his (and others') films are the exact opposite. I may not always like the roads he chooses to walk, but I always like where they leave me when the trip is over.

Great Film Site For Those Tired Of The Ordinary/Mundane

2009-05-07T07:41:00.001-07:00

Check it out:

http://www.ubu.com/film/

The First Quarter Of The Year In The Life Of This Filmmaker

2009-04-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

I knew it would come to this, and it may get worse, yet. It has gone from "A Day In The Life Of..." to "A Week..." to "A Month..." and now "The First Quarter Of The Year...". Sounds like some kind of business spreadsheet. But I've admitted it before and I'll admit it again, I'm a lousy blogger. At least in terms of consistency. I allow myself to become too distracted by other things. In fact, I've been told I have an addiction to distraction. Probably true. The upside to that is I have absolutely no other addictions or obsessions. Even drug addiction takes a single-mindedness of purpose that my addiction to distraction simply won't allow.

I was a sprinter in high school and it is an apt metaphor for the way I approach work and creativity. I do things in mad, insanely productive bursts of energy. But I spend most of the rest of the time avoiding those bursts, or, at least, distracting myself from the necessity for them. And it drives me crazy about myself. I'm the hare who envies the tortoise. I'm a genius-level procrastinator who believes nothing I do today will be as good as it will be tomorrow (while torturing myself with the knowledge that I'm totally bullshitting myself). Yes, tomorrow! That will be the day everything gets done! Ah, what an exciting, productive day tomorrow will be! Unfortunately, I simply wind up with a lot of unproductive todays and yesterdays. Well,...sorta...

I still manage, somehow, to get things done. A lot of things, actually. How do I do it? Well, that's not what this blog is about. But since I went there, I'll answer the question before I give my First Quarter Report. The key for me to getting things done is first and foremost accepting that I am indeed a procrastinator and distraction addict. To deny those things is to give them subconscious power rather than confine them to conscious power. I can deal with my conscious behavior but I'm helpless against my sub or unconscious behavior. My name is Jacques and I'm a distraction junkie. There, I've acknowledged it. It no longer it exists in my dark shadow free to do whatever it pleases. Now, the addiction must operate in the light of day.

The next step is to manage these impulses/behaviors. Sometimes, it takes just straight up willpower - the old 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration axiom. I don't want to write, or prepare that proposal or make that phone call. But I do it anyway. Or, when it comes to writing, I at least I sit my butt down in front of a computer for a set number of hours whether something comes or not. But I can't always tough it out. I don't like perspiring all the time. And, in fact, it sometimes creates an adverse reaction in me, making the next time I need to write (or whatever I MUST do) more difficult than ever.

So, I chart at my organic energy and rhythms - my "life patterns" (as dysfunctional as they may be) - and manipulate them to the advantage of productivity. Meaning, I know I am more productive in the morning (other people are the exact opposite - they get shit done in the middle of the night), so I wake up early. I am less productive in the middle of the day, so that's when I cut myself slack. I am very social in the evening/night, so that's when I plan stuff that involves other people. I keep my life/schedule fairly flexible so that when I'm in a productive burst or sprint, I can keep running and not have to stop. I know what fuels my creative energy - experiencing others' creative work - so I do that as often as possible. I know what kills my creative energy - excessive drinking - so I do that as little as possible (again, it's just the opposite for other peeps). I'm not saying I don't drink, I just avoid getting shit-faced on a regular basis.

Most importantly, perhaps, I know I am a distraction junkie, so I make sure the things I use to distract myself are productive in themselves. So, I make sure I am juggling many different - and different kinds - of projects. It doesn't help me to juggle several writing projects because writing is writing. And if I don't feel like writing, I won't write anything, period. So, I have writing projects and directorial projects and producing projects and Filmmakers Alliance projects and home repair projects and gardening projects and help-my-friends projects. I also exercise and pay my bills and wash the car and yadda, yadda. The key is not just that I create/pile-up all of these things. I mean, everybody has stuff to do. The key is how I arrange addressing them.

For instance, I know that I need to balance writing with physical activity. So, I work out after I write or do home repair or wash my car or walk my dog or wash my dog. I have to drink after I pay bills so I pay them in the evening and roll into a night of drinking/social activity. After a tough work out and hot shower, I usually have to nap, so I finish my work-outs in middle to late afternoon, when I otherwise normally experience a dip in energy. And I never pressure myself as to how long I do any one thing. As long as I START doing it. Usually, I will continue doing it for awhile before I get distracted. So, I bounce from this to that and that to this in a way that doesn't cause me stress, distress, guilt, tedium or any other corrosive emotional side effect. I use awareness of my issues to my benefit. To some degree, I purposely give into them - just as alcoholics use their addictive personalities to become addicted to sobriety and AA meetings instead of booze. Eventually, I get a lot of shit done.

Now, granted, it is harder to do this if you are married or have kids or both. But it is only harder, not impossible. It simply takes folding these additional elements into your self-strategizing and negotiating a little understanding and support from your family (maybe this is the toughest part). But it can be done and, no matter how good of a procrastinator you are (there are none better than me) or how bad of a distraction junkie you are, you can create/get shit done! And for the rest of your life.....and then you die.

But before I die, I will continue to lead the filmmaker's life. And this first quarter of the year was a busy, transitional one. I did a lot of festival stuff - the Sundance thing in January then off to Berlin in February, both of which I already blogged about. I did Cinequest in March and just got back from the Ashland Independent Film Festival on Tuesday. What was I doing at all of these fests besides regretting that I haven't directed a film in 3 years? Well, I already answered that about Sundance and Berlin. As for the other two, however, I am on the Board of Advisors for the Ashland Independent Film Festival and was a juror for the short documentary section and was therefore invited up for all of the fun and to hand out the award. At Cinequest, I was a juror for the screenwriting competition and was also invited to play/participate. Both of these fests are fun, well-funded (although the organizers may argue that point), well-organized, well-programmed festivals with strong attendance and lots of local support. They are regional fests - not "industry fests" - and in most respects, truly what film festivals are all about. But they are also run by really considerate, smart, creative, lovely people and for me, going back every year is like visiting family. I also, of course, get the opportunity to meet filmmakers and spread the gospel of Filmmakers Alliance. And last but not least, I get to see new films.

I've started writing my new script in earnest - hopefully, my next directorial feature - but, as noted above, it's going slowly. I had written another feature I was excited to do, but then I got divorced. I wrote it expressly for my actress ex-wife and simply can't muster the emotional energy to do it right now - with her or anyone else - since making films with her was a romantic endeavor for me. Also, the money to make it dried up, so I took that as a sign that I simply have to move on. At least, for now.

In general, my creative energy has taken a big hit since the divorce, given that having a talented actress for a wife made it easy to use her as a muse. But I'm slowly starting to recover that energy a bit. I want to make a short, but have been struggling with which of the somewhat mediocre ideas I should pursue. Yes, I admit that the ideas are mediocre, but nothing better is striking me. And I think creativity feeds on itself, so it's best to always be doing something. As Sean Hood says "Creativity is not something you have, it's something you do". I'll look at it as a challenge to take one of these mediocre ideas to the next level through execution.

In the meantime, been juggling producing projects. I've been mostly absent on Kerry Prior's horror-buddy-comedy "The Revenant" since,...oh, I'd say...pre-production. But he handled things well through production with my producing partner Liam Finn's able support. And he's inching through post (lots of comp shots) very capably. I think it's going to be a strong film and do very well out in the world. I like to convince myself that I weigh in at key moments and for key issues. Self-delusion can be so pleasant sometimes, can't it? We're also narrowing in on funding for Babak Shokrian's "The Apology". In fact, I have a conference call with a potential German co-producer in about 15 minutes. Still marginally, involved with artist Lauren Bon's epic "Silver and Water" project for her Metabolic Studio - but more of a participant/consultant than as a producer. It's amazing to see the project slowly take shape and how her sculptor/artist's eye creates beautiful imagery and unexpectedly beautiful and meaningful juxtapositions of those images. Finally, still working on drumming up sales for my old first feature "The Dogwalker" - which just means doing a little internet promotion whenever I can.

