Film Flap

Diary of a Short Film V: Premiere Week

2008-07-04T06:31:00.000-07:00

Here it is, the finished version of my latest short, The Payoff. Remember, the requirements of this assignment were no sync sound (so no talking heads) and you had to have a beginning, middle, and end. On Tuesday I showed it to my class on a big screen (which was very sweet) and Thursday to both my actors. Everyone seems to approve, but you be the judge. Also note that you can click on the HD link to see the movie in a much higher resolution (and bigger frame) than the teeny window above.

Enjoy, and please comment with your feedback!

Diary of a Short Film IV: Score!

2008-06-20T07:52:00.000-07:00

It is just amazing what original music will do for your images. After shooting and putting my Payoff footage together, I sent off a cut to my composer-friend, Seth Neuffer. Seth and I had worked together on my last short, Middle of Nowhere. It was a great experience, and I was glad that Seth chose to be on board for this film.

Like last time, we established and internet relationship. I sent my final cut to him as soon as I could, and he began returning clips with new music attached. It is a very exciting time in the edit, probably because this is something completely out of my control that just delights the heck out of me every time I get an update. I have been really looking forward to the early morning when I can open my email and find that I have a download waiting from a online file store like sendspace.

The work flow goes like this: Seth sends me a copy of the file I sent him (only with music), I reply with notes and he makes adjustments. It's stupid easy since Seth listens to me and always comes up with great stuff. It's just more proof that you need to find people that are better than you in a given area, then set them free. As long as they abide by what you are telling them (and strong-minded creative folks will always have valuable opinions), you will get results. It's a very satisfying feeling.

Anyway, things are winding down on this project (which is due next Tuesday), and we will have the final music cut on Sunday night. That gives me Monday to put together the final mix (not hard in an almost silent film) and turn it in on time. In class on Tuesday we will start watching all the narratives with the director sitting in front of the class answering questions. On the day it airs in class I will post it here, embedded from Vimeo in HD. See you then!

Phase: Post-production
Days remaining: 4
Money spent: $8

Diary of a Short Film III: Shooting Complete

2008-06-13T18:34:00.000-07:00

Shooting commenced on The Payoff last Friday, and concluded on Monday. I shot for two half days, between the hours of lunch and dinner. This forced me to shoot quickly, and saved me some money I'd usually spend to feed everyone. I don't really like to do this, but I'm very broke right now, and had little money to spend. The nice thing was that my actors knew this, and had no problem with it. Of course I let them go before they got hungry...

Last Friday we shot all the exteriors that took place at a bus stop. After scouting the intended location (in front of a church), I elected to move down the street where the stop was directly in front of a vacant lot--much more conducive to the story. We shot there for about four hours under an overcast sky. The lighting was excellent until the pesky sun decided to play hide and seek several times. For the most part the sun cooperated, except for one critical reaction shot that I just couldn't seem to get. In the end it was okay, as a rough cut with what I had worked well.

One Robert Rodriguez trick I employed was using my zoom lens to rapidly change shots that would be edited later. In The Payoff, two different characters exit the bus at the same stop, but in two different scenes. Since the bus would only arrive at our stop hourly, I put both actors on the bus at the previous stop (at the church) and had them exit separately. The first take was the best with the bus hitting it's unknown mark perfectly, and me shooting wide, then closer as my first actor exited. When he left the frame, I repositioned for my actress, then went very tight as the bus pulled away. It was a great way to get more than one shot with minimal bus fare and limited time.

On Monday I shot all my interiors in a real motel that was provided to me by a friend (Yes! I love connections). We shot everything using light coming in from the motel window and from the hallway lighting for the tracking shots. This looked pretty good, probably thanks to the fact that I was using the nifty Sony FX1 HDV camera. I've never shot in HD before, but always want to now. It's a great and detail rich medium.

So there you go. Shooting is over, and I already have a rough cut (using Vegas Pro 8) that I've sent to my composer for scoring ideas. The ultimate compliment came from my wife who saw only the last scene, teared up and said "I think this may be your best work." My actors (Bus Riley and Morgan Long) deserve a lot of credit for that comment. They were wonderful.