My day to day filmmaking life is mostly taken up by Filmmakers Alliance - primarily preparations/planning for our online global launch and the Ultimate Filmmaker Competition, but tons of other stuff, too. Won't bore you with all of those details other than to say that keeping a community like FA vibrant demands a lot of,...well,...vibrancy. Meaning, we have to kick up a lot of dust and keep kicking it up day in and day out - screenings, labs, script reads, discussion forums, seminars, meetings, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, scooby-do, scooby-do... I hate to sound so tired and cynical because I truly love all of this stuff. But they're all far more exciting to do than to talk about. Finally, there's absolutely nothing exciting about raising money (except when you get it), but it is also something I need to push forward every day. Got something on the horizon with a new investor prospect that will support both FA and individual projects. Can't talk about it now, of course, but I'll know more in a week. Don't worry, I'll keep you all posted.

In the meantime, gotta do this conference call about "The Apology". Then do more work on my script. Then scratch up some breakfast. Then have another conference call about the new FA website. Then exercise my dog. Then do more FA work. Then wash my car. Then work out. Then nap and/or make some work/fundraising phone calls. Then write some proposals and do some work promoting the Ultimate Filmmaker Competition. Then roll into the night before sleeping then starting all over again....Ah, the life....And I'm getting shit done before I die. That's important.....isn't it?

CALIFORNIA FILM & TELEVISION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

2009-04-04T09:01:00.000-07:00

If you're a Cali filmmaker or thinking of shooting here in CA, you should check this out below. And if you aren't shooting here, you should check out the incentives in your own state/town/region/country/etc.

More info on incentives/resources for filming in CA can be found here: http://www.film.ca.gov/ProductionTools/Incentives.html

CALIFORNIA FILM & TELEVISION INCENTIVE PROGRAM

On February 20, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation creating tax credits for film and television productions as part of an economic stimulus provision in the new state budget. The California Film Commission is currently developing program guidelines and application procedures. Applications will be available on June 1, 2009. Applications will be accepted on a first come, first served basis beginning on July 1, 2009.

How the Tax Credit Works

Qualified taxpayers are allowed a credit against income and/or sales and use taxes, based on qualified expenditures, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011. Credits applied to income tax liability are not refundable. Only tax credits issued to an “independent film” may be transferred or sold to an unrelated party. Other qualified taxpayers may carryover tax credits for 5 years and transfer tax credits to an affiliate.

How much was allocated to the program?

$100 million annually beginning fiscal year 2009/2010 through fiscal year 2013/2014
$10 million of the annual funding shall be set aside for independent films
Any unused funds carryover to the next fiscal year

How are the funds allocated?

Tax Credits will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, as long as funds are available within each fiscal year. On each day that applications are received, they will be selected at random via a daily lottery.
Each approved project will receive a credit allocation “reservation” pending the project’s continued eligibility and final documentation.
The final credit allocation will be the lesser of: 1) the estimated reservation amount or 2) an amount based on final qualified spend.

What Types of Productions Qualify for the Program?

To apply for the California Film and Television Incentive Program, a “qualified motion picture” must be one of the following:

(Eligible for 20% Tax Credit):

Feature Films ($1 million minimum - $75 million maximum production budget)
Movies of the week or miniseries ($500,000 minimum production budget)
New television series licensed for original distribution on basic cable ($1 million minimum budget; one-half hour shows and other exclusions apply)

(Eligible for 25% Tax Credit):

A television series, without regard to episode length, that filmed all of its prior seasons outside of California.
An "independent film" ($1 million − $10 million budget that is produced by a company that is not publicly traded and that publicly traded companies do not own more than 25% of the producing company.)

A "qualified motion picture" must also meet the following conditions:

75% test (production days or total production budget) in California
Application must be submitted at least 30 days prior to principal photography
Once application is approved, principal photography must begin within 180 days and post production must be completed within 30 months

What expenditures qualify?

"Qualified expenditures" are amounts paid or incurred for the purchase or lease of tangible personal property and qualified wages for services performed in California.

The following costs are not qualified expenditures:

Any costs incurred prior to application approval will not qualify for credits.
Wages paid to writers, directors, music directors, music composers, music supervisors, producers and performers, other than background actors with no scripted lines.
Expenses, including wages, related to new use, reuse, clip use, licensing, secondary markets, residual compensation or the creation of any ancillary produced including but not limited to, a soundtrack album, toy, game, trailer or teaser.
Expenses related to acquisition, development, turnaround or any rights thereto; financing, overhead, marketing, promotion, or distribution of a qualified motion picture.
State and Federal Income taxes.
Audit expenses; Completion bond.

What types of productions are not eligible for the incentive program?

Commercials; music videos; TV pilots; news programs; current events or public affairs programs; talk shows; game shows; sporting events; ½ hour (airtime) episodic TV shows; awards shows; productions that solicit funds; reality programs; student films; industrial films; clip based programming where more than 50% of content is comprised of licensed footage; documentaries; variety programs; daytime dramas; strip shows; pornography.

Application Procedures

The California Film Commission is developing application procedures. Once established, applications will be accepted on a first come first served basis beginning on July 1, 2009 as long as funds are available within each fiscal year.

The open application period will be announced by the CFC prior to each new fiscal year for the duration of the program.
Applications will be accepted on a first come first served basis. This process will be run as a daily lottery each business day.
Applications must be submitted at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the start of principal photography.
Applications that meet program criteria will be accepted and credits will be assigned (reserved) until the annual allocation is exhausted.
Within 10 business days of receiving the requested supporting materials, the CFC will notify the applicant of accepted or rejected status. Credit will be assigned (reserved) to all accepted applicants until the annual allocation is exhausted.
If the application meets the criteria and is approved, the production must begin principal photography no later than 180 days from approval date which is the date the allocation reservation letter is issued. (If the production does not begin filming prior to the 180 day deadline, the reservation of credits will be forfeited and the applicant will be placed back in the queue. There will be no guarantee that additional credits will be available once placed in the queue.)
Once a qualified television series has been approved and accepted into the program, that series will be placed at the top of the queue for lottery numbering (based on order received) for each successive year in the life of that series whenever credits are assigned within a fiscal year.
Once an application is accepted, the primary producer, UPM and production accountant or other appropriate personnel will be required to attend an orientation meeting with the CFC.

Swing For The Fences!

2009-03-05T09:14:00.000-08:00

I hate sports metaphors because they are always so cliche. But this particular one - "swing for the fences" - was the one that came to mind when I read a script for a friend recently. For those of you who don't know (it's a big world, gang, and not everyone loves/knows sports), "swing for the fences" is a baseball phrase that means to try to hit the baseball as hard and far as you can, rather than just safely connecting with the ball.

The script I read reminded me of the thousands of scripts that safely try to connect with the ball. They are solid and well-crafted, but offer no distinctive voice or perspective - nor add anything new to the language of cinema. There's nothing that can't be found in these scripts that can't be found in a thousand other scripts. It makes me wonder why someone would apply their time, energy, talent and/or skill to such mediocrity.

Maybe because that's exactly what commercial Hollywood likes to make. However, they HATE to admit it. They like to believe they are making something fresh and exciting (and every once in awhile, important). So, when you hand them something mediocre, they immediately dismiss it as derivative, because indeed it is. Too many filmmakers use other films as their creative reference point, rather than other art forms and/or life experiences.

Commercial Hollywood would MUCH rather gobble up your wildly original screenplay, and then hire a bunch of overpaid hack rewriters to turn it into derivative drivel that they can call their very own. You see, it's not derivative work they hate, it's just YOUR derivative work they hate. They seem to be endlessly pleased with their own.

So, whether you want to play in the commercial Hollywood world or if you want to make truly original, meaningful films, you have to "swing for the fences" in your writing - or in the scripts you look to develop or direct. You have to have a script in hand that is original in a way that still speaks clear cinematic language, but with a unique and stunning syntax of its own. Then, you can collect the bucks while you sit back and watch commercial Hollywood desecrate it. Or, you may get lucky and become the next Charlie Kaufman - writing and making distinctive, but odd and overly-intellectualized quirks of cinematic art that "name" actors adore (and therefore help get his pictures made - until studios realize they don't make any money). Or you may get to realize your films as written, with all of its distinctive brilliance intact.

But exactly how do we "swing for the fences" in our scripts? Well, you need to be fluent in a couple of key things. First off, it's important to know where the fence is - you need to know the type of film/genre you are creating and it's particular language and history. How can you know if you are creating something original if you don't know what's come before? Just because it is seems to come from you - and no where else that you are conscious of - doesn't always make it original. Our aesthetics are informed by so many cultural influences, we have no idea how much of it is our own distinctive perspective and how much is the cultural zeitgeist (which is often simply the product of effective marketing). You need to truly have some tangible knowledge of the kind of film you are making - where it's been aesthetically and why it is there (why its particular "rules" exist), if you are going to move beyond those aesthetics or even subvert them.

Secondly, you need to understand your own aesthetic....or, even more importantly, your own deep impulses/obsessions/fantasies/dreams, etc. What are the kinds of things that seize hold of your mind? What are they when realized to the extreme? Can they be integrated into a "story"? What do you know about yourself that others don't? What excites you that doesn't seem to excite anybody else? What embarrasses you? These distinctive quirks - which may seem to alienate you from others - are exactly the things you need to find that extra bit of power to push the ball over the fence - meaning, to give your script the originality it needs to stand out amongst the thousands of others. You really need to dig around inside yourself for these treasures. Or, if you are capable of working intuitively, just "let go" and allow them to come out.

For example, when I was growing up, I was plagued by apocalyptic dreams/nightmares. And they would recur throughout my life in times of high stress (I don't have them often, anymore, thank goodness). A multitude of doomsday scenarios would play out in my sleep - always leaving me shaken when I awoke - and strangely embarrassed. Now those dreams are perfect fodder for my latest script and serves it on many levels - psychologically (for the main character - not me), visually and thematically. When I first conceived of the idea and began working on the treatment, I wasn't even consciously thinking of those dreams. I was just exploring a sort of existential angst and a contradictory attraction/fear of chaos that played out in my relationships. Those dreams just organically appeared in the development of the main character and, eventually, in the story.

You don't always have to know exactly what's going on inside of you. In fact, it is often better if you don't, so your work is not too "controlled", schematic or self-conscious. But if what is deep and distinctive about you is not spilling forth organically, you need to get down inside yourself and dig it out. You can try what I do, sometimes - to literally sit with a pad and pen (not a computer) and list all of the things you think are "weird" about yourself. List your darkest, most shameful thoughts/fantasies. List your obsessions and excesses. Your weird dreams. Your paranoid ideas. Your embarrassing moments. But don't just list the dark stuff, also list the things about yourself that you find distinctly charming or funny or sublimely ridiculous. And if none of that seems too "extreme" or unique, play them out in your head to some logical (or illogical) extreme - then write it down again. If you start to feel foolish about doing this, remind yourself that some of the stuff on that list will provide the power in your "swing". It will allow you to take a script you've written or otherwise control and push it to the next level. Remind yourself that your creative and/or professional life depends on your ability to do this.

That said, there are obviously plenty of places for well-intentioned mediocrity because we see it in movies and on t.v. - ad nauseum. And if you continue to create well-intentioned mediocrity, you might possibly outlast the millions of other mediocrity-creators and forge a career for yourself doing mediocre t.v. and/or movies. But if you aspire to more than that, then you need to know where the fence is (by understanding the structure, language and history of your film type/genre), and give yourself the power to knock the ball over it (by exploiting your distinctive aesthetic/neuroses/charm). Then, step up to the plate and create a script that will leave them stunned, excited, angry, confused, offended, heart-broken, elated...and/or, in any other way, DEEPLY AFFECTED.

Only then can you truly forgive my bad sports cliche. And only then can you create work that really means something....most of all, to yourself.

Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale) and European Film Market (EFM) 2009

2009-02-24T21:09:00.000-08:00

What's an American low-budget indie filmmaker doing at the Berlinale/EFM without having a film at either, you ask? Well, looking for money, of course. But I found much, much more.

MY BLURRY ACCREDITATION CARD

A lot of the American indie films I'm exposed to through Filmmakers Alliance and at festivals are, for the most part, very...well,....American. Even many of the docs I see. These films are often so infused with a uniquely American sensibility - aesthetic, structure, pacing, cultural references, ideology, etc. - that I often fret about how they will play to a global audience. I truly want to make and support films that speak to a global audience - films that aren't purely genre/entertainment, but still speak the universal language of cinema and don't demand mastery of specific American culture/language/idioms/history.

A RELIC OF OLD COMMIE EAST BERLIN - THE GOOD OLD DAYS

I was lucky enough to be invited to help produce Babak Shokrian's next feature film "The Apology". Babak is an FA member whose first film, "America So Beautiful", played at the Berlinale in 2002 and I attended it with my then-wife Diane Gaidry, who was in the film. We all fell in love with Berlin, the festival and the global filmmaking community - which is very different than the American independent filmmaking community in some subtle, but key ways.

Most obviously is that fact that many global filmmakers are independent by design. Places like France, Germany and Sweden have big studios, but not nearly as many as the U.S. and not nearly as dominant globally. So, most filmmakers find financing through state-supported agencies - or, at least, some significant portion of their financing. And the focus for these agencies, more often than not, is on how the filmmaking process can enrich the economy AND the finished film can enrich the culture of the funding region. So, there's no focus on big stars and big box office. Yes, the potential of those things are exciting to the funding agencies, but not the focus - as they are in so much of U.S. financing strategies. Sounds lovely, doesn't it? And it is, but we must also keep in mind that those state-supported agencies are still limited channels of funding and, thus, highly competitive.

TYPICALLY CLEAN AND ALWAYS TIMELY GERMAN TRAIN/SUBWAY WITH MY BIG FOOT IN THE FOREGROUND

However, Babak's new film is an excellent candidate for state funding in Germany, as well as for one of the large regional funds available to filmmakers . Here's the synopsis for the film:

1992. FARZAD FOROUZAN, at one time Iran’s most celebrated showman, broadcasts anti-fundamentalist rhetoric from an underground radio station in Bonn, Germany, years after having fled the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Farzad’s glory has long since faded -- no longer is he meeting with the Queen of Iran, standing before cameras or beneath the bright lights of the stage. Instead, he sings in a small Iranian cabaret to make ends meet.

Vilified for his beliefs and homosexuality, he's burned the bridges that lead to his beloved motherland, but is introduced to a loyal ‘fan’ who promises to secure his return to Iran where millions of people supposedly await his return. “Khomeini is dead”, the fan proclaims, “Change is in the air”. Farzad falls prey to his own arrogance and longing - for his homeland and his ailing mother. He entertains the idea of actually going back to Iran even though there’s a FATWA on his life. However, he soon discovers that the fatwa would be lifted, allowing him to return safely...under one condition: He must give a public apology for his outspoken criticism of the regime - thus denouncing his passionately held beliefs.

The apology is clearly intended to humiliate Farzad and show Iranians all over the world the current regime has won the ideological battle between East and West. Although Farzad himself believes simply that love and not hate should be the guiding principles of his country and religion, those principles have not guided him quite so simply in his personal life. As the time draws near for Farzad to make a decision, each detail of his life informs that decision as he struggles to resolve the ideological and the personal - with the direction of his life...perhaps his life, itself, hanging in the balance.

So, the film shoots in Germany, has a modest budget, can use an all-
German crew and a nearly all-German cast. It's unique, but based on a true story and character. So, off we went to the Berlinale/EFM to look for money. It was me, Producer Elizabeth Stanley and Babak.

BABAK AND ELIZABETH STANLEY NEXT TO A PIECE OF THE BERLIN WALL
(IT WAS THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF IT COMING DOWN)

The best, most effective strategy for attending any event, for any purpose, is to do a lot of preparation in advance. Even if you are just going to the festival to have a good time and see films, you should do all of the pre-fest work of obtaining a list of the films, getting passes/tickets, securing travel and lodging, finding out what other events/parties are taking place and soliciting invitations, finding out who else is going or who you might know there who can add to the experience, etc., etc. This is all done well in advance of actually showing up. Yes, there's a ton of stuff you can do on the fly, but it's much harder and you risk being shut out of a lot of things. Of course, this is especially true of larger festivals like Sundance and the Berlinale/EFM, where there is soooo much going on, but still a lot of competition to get into all of these things.