Phase: Post-Production
Days remaining: 11
Money spent: $8

Diary of a Short Film II: Musical Casting

2008-06-07T08:31:00.000-07:00

Hoo boy. It has been a tangled road to get this short off of the ground, mostly due to finding cast members. Not holding auditions early has put me in a pinch, forcing me to take who I can get and hope for the best. I felt like I didn't have time for auditions, but the fact is that I could have had I planned ahead and budgeted time to do so. This isn't to say that I wouldn't have still had the ol' "actors dropping out like flies" syndrome that plagues every no-budget project, but at least I would have more of a variety of flies to choose from.

Anyway, the only cast member I had set was Natalie Dallimore (pictured), who I had worked with before on an unfinished short entitled Blackout. She is a good actress and also does makeup and hair, which nicely kills two birds with one stone. She suggested I try friend Antonio Lexerot (for the father), whom she respects as an actor. I contacted him but he felt too young to play 50-ish and recommended one Bus Riley. Bus accepted, and suggested Morgan Long to play the daughter. I did manage to meet with her yesterday. Movie cast.

When I secured a shooting date (today) that both leads could make, Natalie couldn't (she was going to play the "woman in car" role). After trying to scramble to find a replacement, I just wrote that part out of the script (sorry, Nat). I'm running out of time fast, and can't afford to reschedule, so I have to adjust.

I did like the fact that Bus told me that he and Morgan could find someone, but decided to just go in a slightly different direction. It will save time and stress to just use Bus by himself and not worry about another person. Morgan will do her own makeup, so there you go.

Shooting starts today in three hours...

Phase: Production
Days remaining: 17
Money spent: $0

Diary of a Short Film I: The Script

2008-05-30T07:47:00.000-07:00

For reasons too lengthy to go into, I've found myself back in school to get a degree in Film Studies. In some ways I'm just spinning my wheels, but a refresher will be very good for me and force me (and others) to be more analytical toward my work. One of my first assignments in my Film Production I class is to make a short film with no dialogue. This exercise is to help you tell your story with visuals, so you can't rely on the spoken word (voice overs are allowed, but I'm sticking to the letter of the law). It's essentially a silent film, something I've never done before.

Anyway, I thought it might be educational to post my progress on this assignment which may help others who are trying to do something similar. I also hope to get feedback from you, which can only help me to be a better filmmaker. The due date is June 24, so I had better get cracking.

The other criteria for this project is that you have to shoot it yourself, you can't star in it, and it can't be over five minutes. I have no problem with the first two items, and there is no way I even want to approach the five minute mark. I just don't have the time to craft a film of that length. I want my story to be about three minutes, which is will still be tough, but doable.

The first thing I needed was an idea and one came to me while getting out of the shower. Oddly enough, the bathroom is a place I often get inspired and this time was no different. I wanted to do something more character driven and less plot-heavy than my previous work, and I think I hit on it with Payoff, a short story that plays like the tail end of a prodigal daughter tale.

I wrote a first draft of the script pretty quickly, and it came in at just over two pages. It's all action (of course), which may mean that it plays longer than written. I should be able to get my three minutes with ease.

Read the screenplay for Payoff...

Please click on the above link, and feel free to give me your input below. My schedule is pretty compressed (casting and shooting next week), but I am always open to good ideas. I've had pretty good collaborative experiences when shooting, but have resisted this at the writing phase. Now's your chance to make a difference! Tell me what you like and why! Tell me what sucks and why! Just make sure you tell me!

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

2008-05-20T06:03:00.000-07:00

Not Quite a King

Three years ago, I had an unexpected surprise in viewing the first film of Disney's The Chronicles of Narnia series, based on the C.S. Lewis books. I didn't expect anything above decent, but what I got was spectacular. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe became my favorite film of 2005. Now comes the next tale, Prince Caspian, which reunites almost all the same talent to continue the saga. While equally impressive in scope, this sequel suffers from a weaker story and underwhelming villain.

One year has passed since the Pevensie children unexpectedly left their beloved world of Narnia. Summoned back for unkown reasons, they discover their former home now an ancient ruin. 1300 Narnian years have passed in their absence and an evil king now reins. The true heir to the throne, noble Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), has fled to avoid being murdered at the hands of his wicked uncle. It is the prince who has magically called the Pevensies to save Narnia and return it to it's rightful citizens. With the odds against them, they must form an alliance and find the only one who can save them all: Aslan.

The look of this film is simply breathtaking. Returning director Andrew Adamson and his new cinematographer Karl Walter Lindenlaub (Georgia Rule) have crafted a vivid canvas full of epic scope and lush detail. When the kids first return, they arrive on sparkling beach with water that looks so inviting you can almost smell the salt water. The forest is rich and very green, and the fields of battle are majestic and deep as far as the camera can see. It's all very impressive.

The CGI work is again excellent. With many a mystical creature filling this universe, they all appear realistic. From warrior centaurs to flying gryphons, it all comes across well. Aslan again projects himself as the regal Lion, the spiritual leader who we really believe is there (Liam Neeson's voice work doesn't hurt, either). There is a spectacular dream sequence where Lucy envisions flower petals carried upon the wind that form human shapes and faces. Beautiful.

All of the actors playing the Pevensie kids return, with only young Lucy (Georgie Henley) showing signs of growing up. I love these characters, and they have such good chemistry together that I could watch them for hours on end. Henley still steals every scene she's in, but I also liked the fact that older sibling Susan (Anna Popplewell) has feelings for the Prince and is no longer a kid, but a budding young woman. Another character I really enjoyed was the dwarf Trumpkin (Peter Dinklage), who's sarcasm is much larger than his tiny body should allow.

So why the so-so rating? As much as I found to like about Prince Caspian, I had almost as many dislikes, which I am disappointed to report. A large part of this is the story--it's just not that interesting. While Lion had a great slow-brewing plot that culminated with an exciting battle sequence, Caspian seems to just be about the battles themselves. There are more of them, but they are without tension or drama. I was bored during most of these segments (with the exception of Susan using her bow to great effect), which became bigger as the movie went along, but never seemed to get better or more engaging.

Another gaffe is the bland villain. King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto) is not very menacing, and never generated any worry inside of me for our heroes' fate. Add to that the very lucid memory of Tilda Swinton's wonderfully evil White Witch from the first film (she makes a cameo this time), and the letdown continues. In any kind of thriller you simply must have a great baddie to initiate jeopardy, but the limp one we get here doesn't do the job.

I really wanted to like Prince Caspian. I love those kids, and the world Adamson and company have created is a vision to behold. It may be unfair to compare it to the far superior first film, but even on its own merits, this movie comes up short. And I haven't even brought up the sword-wielding mice...

Your Tripod is Really a Dolly/Crane?

2008-05-19T06:36:00.000-07:00

Prolost just turned me on to this excellent micro-budget trick that should be in everyone's quiver. To get a smooth dolly or low angle crane move, simply shorten the front leg of your tripod and push or pull while tilting. It's stupid simple, but can yield some very professional results. Check out the video above for some very convincing examples. Sure, you still need a tripod, but you own one of those anyway, right?

"You have to be very, very, very good at film making to entertain people for 90 minutes with string and a webcam."

2008-05-12T06:21:00.001-07:00

There's a great debate going on over at $1000 Film concerning the possibility of making money with a micro-budget movie. This is, and always has been, the mantra of Clive and his excellent blog, but it is a radical concept. It boils down to this: you can make something great for a paltry sum, as long as you know what you are doing. It's a philosophy I completely agree with.

Click on the link and read what others are posting (and Clive's responses) for a very informative read. $1k rocks!