OPENING NIGHT AT THE BERLINALE - BIG, CROWDED, SWANKY FUN

Elizabeth is a smart, diligent and determined worker who has built up a lot of contacts over the years and was able to secure some good meetings for us prior to heading over there. As usual, I was able to get us some party invitations through friends Peter Belsito and Sydney Levine of Film Finders, who know a ton of people and never miss the Berlinale/EFM. In fact, they own a nice apartment in Berlin and we had dinner with them there one night. Party invitations are always important because that is where a lot of connections/introductions get made and even where serious business sometimes gets done. But you have to know which parties to go to and whom to contact to solicit invitations. For that, you need to talk to people who have been there before you. Just keep in mind that nearly every film premiering there has a party and nearly every film council from around the world has a reception. Then there are "company" parties and other little dinners and get-togethers.

THE ROCKIN' SHORT FILM PARTY AT HOME BASE - WHICH IS RUN BY THE VERY SMART AND VERY COOL SIMON CHAPPUZEAU

Hotels (and short term apartment rentals) are relatively inexpensive especially in the former East Berlin in neighborhoods like Kreuzberg and Prenzlauer Berg. I stayed with my friend, Christine (pronounced like Christina) Knauff whom I've known for years (and met through a friend in L.A.) and who has a large, lovely flat in Prenzlauer Berg that she shares with her very sweet boyfriend, Thomas.

If you can demonstrate industry credentials, you can get a limited pass to the Berlinale/EFM for 100 Euros (about $130 at the time) - which you order online at the Berlinale website a few weeks in advance. This allows you to go to select screenings at the Berlinale and entrance to certain events and parties. It's the best ticket in town. It also allows you to walk into the Market. The festival screenings are all over town in some great theaters, but the screening hub is the Cinemaxx multi-plex located in the center of Berlin, Potsdamer Platz - where the wall used to be, but is now a very modern, developed area. It's also where the festival headquarters are located as well as the Berlin Palast (the big palace for many of the bigger films and premieres). The EFM is located inside something called the Martin-Gropius building a relatively short walk from the Cinemaxx. However, Berlin can be cold as hell during that time of year (early February) and, when it is, that walk can feel like its miles long.

The Market is a big hall overrun with temp offices representing the major film companies and state-run film councils from all around the world. Notably, there is no U.S. presence. And no U.S. party. Probably because there is no U.S. film council or governmental Arts agency at all. Anyway, it's not unlike AFM, only it doesn't feel nearly as cheesy and doesn't cost you an arm and leg just to walk through it. If you haven't set up meetings previously, you can go around to the various film councils/companies and try to set up meetings. But you better have done your research so that you have something interesting to pitch and a good reason for them to meet you.

THE FANCY GERMAN FILMS SUITE AT THE EFM

So there's the set-up. Now, here's what happened: Meetings. Meetings. And, oh, did I mention...meetings. That was followed by parties and more parties, but they still felt like meetings. The Opening Night party was fancy and very fun and well-stocked with great food and booze and lots of German film bigshots. We had fun making American asses out of ourselves. The EFM and film council parties are typically swankier, but the film premiere parties are more fun. And sadly, we didn't see a single film. Not one. I feel so ashamed.

BABAK AND CHRISTIAN AT THE PANORAMA PARTY

But we were there to work and work we did. We met with lots of companies, mostly German, to talk about co-producing "The Apology". The way it works is, if you want to get German state funding, you need to partner with a German production company. They will have relationships with the funders (ideally, anyway) help manage the production and see to it that you meet the criteria for funding...if they respond to your project. Every one we met with responded very positively. But none has signed on the dotted line, yet. But our follow-up work is just beginning. This is a long process. But I'm learning a lot about international financing which I will share in a later blog.

What little I did experience of the festival seemed fantastic, as always. It is a HUGE festival with numerous different sections and sidebars, but always impeccably organized (very German). Our hostess of sorts, Ela Gurmen, who runs Guest Services for the Panorama section of the festival, was lovely and gracious and hooked us up with all kinds of fun. We met her back in 2002 when we first came to the fest. Sadly, I saw very little of Berlin, but saw much of it on previous trips. It's really a fun, beautiful, exciting city. And easy for American-types (non-multi-lingual) like me to communicate as so many Germans speak some level of English. The food is, well, German. But some of the more ethnic neighborhoods have amazing food. And the range of choices seems to get better every year.

AMERICAN FANTASY/CONSUMERISM SPREADING THE EARTH - NOTE THE ARTICLE TITLES OF THIS MAGAZINE - IF THIS WERE ENGLISH IT WOULD BE HOW I FEEL WHEN I'M IN L.A.

If you want to go to an amazing festival, hook into the Global filmmaking community, learn about international film financing and have a generally awesome time in a great (but very cold) European city, then I suggest you start planning now to attend Berlinale/EFM 2010. Buy your plane tickets early for the best price, get lodging early, do your research to set up meetings (if appropriate), secure party invites and/or visit great Berlin tourist spots. Get your accreditation (pass) early, get a movie schedule and pick films and finally, find out who else will be there to share the fun. You can count me in.

Park City/Sundance/Slamdance 2009

2009-02-06T21:21:00.000-08:00

I meant to write and upload my blog several times WHILE I was in Park City, but was always too busy experiencing it to take the time to comment on it. I would certainly suck as a Twitterer. So, here I am in the Amsterdam airport on my way to Berlin with an hour and a half to kill before my flight. Finally I am getting around to blogging about Park City 2009. And what do I have to say?....Not much.

Not because it wasn't a wonderful time. It was, indeed. Maybe BECAUSE it was a wonderful time. I've been to Park City/Sundance/Slamdance/Other Dances so many times, it's like clockwork for us. When and how to get a place to stay, to get tickets, to get party invites, etc., are all practiced exercises about which there was, thankfully, little drama. I actually wrote a little Sundance handbook a few years ago for filmmakers who had films in the fest (I had "Transaction" in 2006). But it's a helpful guide for anybody heading up for the fest. If you want a copy, just send me a note with your return email and I'll send it off to you.

We drove up again, as usual, because we have an outreach table in the Sundance Filmmaker Lodge every year and have to haul all of our stuff for it. The drive from LA is about 12 hours with leisurely stops (particularly in Vegas), and really easy with 3 people. It was me, Executive Director Amanda Sweikow and filmmaker P.J. Letofsky, who's self-distributing his film "Polly's Global Walk", the doc he made about his sister walking around the world to raise money for cancer research.

We only went 5 days this time and only saw 4 movies. And sadly, didn't get over to Slamdance at all (making the title of this blog misleading). Between having that Outreach table, knowing a lot of the programmers and filmmakers and hanging with people who all had Sundance passes,....that fest consumed us. In general, the economic crunch was clearly felt - which was a minus and a plus. The smaller crowd might have hurt the fests in terms of attendance and sponsorship, but it made it much more pleasant for us attendees. There was still plenty of people (and plenty of the right people) in attendance, but you could walk Main St. unmolested. And although many of the parties were cut back or cut out completely, it eliminated a lot of the clubby, party crowd that clogs the streets every year and doesn't give two shits about film. Swag culture was way dialed back, too (I didn't even see any of those ridiculously upscale swag boutiques), which no one missed except the celebrities and hanger-ons who get all of that gaudy stuff. And finally, getting tickets to films (if you didn't purchase a package) was not only possible, it was fairly easy.

My two favorite Sundance parties each year are the Shorts Party and the World Cinema Party. I missed the World Cinema Party, having left before it took place, but had a good time, as usual at the Shorts Party. Adobe used to sponsor it somewhat lavishly, but they had to cut back last year and didn't sponsor at all this year. Nonetheless, the party didn't suffer one bit. Short filmmakers are an eager, passionate lot - unaffected by the anxiety that swirls around the feature filmmakers who must use the Sundance opportunity to desperately work for a sale or launch themselves in some way. Short filmmakers are just happy to be there and it shows in their attitude.