Iron Man

2008-05-06T06:17:00.000-07:00

Heavy Metal

Did we really need another superhero movie? We seem to be inundated with them as of late, and while some do the job well (the Batman reboot, and the Spider-Man series), most have fallen pretty flat (Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four and its sequel). I grew up reading my share of comics from the Marvel universe, but haven't been as excited about the latest villain-smasher as in previous years. When I heard that ol' Metal Head was coming to silver screen, I was mildly interested. When I discovered Robert Downey, Jr. was going to play lead Tony Stark, I was very interested. Fortunately, they really got it right this time--Iron Man is a very good movie in almost all categories.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has it all. Brains, money, women, all the booze he can drink, and the most powerful weapons manufacturing corporation in the world. While showing off his latest creation in the Afgani desert, he is abruptly captured by a terrorist army armed with his products. Locked in a cave with the man who saved his life, he must build his latest missile from spare parts or face certain death. Stark has other plans, however, and learns that he must give back to all the lives he has indirectly taken over the years. He shuts down weapons production and creates a high-tech suit of armor that gives him super powers. But will his own company and partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) sit still for such radical action? Does Tony Stark care?

This is a great story that flies in the face of just about every rule we've been taught about movies of this ilk. Instead of already being a straight arrow type, Stark is a selfish man of the world, who has a change of heart. He's not a mutant of any kind, but creates his powers through the ability of his creative engineering chops--he's a DIY Superman. He even lacks the typical alliterative name that we usually associate with superheroes (personal assistant and love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) does have one, however). The film carries this theme right down to the last line of dialogue which lets us know this ain't your mom's comic book movie. I love it.

All the characters are well-devleoped, but this is Downey, Jr.'s movie. He is so good here, bringing a snarky likability to the shallow-turned-deep Stark that you totally root for him. He fights not only the obvious baddies, but also the corporate America he helped create. A great script from the writers of Children of Men, fleshes Stark out and gives him lots of funny dialogue (As he gets in an Army vehicle: "I'll be here in the Funvee, while you're back in the hum-drumvee"). Who better to cast as Stark than a guy who himself has turned his life around?

There are three relationships in the movie, but two are critical and effective. Stark and Potts have several great moments, including a potential kiss on a balcony and another where she must perform impromptu surgery on him. It's funny, tender, intense, and perfect. The second involves Bridge's character and he is wonderfully sinister here. I've never seen him play someone this dastardly before, but he nails it. Every comic book movie needs a great villain, and Iron Man has one, thank you very much.

Of course you gotta have action, and director Jon Favreau (Zathura) gives us just enough to keep us happy. Iron Man flies, shoots repulsor beams from his palms, micro-missles from his forearm, and can take out hostage-holding bad guys with one shot. The CGI work really excels, looking realistic enough to suspend our disbelief and keep us in the movie. My only qualm is that while the action is good, it doesn't blow your socks off. Considering how high the bar was set by the rest of the film, I was hoping for more, but didn't really get it. This is just a minor knock on an otherwise excellent movie.

In my book, Iron Man ranks right up there with (but doesn't surpass) the very best of superhero cinema, the first Superman (1978). It's got a unique, well-acted character in Tony Stark, an engaging plot that never feels boring, good relationships, and decent action. It fulfills every requirement of the genre and then some. It sets a very high standard for the rest of the summer, and here's hoping that's a good omen rather than all downhill from here.

Speed Racer vs. Lexus: Yeah Right!

2008-05-05T06:52:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I had the great joy of experiencing the wonderful Iron Man (review coming), which ranks right up there with the best of the superhero movies, the original Superman (1978). Since it was the first big movie of the 2008 season, I was excited to see the new crop of trailers that would tease audiences about what this summer might be like (as if we didn't know already).

One of the best is the goose-bump inducing Speed Racer which looks visually stunning and super exciting (let's hope there's a story to go along with all the flash). Here's what I saw:

This trailer made me want to test drive the nearest sports car and stomp hard on the gas pedal. The tempting thrills presented in these few minutes were immediately dampened by this laughable commercial from Lexus:

This typical slo-mo car ad, quickly became a joke due to unfortunate placement. What about this boring spot makes you want to drive their fancy car? Not much. I want a Mach 5 instead! I wonder if it comes with a white helmet...

'The Cult of Sincerity' and the YouTube Distribution Model

2008-04-28T08:08:00.000-07:00

Last week I viewed the first feature length film to premiere on YouTube, The Cult of Sincerity. It follows the lead character, Joseph, in his quest to escape the mediocre life that has befallen him and all of his old college friends. He does his by attempting to eliminate sarcasm and irony from his life as well as helping all those around him. It's a good little film with nice performances, some funny writing, good production values, and (for once) a positive, upbeat message.

The filmmakers (co-directors Adam Browne and Brendan Choisnet, and producer/writer Daniel Nayeri) have struck a bargain with the indie music site Amie Street, to snag a bit of cash. If you sign up via the Cult link, you get two bucks of free music credit, and the movie makers also get two bucks. Not bad. Sign up for three dollars, and the boys get one buck, charity gets two more, and you get to download the movie to your computer.

This last part is important, because YouTube's compression on Cult is so bad, it almost makes the film unwatchable. I'm not sure if it's due to the length of the project, or just poor encoding choices, but it is a problem. Fortunately, the quality of the movie still comes through, but the pixelating and picture breakup is really an issue. I was tempted to go ahead and get the $3 download, but felt the film wasn't great enough for me to revisit. If you do, you should spend the three bones, as anything will be better than what you get on the Tube.

This is also the second time that a full-length indie has come to YouTube with some sort of collaborative deal that bumps some coin back to the creators. Remember Four Eyed Monsters? Arin and Susan's deal with Spout (sign up through the FEM link and they get $1) was a first, and gave some incentive (they took in over $40,000), which we can see with Cult.

I love the idea of putting an entire film on the web (and especially YouTube, which millions of people visit), but wonder about the viability. As mentioned above, the video quality has to be better. A crappy picture will take you out of the mood quickly, and you'll lose your audience. So far, the number of views are at 17,000 plus, but how many of those watched the entire movie? Again, I'm not sure if this is an YouTube issue or not (FEM looked pretty decent, as I recall), but has to be fixed. I'd be infuriated if my movie looked like that to a worldwide audience.

Size also seems to be an issue. The tiny screen on the Tube is okay for short stuff, but generates eye strain for long periods. Go full screen and it looks like your watching through a fish tank. Recent history has proven that folks will watch movies on a small screen, but iPods have a razor sharp image, something we don't get here. Check out what director David Lynch had to say about his films viewed on a screen the size of a postage stamp. Pretty funny.

No one has been able to breakout with a giant web-based hit yet. I am always encouraged by resourceful filmmakers who keep trying new things to get their work out there, and try to make a buck. It will happen, and I can't wait to see whatever product drives millions of people to their computers (or set-top boxes) to watch it. It's very exciting, and it's most definitely the future.

Deal Alert: Vegas Pro 8 for $129!

2008-04-17T06:13:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of Sony's Vegas products since way back when they were Sonic Foundry's Vegas products. A video editor created from the guts of an audio editor, Vegas is my favorite editing program, and a great tool for PC users. It's superb audio tools have long been praised, and the thing has a very shallow learning curve. It's great for the short school project or feature film. All versions of Vegas have been favorably reviewed everywhere, so I won't beat a dead horse (I give it ten thumbs up!), I'll just keep riding it.

Even if you shelled out full retail ($599, packaged) Vegas Pro 8 would be worth every penny. The good news is that I found a smokin' deal from B&H Photo Video (one, if not THE most reputable online equipment house) that gives you a Vegas Pro 8 CD for $129. I was looking to upgrade (which would cost $249), but opted for this instead, and I'm glad I did.

There are some disclaimers. This is only the installation CD (authentic, with legit serial number) sans any paper packaging, extras, or documentation. Adequate instructions can be found within the 'help' menu inside Vegas, so this is inconsequential, especially if you already know the software. Also be aware that this is only the Vegas editor, and doesn't include DVD Architect, Sony's authoring program. I have never liked Architect (I much prefer DVDlab), so this also wasn't a problem. You still get the excellent audio suite, including 5.1 surround mixing, and the Dolby Digital encoder (which used to be a separate purchase).