GOOD BUDDY AND PRODUCER ROGER MAYER ("BIG RIVER MAN") AND SUNDANCE PROGRAMMER KIM YUTANI AT THE SUNDANCE SHORTS PARTY

Unfortunately, since we only saw 4 movies, that part of the experience was rather hit and miss. I loved "Hump Day". It's a true Indie Film, although it is certainly not cinema art (Indie films, unfortunately, rarely are). It is unabashed entertainment, but in the best sense of that idea. First of all, it's very funny and full of playful tension. But it is also very smart, touching on a lot of broader ideas and themes without ever slowing down the comedic or narrative energy. I'm pretty sure it got picked up and will hit theaters sometime within the next year...or two, or whatever strange timetable these distributors follow. So, I won't say more about it. I hate spoiler alerts.

We saw a Documentary Shorts program that was quite good, but disappointing in light of the fact that it was the ONLY doc shorts program. It had two sort of informational pieces (one would have sufficed, especially since they were preaching to the converted) and a 40 minute doc on the late actor John Cazale (whose work I love and who more than deserved this well-made love letter) that was produced and/or commissioned by HBO and will be seen by millions (and therefore, in my opinion, does not need this platform where it takes up 40 minutes of the only doc program). But I'm kind of quibbling because I was indeed happy to see it. Finally, the program had a gross-out doc on a body modification freak who chops off his toes and fingers. There is indeed much to be explored in such extreme "art", but this piece, for me, was simply voyeuristic and nauseatingly fetishistic. Again, though, I'm quibbling because it was nonetheless interesting to know a guy like that exists.

The other two films "Lulu and Jimi" (stylish and fun/funny, but very slight and familiar) and "The Anarchist's Wife" (handsome and dull - earnest and predictable) don't compel me to mention anything more about them.

FA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AMANDA SWEIKOW AND ME AT THE OUTREACH TABLE IN THE FILMMAKER LODGE

I skipped the panels even though the much-admired Ted Hope anchored one of them. There was still a lot of talk at Sundance about his keynote speech in September and, in general, about the fate of indie films (the topic of his panel). There's a lot of enthusiasm for self-distribution and, finally, some widespread agreement that the old distribution paradigms for indies is almost completely dead (there were definitely still some "sales" this year at Park City) and never really had much of a life for most indie films. We'll see what the future holds for indies. Only time will tell. That's why I skipped the panel. Although I appreciate their comments and insights on the business as it is, I don't want to hear any "experts" - no matter how much I admire them - reporting back from their personal crystal balls. The story will play out however it plays out and we'll all flow with it all in whatever way is necessary.

So that was it for 2009. Yes, there were fun details about the parties and gossip about this or that person and all kinds of other crap I could fill this blog with. But the bottom line is that Park City/Sundance/Slamdance/etc. - for all its excesses - is still the place to be for filmmakers of any stripe. It is an awesome filmmaking convention. Truly that's what it is. There's definitely festivals and kind of a market, but there's so much other stuff represented by every strata of filmmaking society that it ultimately is nothing less than a wild, ten-day filmmaking convention. You'll find nearly every person you need to meet or re-connect with there and you can learn/accomplish any number of filmmaking goals. Oh, and there's always good films. Say what you want about the commercialization of Sundance, but in the end, it's all about the films. And there are always good ones to see.

Our goals were to connect with a few potential investors and organizational partners, to launch our Ultimate Filmmaker Competition, watch some films and go to some parties. We were victorious! And we had a blast in the process of being victorious....

ON THE ROAD HOME FROM PARK CITY (YES, THAT'S MY AIR FRESHENER HANGING FROM THE REAR VIEW MIRROR AND, YES, IT SAYS WHAT YOU THINK IT SAYS)

On my way to the Berlinale

2009-02-04T08:41:00.000-08:00

Off to another fest, this time in Berlin. Been there before. It's a great one. There's also a European Film Market. Going to find $$$ for a terrific feature I'm helping to produce that takes place in Germany (but could shoot lots of places).

I know I owe a bunch of blogs. Got 'em all roughed out and will polish them off on the plane - there and back. It includes my Sundance adventures as well as Berlin. Thanks for being patient.

Send me a note if you're in Berlin and want to hang out.

In L.A.? Free Event on Technology and the Movies, February 19th

2009-01-29T13:14:00.000-08:00

Scott Kirsner of the cool blog CinemaTech (http://cinematech.blogspot.com) will be partnering with USC to put together an evening event on Thursday, February 19th. It's being jointly organized by the Stevens Institute for Innovation, the Annenberg School for Communication, and the Entertainment Technology Center.

It's being called "Innovation in Hollywood: Past Present & Future," and it happens 3 days before the 2009 Oscars, on the USC campus. Scott will be giving a quick overview of Hollywood's tech history, and then moderating a panel of modern-day innovators. It's free -- but you do have to RSVP. Come on by and/or spread the word to folks in LA who might want to join us.

See ya there!

Two more suggested blogs not on the list....

2009-01-19T22:50:00.000-08:00

These additional blogs came highly recommended from a mysterious source,....but they look pretty damn good.

http://prepshootpost.blogspot.com/

http://prolost.blogspot.com/

Enjoy!

100 Best Blogs For Film....and Theater

2009-01-19T07:33:00.000-08:00

The blog you are reading at this very moment was just listed in 100 Best Blogs For Film and Theater Students. I don't mention it to toot my own horn. I mention it because I checked out that list and it's a really good list! You guys should check it out, too:

http://www.bestuniversity.com/blog/2009/100-best-blogs-for-film-and-theater-students/

FA Table at Sundance Filmmaker's Lodge

2009-01-19T07:32:00.000-08:00

Me and Executive Director Amanda Sweikow will be at the Filmmakers Alliance table inside the Sundance Filmmaker's Lodge (550 Main St.) from 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm Tuesday, the 20th. Come by and say "hi", if you're up, in Park City....

Sundance, again...and more....

2009-01-15T23:48:00.001-08:00

Leaving at 5 a.m. for Park City.

Things have been,...well,...busy.

I know I've been remiss with this blog, but I've stored up lots to share. And about to add more memories, anecdotes and observations courtesy of the Sundance "indie" film convention.

Stay tuned.

Bergman Interview

2008-12-30T07:25:00.000-08:00

Here's the Ingmar Bergman interview from 1972 (American Cinematographer) I transcribed, as promised. Just below is a pic of Bergman and Liv Ullman, with whom he had an affair and fathered a child.

In 1990 (or '89, can't remember), I had a writing job in Mauritius (a small island somewhere between Africa and India) but my circuitous airline route took me through Copenhagen. On that leg of the journey, there were only two people in first-class - me and Liv Ullman. There was no mistaking her. And the crew of the Scandinavian Airlines flight were beside themselves with excitement to have such a huge international celebrity (and Scandinavian treasure) in their midst. So, a few hours (and several drinks) into the roughly 8 hour flight, I screwed up the courage to go over and say hello. I rose up and Ms. Ullman immediately looked at me from across the cabin with such panicked intensity that I almost sat back down. But I pushed through that impulse with drunken bravado and stumbled over to her - she watching me carefully the entire journey. It was just a few rows of seats, but it felt like 10 miles. When I finally neared her, she turned her gaze away, staring straight ahead, unblinking, at the back of the seat in front of her. I was probably uncomfortably close when I said "Ms. Ullman, it's my honor to introduce myself to you" and put out my hand. She didn't respond at all, continuing to stare straight ahead at the obviously more compelling seat back. "You are Liv Ullman, aren't you?", I continued falteringly. She abruptly swiveled her head toward me with the same panicked intensity (now even more intense) in her eyes and said, "You must be mistaken". She then turned her gaze just as abruptly back to the less threatening seat back. I was speechless for a beat or two as my inebriated brain tried to process her response. Finally, I managed to say, "Well, if you were Liv Ullman, I would simply tell you that I think you are an amazing actress and I can't thank you enough for your great work". She said nothing, the seat back still commanding her intense energy. I then turned and hobbled back to my seat, got stinking drunk and threw up for most of the last 2 hours of the trip.

That story is neither here nor there regarding the interview below, other than to detail my pathetic brush with Bergman's muse and illustrate an abject lesson in the self-debasing absurdity of fan worship - even if the object of adoration is a truly amazing artist. You don't have to literally embrace (and terrify) the person to appreciate their work. Granted, she didn't handle that situation in the most gracious manner possible, but why should she have to? She probably just wanted to relax on the flight and enjoy the back of the seat in front of her without some strange, drunken Negro stumbling over to touch the hem of her garment. Anyway, thought you might find that little ditty amusing.

Liv Ullman and Ingmar Bergman circa mid- 60's

Here's the interview:

THE FOLLOWING IS REPRINTED FROM AMERICAN CINEMATOPGRAPHER MAGAZINE (1972)

FILM AND CREATIVITY

Artistic creation has always, to me, manifested itself as hunger. I have acknowledged this need with a certain satisfaction but I have never, in all my life, asked myself why this hunger has arisen and craved appeasement. In recent years, as it diminishes and is transformed into something else, I have become anxious to find out the cause of my "artistic activity".

A very early childhood memory is my need to show off my achievements: skill in drawing, the art of tossing a ball against a wall, my first effort at swimming.

I remember I felt a very strong need to draw the attention of the grown-ups to these manifestations of my presence in the world, I felt I never got enough attention from my fellow men. So, when reality was no longer sufficient, I began to fantasize, entertain my playmates with tremendous stories about my secret adventures. They were embarrassing lies that hopelessly failed against the level-headed skepticism of the world. I finally withdrew and kept my dream world to myself. A young child wanting human contact and obsessed by his imagination and been hurt and transformed into a cunning and suspicious daydreamer.

But a daydreamer is not an artist outside his dreams.

The need to get people to listen, to correspond, to live in the warmth of a community was still there. It became stronger the more I became imprisoned in lonliness.

It is fairly obvious that the cinema became my means of expression. I made myself understood in a language that bypassed the words - which I lacked - and music - which I did not master - and painting, which left me indifferent. With cinema, I suddenly had the opportunity to communicate with the world around me in a language that is literally spoken from soul to soul in phrases that escape the control of the intellect in an almost voluptuous way.

With a child's repressed hunger, I threw myself into my medium and, for twenty years, I have indefatigably, and in a kind of frenzy, brought about dreams, mental experiences, fantasies, fits of lunacy, religious controversies and sheer lies. My hunger has been eternally new. Money, fame and success have been amazing but, at bottom, insignificant consequences of my rampagings. In saying this, I do not underestimate what I may perchance have achieved. I think it has had, and perhaps has, its importance. But security for me is that I can see the past in a new and less romantic light. Art as self-satisfaction can, of course, have its importance - especially for the artist.

Today, the situation is less complicated, less interesting - above all, less glamorous.

To be quite frank, I experience art - not only the film art - as being meaningless. By that, I mean that art no longer has the power and possibility to influence the development of our lives.

Literature, painting, music, film and theater beget and bring forth themselves. New mutations, new combinations arise and are destroyed. The movement seems - from the outside - nervously vital, the artists' magnificent zeal to project to themselves - and to a more and more distracted public - pictures of a world that no longer cares what they like or think. In a few places artists are punished. Art is considered dangerous and worth stifling and directing. On the whole, however, art is free, shameless, irresponsible. And, as I said, the movement is intense, almost feverish. It seems to me like a snakeskin full of ants. The snake itself has long been dead, eaten, deprived of its poison. But the skin moves, filled with meddlesome life.

If I now find that I happen to be one of these ants, I must ask myself whether there is any reason to continue the activity. The answer is in the affirmative. Although I think that the theater stage is a beloved old courtesan who has seen better days. Although the new music gives us the suffocating feeling of mathematical air rarification. Although painting and sculpture are sterile and languish in their own paralyzing freedom. Although literature has been transformed into a cairn of words without message or danger.

There are poets who never write poems because they form their lives as poems, actors who never appear on stage but play their lives as marvelous dramas. There are painters who never paint because they close their eyes and create the most beautiful paintings on the inside of their eyelids. There are filmmakers who live their films and would neer misuse their talents to materialize them in reality.

In the same way, I think people today can dispense with the theater because they exist in the middle of a drama, the different phases of which incessantly produce local tragedies. They do not need music because every minute their hearing is bombarded with veritable sound hurricans that have rached and passed the level of endurance. They do not need poetry because the new idea of the universe has transformed them into functional animals bound to interesting but, from a poetical point of view, unusuable problems of metabolic disturbance.

Man (as I experience myself and world around me) has made himself free, terribly and dizzingly free. Religion and art are kept alive for the sake of sentimentality, as a conventional politeness towards the past, a benevolent solicitude of leisure's increasingly nervous citizens. I am still talking about my own subjective vision. I hope, and am perfectly sure, that others have a more balanced and objective conception.

If I take all this tediousness into consideration and, in spite of everything, assert that I wish to continue to make art, it is for a very simple reason (I disregard the purely materal one).

The reason is curiosity. A boundless, insatiable, perpetual regeneration, an unbearable curiosity that drives me on, that never lets me rest, that completely replaces that past hunger for community.

I feel like a long-term prisoner suddenly confronted with the crashing, shrieking, snorting of life. I am seized by an ungovernable curiosity. I note, I observe, I keep my eyes open. Everything is unreal, fantastic, frightening or ridiculous. I catch a flying grain of dust - perhaps it is a film. What significance does it have? None at all. But I find it interesting, and consequently, it is a film. I wander round with my grain of dust and, in mirth or melancholy, I am preoccupied. I jostle among the other ants, together we accomplish a colossal task. The snakeskin moves.

This and only this is my truth. I do not ask that it shall be valid for anyone else, and as a consolation for eternity it is, of course, rather meager. As a basis for artistic activity in the coming years it is completely sufficient,...at least, for me.

To be an artist for one's own satisfaction is not always so agreeable. But it has one great advantage: the artist coexists with every living creature that lives only for its own sake. Altogether, it makes a pretty large brotherhood of existing egoistically on the hot, dirty earth under a cold, empty sky.

But in life today, the position of the artist has become more and more precarious; the artist has become a curious figure, a kind of performer or athlete who chases from job to job. His isolation, his now, almost holy individualism, his artistic subjectivity, can all too easily cause ulcers and neurosis. Exclusiveness becomes a curse that he euglogizes. The unusual is both his pain and his satisfaction.

It is possible that I have made a general rule from my own idiosyncrasies. But it is also possible that the conflict of responsibility has been intensified, and moral problems made so difficult, because of dependence on popular support and also due to unreasonable economic burdens.

Quote of the Month (from Ingmar Bergman)

2008-12-25T18:28:00.000-08:00

I actually don't do quotes of the month. But I am transcribing an old Ingmar Bergman interview from 1972 (which I am going to share with you all in successive parts very soon) and I was struck by this one particular quote that is funny and deceptively complicated (and contradictory) and sums up so much of Bergman's work and world view.

To put it in context, he talks about how he once made films out of a hunger, but then became compelled to make films simply out of extreme curiosity. However, he asserts that art - all art- has become meaningless. Yet, he still feels justified in being an artist because doing it for its own sake is perfectly acceptable to him. Then, he says:

"To be an artist for one's own satisfaction is not always so agreeable. But it has one great advantage: the artist coexists with every living creature that lives only for its own sake. Altogether, it makes a pretty large brotherhood of existing egoistically on the hot, dirty earth under a cold, empty sky."

Collectively Speaking "...One For All"

2008-12-23T10:27:00.000-08:00

The following is reprinted from FA Magazine's January 09 "Collectively Speaking" column:

"...ONE FOR ALL!"

"Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno" is a Latin phrase that means "One for all, all for one" in English. In its inverted state, it is known as being the motto of Alexandre Dumas' Three Musketeers as well as the Three Stooges. Also, it is apparently the traditional motto of Switzerland. Who knew?

It is also the core concept behind Filmmakers Alliance - actually, collectivism, in general. All this is obvious to anyone who has ever been a meaningful part of Filmmakers Alliance. But what continually confounds me is how difficult it is for many other independent filmmakers to see how powerful this concept is to them in their own filmmaking lives.