The CD contains the 'a' version of the software, and upon installation, I was informed that 'b' was available. The most current version of Vegas now sits happily on my new laptop, fully functional.

Another bummer is that B&H is about to go on holiday, being closed from Friday, April 18 to Sunday April 27. All orders received after 9:00am today will be shipped after they reopen. This will just mean you'll have to wait an extra week (you can still place an order), but if you're like me, waiting sucks.

Vegas Pro 8 is really an awesome product. I love using it, and for the super cheap price of $129, you can get a professional level product that costs the same as the entry level stuff. For me, it was a no-brainer.

Just thought I'd let you know.

Location, Location, Location

2008-04-14T03:47:00.001-07:00

I went to New York City for a day with my family this past week. We visited some famous places including Times Square and 42nd Street. In Central Park, we stopped by the famed Bethesda Fountain, which has been featured in a ton of movies such as Disney's Enchanted. Right next to the fountain are the above featured gothic arches, which are also familiar, and very cool. Seeing these famous movie locales got me thinking about the value of shooting on a location that is a character in itself.

While the digital revolution seems to encourage more green screen and compositor use, let us not forget the value of a really good location. They can add depth and mystery and authenticity that you could never get from something faked inside a computer. One of my favorite locations was in the back of a local record store. The owner had an archive of albums that went floor-to-ceiling and created hallways of music. These halls were so narrow that I had to use a wide angle lens, but the result was pretty great. I wish I could show it to you, but it went off line when Youtube went Nazi on me.

Getting a good place to shoot can really up your production value. In theory, you can find and use the same places that the pros do, as long as you strike some deal with the owners. Guerrillas don't use permits, but asking nicely will often get you what you want (get them to sign a release). Most people outside of large cities still think it's pretty neat that you're making a movie. Just don't trash the place. Your reputation will follow and catch up to you.

If there is no substitute for what you want, you can always be sneaky. It's a common story that filmmakers will pull up, hop out, shoot, and take off. I've done it as well. There was a snow-covered graveyard that I wanted to use once, but the management wanted some outlandish fee. I noticed that on weekends the office was closed, so that's when we shot the scene. We didn't take long, and were never harassed. I don't want to encourage trespassing, so use your best judgment. No shot is worth being shot at.

Movies tell stories using pictures. Even though locations are the backgrounds of the tales we tell, they can mean a lot to what you're trying to convey. You'll know the right place when you find it. It will just feel right, and look even better.

Feed Your People, or They Will Feed on You

2008-03-28T07:08:00.000-07:00

I'm the first guy who wants to save money on a shoot. What you save here, can be applied there. The constraints of a tiny budget force you to be creative and come up with unique and inexpensive solutions. This doesn't have to cut into quality, but can actually make a production better than the one that wastes resources and encourages laziness. When you have to become more organized due to lack of funds, you will become a better filmmaker. Or you'll just quit.

Even in the so-called "no budget" movie there is one area you had better address with some cash or you may find yourself alone on the set one day. That key category is food. You have to feed your people. They have to eat. Film shoots are notoriously long, and humans will run out of energy (and get cranky) without some kind of fuel to keep them going. Do not cut this corner, or no one will want to "work for free" again.

Make sure you ask the cast and crew what they like. A happy cast and crew is a better cast and crew, and you will be rewarded for the attention you give to your people. Some may even have special needs (like vegetarians) and may not be able to eat the bowl of pork rinds you feel is adequate.

I realize that most of us can't afford catering. Shop the discount stores, or really plan ahead and (gasp!) cook the stuff. If you aren't the cooking type, ask mom or your wife. They fully support your movie making habit, right? I prefer a somewhat healthy menu over candy and grease, but something to eat is better than nothing.