Well, in truth, most indie filmmakers seem to have no problem grasping half of the concept. "All For One....Me!" seems to be the defining modification they've made to the concept, essentially transforming it into a complete energetic contradiction. Now, it's not that this self-absorbed approach to filmmaking is without benefit. Films do need a sort of authorship (although I do not fully embrace the "auteur theory"), a guiding aesthetic vision. And sometimes these more self-absorbed types have a determination, drive and focus that defies limitation.

On the downside, such self-servitude can also defy imagination - limiting creative vision and obscuring awareness of that which doesn't immediately seem to serve them. As I've said ad nauseum, filmmaking is a collaborative experience. It is a community endeavor - a community of artisans and/or creative professionals brought together in service of a common creative purpose. Everybody brings something to the table that adds to the development and realization of the film...and thus, the potential success of the film. And that communal energy is even more present in the exhibition of the film. What is an audience if not a community brought together for a singular, shared experience. But the concept of communalism is still, nonetheless, difficult for many independent filmmakers to grasp. To them, they are making the film and everyone else is simply "helping". They write in a vacuum, edit in a vacuum and, at times, aggressively discourage creative contributions from anyone else. And of course, when they are not working on their own films, they spend precious little time being in service to any other filmmaker. In the end, people are only useful to them when they need them - in producing the film (cast and crew) and showing it (audiences).

I know this all sounds very negative, but I'm simply trying to shed some light on a challenging truth that is absent from much discourse in the wake of Ted Hope's amazing state of the union address on independent film (reprinted in this issue), and the subsequent discussions/arguments about the "death" of Independent film. Of course, it is difficult to explore any discussions about independent film when there is no longer any consensus agreement on what "independent" film actually means. But by any commonly-embraced definition, I strongly believe that independent film cannot, and will not, ever die. As long as there is a single film that displays fresh creative energy and/or was made without regard for ANY institutional agenda, Independent Film is alive. And those kinds of films will simply never cease to exist.

But sadly, those films are, and have always been, an anomaly. There is not a culture that supports that kind of filmmaking. They are made despite the prevailing filmmaking paradigms, not because of them. So, on another level, I couldn't agree more with Ted Hope's assertion that "Indie Film" has never truly existed. The term "Independent Film" was once a perfectly benign catch-all phrase to describe films made outside of the commercial mainstream until it was cleverly co-opted and bastardized by that commercial mainstream. Ironically, it is now that very same commercial mainstream announcing Independent Film's death because they can't figure out a way to make money from it consistently.

But maybe those commercial mainstream folk did us a favor by trampling all over the term "independent film". Because, as Hope says, filmmaking on any level has never been truly "independent". It is NOT independent of cinematic grammar. It is NOT independent of cinematic history. It is NOT independent of creative collaboration. It is NOT independent of technical/practical support and innovation. It is NOT independent of audience reaction. It is NOT independent of word-of-mouth and other marketing support. Even by commercial mainstream's bastardized definition, Independent Film was NOT EVER independent of the foolhardy dreams of fame and success (and mainstream validation). No, "Independent Film" is a sexy phantom. This is why Hope prefers to eschew the term completely and use the term Truly Free Film.

Whatever term you use, the concept people like Ted Hope are striving to maintain and the thing for which they dream of creating a supportive infrastructure, is nothing more, or less, than Singular Creative Expression - or, in a word, originality. And that is a word that is far, far more difficult to achieve than it is to bandy about in everyday conversation. That is because, as Hope says, originality demands a freedom of thought that bares great risk and responsibility. It also demands a slightly counter-intuitive process. Meaning, to experience true freedom, originality and independence, we have to acknowledge and, in key ways, embrace their contradictions - connectivity, familiarity and dependence.

It is our responsibility as filmmakers to understand those things to which we've connected ourselves so that we can know which things/ideas we need to let go and which we need to hold onto for dear life. It is our responsibility as filmmakers to know what exists around us and what has come before it so that we can know our place in it all and in what direction we must evolve creatively (and otherwise). It is our responsibility as filmmakers to recognize and appreciate how much we depend on the larger community to sustain us on nearly all levels so that we can clearly see the affect on the whole of each individual contribution - especially our own.

Of course, this last point is the one I am repeatedly striking home with this column. And it is one Mr. Hope also strikes repeatedly in his address. Our independence demands our absolute dependence on each other - literally lending a hand (or strong back), challenging each other creatively, sharing information and resources, providing connections, introducing tech innovations to each other, banding together to protect the power and possibilities of the internet, watching and even buying (shocking!) each others' films and much more I've certainly overlooked or have yet to imagine. There is no one to do it for us. And you are short-sheeting yourself if you want to just grab what you can and contribute nothing. We are living in a time when new technologies have made the possibilities limitless for filmmakers wanting to do truly independent, truly free, truly original work. To realize that potential, you must take on its risks and responsibilities. Which means asking yourself the key question: "How am I contributing to the future I want to create?". Hopefully, the answer will always lead you to the second half of FA's rallying cry "....One For All!"

Tarkovsky's Top Ten Films

2008-12-22T13:56:00.001-08:00

I just watched "The Sacrifice" again on DVD - and then the cool DVD docu-extra that shows him at work and discusses his views on cinema. Great, inspiring stuff. For those of you who are Tarkovsky devotees like myself, you might be interested in his "top ten" list - films he said most influenced/inspired him. All are available on DVD (just click on the link).

Diary of a Country Priest by Robert Bresson
Mouchette by Robert Bresson,
Winter Light by Ingmar Bergman
Wild Strawberries by Ingmar Bergman
Persona by Ingmar Bergman
Nazarin by Luis Buñuel
City Lights by Charlie Chaplin
Ugetsu by Kenji Mizoguchi
Seven Samurai by Akira Kurosawa
Woman in the Dunes by Hiroshi Teshigahara

Filmmaking and Disappointment

2008-12-16T09:52:00.000-08:00

We recently suffered a tough, disappointing week at Filmmakers Alliance - and, consequently, for me personally - as that organization and I are joined at the hip. Some crucial funding we were expecting had been indefinitely delayed due to the economic crunch. And a bunch of very strong Filmmakers Alliance films - including a feature I produced - that had made it into the final rounds of consideration, were ultimately rejected from the Sundance Film Festival (along with about 8,000 other films).

Now, on a very practical and emotional level, I was kinda devastated about the funding disappointment, but I don't feel too much about the festival rejection. I've been around long enough to know that no one festival - including Sundance - holds the key to filmmaking success and means absolutely nothing in terms of artistic development and productivity. However, the filmmakers I work with don't necessarily share this perspective and it is their disappointment that touches me - and to which I want this blog to speak.

Disappointment is a chronic reality in all creative endeavors, but I would argue that it is particularly endemic to filmmaking since there are just so many opportunities to be disappointed - considering the amount of people and elements involved in the filmmaking process, including raising money, casting actors, securing crew and locations, getting into festivals, distributing the film, etc., etc. It's hard not to want the best in all aspects of the process and feel extreme disappointment when we have to settle for less.

Also, in a creative endeavor so tied to our dreams and visions, it is impossible for them to only exist for us creatively. They exist in all aspects of our thinking/feeling and feed our expectations. And, of course, expectation is the main prerequisite for disappointment.

So how do we deal with disappointment since it is clearly inescapable? Is there a way to minimize it? Or is it possible to experience it fully and use it beneficially? Well, I think there are two necessary ways to guide your reaction to disappointment if you want to benefit from it.

The first way to guide your reaction is to think clearly about the root of any disappointment. And, clearly, at the deepest root of disappointment is ego. I've talked extensively about ego and its involvement in the creative process so I hope you realize by now I'm not just referring to diva-like egos. I'm talking about normal, healthy ego - that necessary part of our DNA that drives survival instincts. That instinct to survive has evolved with modern life and now also drives us in the work we do and the things we create. Because on a deep level, we still tie anything that is profoundly important to us to that survival gene. It's natural, then, that any perceived threat to what is most important to us, will create upset. But survival instincts, in any form, are very self-centered instincts and thus the negative connotations around ego. When we are disappointed, we experience a self-centered upset that the world did not bend to our expectation of it. You've probably heard the saying "Men plan, God laughs" - which is just a way of saying our plans and expectations, even when related to survival, are very self-serving and not always in sync with the life's bigger picture.