I had to learn this lesson the hard way (of course). On one of my first short films shot in my apartment, I thought nothing about food. I'm usually high on adrenaline and eat very little since I'm always busy. Since no one else shared in this particular food group, people started raiding my pantry for snacks. They found what they wanted, but when it was all over, I was hungry and the cupboard was bare. Never again, I thought.

Even if you have no money to pay your people, you had better find some way to feed them. Otherwise, you will not only be known as the "low-to-no budget" director, but also the "cheap and torturous" one.

Time: Filmmaker Friend or Foe?

2008-03-14T06:32:00.000-07:00

In Stu Maschwitz' excellent manual, The DV Rebel's Guide, he points out that the little movie guy has something the giant Hollywood studio does not: all the time in the world. The small player can utilize this resource by refining and polishing and tweaking ad nauseum. This is an advantage if you want to spend an eternity on each project, but what if you want to avoid burnout or attempt to make a living at this sort of thing?

In a recent Renart Films Podcast, host Daniel Schechter interviewed Josh Alexander, writer of Backseat. It was a good interview, but I find it alarming at the time it takes to get even a low budget film completed through traditional methods. Josh wrote his script in 2000, and the final product is just now getting a limited release in theaters. That's EIGHT YEARS for one film! Granted, it's not all Josh did in this time period, but wow.

I'm definitely an old school guy when it comes to movie making. I like good lighting and dolly shots. I like preparation and well thought-out sequences. I hate sloppy technique and lazy shortcut s. I'd rather go slow than fast, but never have that luxury if I want to get everything done on everyone else's donated time and resources.

I think the perfect model falls within a one year time frame. Take six months to complete your web series, or narrative, or whatever and document the whole process while you do it. Put those documents on the web ASAP, generating interest about your final product. Build some buzz via social networking or real world press however you can. Put a countdown timer on your blog or site showing the time remaining to your project's release, and make sure you do something cool when that timer hits zero.

Spend the next six months promoting the crap out of your widget. Focus on getting as many eyeballs on your movie and don't get distracted with another project.

Repeat.

I realize this isn't possible for everyone. It's not possible for me, either. Many of us have day jobs and families and lives we try to juggle in order to get those images out of our heads and onto a screen, no matter how small. I do think it is possible, and could be very rewarding and creatively expanding to be working on a new full-length whatever on a yearly basis. Take your time, but use your time wisely and get it done, so you can move on to the next challenge. It can be done (even by me).

Thoughts?

Indie DVD: 'Drop Box'

2008-03-10T09:13:00.000-07:00

Video Store Clerks
Movie
DVD

We’ve all had at least one of “those” jobs. They involve a series of mundane tasks, and almost always feature interaction with the general public and their associated dregs. The pay is low and the desire to move on is high. This common scenario is ripe material that everyone can relate to. Drop Box is an attempt to capitalize on one very familiar setting (a video store) by mixing in someone not so mudane or typical: a national celebrity. The result is a mixed bag low budget effort that kinda works, but is undone by story contrivances, a confined location, and an abrupt ending.

Incognito pop star “Mindy” (Rachel Sehl) accidentally returns homemade sex tape to a local video rental store. Once cynical clerk Tom (David Cormican) finds out, the game is on, and Mindy will stop at nothing to get the tape back and save her career. Will Tom give in to her demands, or sell this Golden Goose on eBay?

Let me first say that it is always a nice surprise to see a microbudget movie that cares about the way it looks and sounds. With YouTube desensitizing everyone to a lack of quality, I am grateful that writer/directors Anesty and Spiros Carasoulos put real effort into lighting and cinematography. Drop Box looks really good. Shot selection is impressive despite a few self indulgent angles from the bottom of bags or behind clothing. The sound has a few issues (some sync problems, ambient noise cutting), but is only mildly distracting.

The problems begin on the conceptual level of the scripting and the confines of the story. Drop Box is set entirely inside the video store, and if you are going to go this “one location” route, your writing had better be fantastic, since we are essentially watching a play transpire. Well, this film has some good pacing and funny dialogue (Mindy: “What’s a good romantic comedy?” Tom: “There aren’t any.”) but can’t sustain itself imprisoned in that store (the repetitive musical cues didn’t help either). I so desperately wanted them to get out so the story and characters could breathe, but they never do (even at the end, which would seem to present that opportunity).