Nonetheless, in some circumstances, disappointment touches the survival instinct much more directly than in other circumstances. For me, these recent disappointments emerge from a number of different core concerns and expectations. On a basic level, anxiety about how to manage/support FA begins to take hold. FA is my passion and lifeblood, hence, a true survival concern emerges. And filmmakers may feel the same thing when expectations for their films don't pan out. There's the sense that the film will go unseen and unappreciated, threatening the filmmakers ability to earn a livelihood from this work. But, of course, in other circumstances, disappointment touches us much closer to our diva-like ego, where everything related to us, no matter how inconsequential, feels as essential as survival. Basically, we believe the world revolves around our every emotion. We call that "Filmmaker Boy/Girl Syndrome". A common "disease" afflicting filmmakers where they embrace the delusion that they and their film are (or should be) at the center of everyone's universe.

I suspect a film's success or failure touches both ends of the ego spectrum - from basic survival to complete self-absorption/desperate need for attention. However, in productively processing disappointment, it doesn't really matter from what perspective we are experiencing it. From any perspective, there at two key things to keep in mind when guiding your reaction to disappointment. 1. It is ego-based. 2. Ego is a tool, not a state of being (unless you choose to make it so). It exists in us to drive us to do the things we need to do to survive. Therefore, disappointment, as a product of ego, can be a tool rather than a state of being. And a tool is used to accomplish things and create opportunities. So, in this little equation of mine, disappointment = opportunity. If we allow our egos and disappointments to be a state of being, we will be devastated. But if we see them as the tools that they are, they can provide energy, ambition and motivation....and, hence, opportunity.

The second important guide to managing disappointment in a positive way is to fully understand what our survival ego is trying to sustain. It is not our festival or financial success. Nor is it our industry prestige, nor any other tangential product of our creativity. It is creativity, itself. The survival ego is there to sustain our very lives. But, as modern, creative types who no longer must fear being torn apart by wild animals ("Grizzly Man" aside) the life our survival instinct now fights to sustain are those things which are core to our being. And that, my fellow filmmakers, is our CREATIVE PROCESS. Specifically, the making of films. Armed with this perspective, know that your disappointment is not about not getting something - funding, a location, a cast member, into a festival, accolades, whatever. It is about the threat to your creative process. And that is a threat you can address. It is a threat you can successfully squelch by being and staying creative.

So, allow yourself to feel disappointment. But don't live in it. Use it. Remember that it is there to protect your creative process. So you must continue creating. Know that is not a state of being, but a tool to motivate you and fill you with creative ambition. Keep striving to make your films more skillfully, more artfully, deeper, richer, funnier, whatever. This is what your disappointment can allow you to do. This is why disappointment is an opportunity. And,...if you choose to let it be so,...a gift.

Idea, Concept and Story Development - PART 2

2008-11-20T09:03:00.000-08:00

Let's see now,...where did we leave things in Part 1? I believe we left them at....

How?

Yes, that's the big question. How do we develop ideas, concepts and/or stories in a way that supports our goals for the finished film?

Well, there is an approach that was offered to me by my talented fellow filmmaker/writer and creative collaborator, Sean Hood. It is a similar, but more structured, approach to the one I've been using for many years. I'll call it the "Bucket System" (not to be confused with that dismal film "The Bucket List") - although he probably has much more appropriate name for it.

And it is simply this: Once you are confident your idea, concept or story is in-sync with your filmmaking goals, you immediately start aggregating assests (to steal from internet lingo). Meaning, instead of sitting in front of a blank page scratching your head trying to figure out how to begin writing and what specific things you need to do flesh out your goals for the film, you start accumulating bits and pieces obsessively and without judgement and you simply throw them into a "bucket". Sean's bucket is an old school writing tablet - y'know those ones from grade school with a hard cover that is black with white speckles and have lined paper inside. But that bucket can be anything - a notepad, your computer/laptop, a voice recorder, cell phone - anything. Sean handwrites ideas, thoughts, impressions, pieces of dialogue - practically ANYTHING that crosses his mind. You should do this without judgement and without hesitation. It may or may not be specifically relevant to your idea, concept or story. At this point, that's not important. What's important is that you allow yourself to freely generate smaller ideas that might possibly support the larger idea. Let it be stream of consciousness - dreams, images, conversations you've had with others (or yourself), memories, wild thoughts, etc., etc. Dump it ALL in your "bucket".

During this period, It's really important to open your mind. Meaning, be very aware of things around you and how they make you feel - visuals, conversations, arguments, smells, moods, whatever. Also, be aware of your thoughts, ideas and dreams. It's just really important to be very "awake" during this period so that you mind is fertile and creating lots of assets for your bucket(s).

Of course, this is a good time to find sources of inspiration, as well. Art galleries, concerts, plays, hikes, music, books - anything that gets your mind and creative energy working. And whatever emerges for you goes into the bucket(s).

Once a week - or as often as you feel inclined - go through your bucket and start picking out the things that are relevant to your idea, concept and/or story. If you are writing in a tablet, tear out those pieces and put them in a separate folder, then type them into a separate document. If you are talking into a voice recorder, transcribe those pieces into a written document. If you have ideas on a computer, create a new document and re-type them in. Don't just cut and paste. The re-creating of the bucket things into a new document process always breeds another level of fresh ideas.

And do not trash the bucket items you do not use. They may be meaningful to you down the line in some way....or on another project. Keep them so you can return to them at some point in the future.

After you've done this for awhile, your idea, concept and/or story will begin to take shape. How? It just does, trust me. If not, just keep adding to your bucket. But at some point, those bucket items will start to form the structural pillars of your project.

From here, there are many things you can do to start organizing your "assets" into a script (or conceptual plan if you are just working off of a concept). Sean has his specific method that he will share with you in this blog at some point. For me, it is important to then write a treatment. Not one of those long, drawn out 40 page treatments. Just something that clarifies for me the visceral trajectory of the project. I usually sketch out a 5 to 10 page treatment. For me the treatment is the most important single document. Even more so than the script. The script will have a lot of specifics around which we plan the shooting, but those are all subject to change or deletion at any point. The treatment embodies the core elements of the project and helps to keep my goals for he project clear.

Finally, I start writing the script. Although Sean has introduced me to yet another step that I have yet to try, but about which I am very excited. Rather than jump right to the script, he suggests writing down scene headings. Such as:

INT. - DENNY'S APARTMENT - NIGHT

Nothing more than this. You are simply starting to chart out what happens and when. You may not use many of the scene headings you create (because you may find you don't need the scene). Or they may change order in all kinds of way. But like a rough draft, it is a beginning blueprint for the script (which, in turn, is a blueprint for the film). After this, you finally write the script (if it is indeed a script you are writing).

I promise you, if you take all of these steps, you will be far more productive and create a project that is far more satisfying to you than if you simply cough up an idea and then jump straight into trying to write or make a film. But here I must remind you of something by harkening back to my previous blog. Creating the Goal List is an essential part of the process. I cannot begin to express to you how well it pays off to do that work - until you yourself have done it and completed a film.

So, in summary, here's the steps I've outlined in Parts 1 and 2:
1. Start with you idea, concept and/or story. Even a germ of the idea.
2. Create your list of goals for the eventual film. Don't forget practical goals - like a goal of making the film with money you can realistically raise.
3. Compare/contrast your goals to your idea, concept or story and put them in sync with each other.
4. Start filling your "bucket" or buckets.
5. Select the things out of your bucket(s) that are relevant to your project and put them into a separate written document.
6. Write a Treatment.
7. Create Scene Headings.
8. Write that script (if you are writing a script).

Lastly, ignore all of this if you are a cinematic genius or if you have your own successful system that allows you to churn out amazing projects.

In any case, get busy developing that idea, concept and/or story. Feature or short. Fiction or Documentary. Live action or animation. Doesn't matter. The process is the same and it pays off just as well with any type of film you choose to do.

Just go do it.