When the setup is presented, I had two questions. How does someone who claims to have sold “50 million albums” escape the omnipresent paparazzi to go visit a podunk video outlet? Then, when Tom refuses to give her the tape, where was her bodyguard or other entourage member that could easily beat Tom silly? Drop Box bites off more than it can chew with this scenario, and I never really believed it.

The script comes from the Kevin Smith School of Frank Sexual Talk, with a lot of profanity and conversations about male and female body parts (the store has a porn section, so we get to hear a lot about that). It’s a bit much, but never sinks to the level that Smith often goes to. Some of it is funny, but I often felt like Mindy was being victimized by Tom who comes across as more of a stereotype to her thee dimensions. I also felt cheated by the ending, which is set in motion with an unbelievable event--then just ends.

The acting trickles down from very good to passable. The leads are excellent, with Cormican and Sehl trading verbal barbs with verve and chemistry. Cormican almost plays Tom too well, as the script paints him as a know-it-all jerk. I liked his performance, but didn’t care for him much as a character. Sehl is just plain electric, transforming her bitchy teen queen into someone you really care about. She has a very honest face, and her delivery feels genuine. The rest of the cast is hit-or-miss with child actors who come across like amateurs to great bit parts like the the psycho customer played by Cameron Sheppard (“Watch your mouth--and your back.”).

The DVD is the bare bones variety, with nothing but the film included. This is a real missed opportunity, as I would have loved to have seen some interviews with Cormican and Sehl, as well as some behind the scenes stuff. I always enjoy watching what the filmmakers went through to frame their project (which is often more interesting than the film itself), but here we get nothing. I was informed by email that every cent of the budget went into the production, but how much could a director’s commentary cost? Maybe next time.

Drop Box is a curious mix that never quite worked for me. The acting is the highlight with Rachel Sehl proving she is one to watch. The filmmaking is good, and I would watch another movie from the Carasoulos camp. I just hope their next flick is not so crass, has multiple locations, and knows how to end itself.

Wanted: 1,000 True Fans

2008-03-07T12:53:00.000-08:00

Reach for the stars, and you could quite possibly capture the sun.

Make a Rubber Band Mount for your Boom Mic and Spend Just $3

2008-02-27T04:57:00.000-08:00

After using a cheap mic to record dialogue, I ran out and spent $400 on an excellent shotgun mic, the Sennheiser ME-66. It's a great mic and I have never regretted that purchase. What I have regretted was not getting the proper mount for my boom pole. The mic came with a holder that screws right onto the pole, but that direct connection will pick up every hand movement that the operator makes. Not wanting to spend $50 for a "real" rubber band mount, I knew I could make one for next to nothing--it was just a matter of doing it.

Here's what you'll need for this project, most of which I found at the dollar store:

1 wire mesh pencil cup (with mesh bottom)
1 piece of 1/2" PVC pipe scrap cut to length of cup
2 medium length rubber bands
2 hose clamps

The cup cost $1 and the clamps came in a variety pack of twelve that also cost $1. The elastics came in a wonderful bag labeled "One pound of rubber bands" (also $1) that I have used for many a project. I already had the 1/2" PVC scrap laying around, but even if you buy a ten foot length it will only cost $1.50. Cutting the PVC is a real pain unless you get some ratcheting pvc cutters, which I highly recommend. PVC pipe has so many great uses (it's sometimes call "the Tinkertoys for adults") that these cutters are a wise investment. Get them for a scant $2.49 at Harbor Freight Tools.

The first thing you need to do is remove the bottom mesh of the pencil cup. I first tried cutting it out with small wire cutters, but found that pushing down on the mesh would break it free rather easily.

Once the bottom of the cup is removed, check the edge for straggling bits of metal that someone (like you) could cut their fingers on. Get some needle-nose pliers (I used the Gerber multitool that I always carry) and pull them off. I'm all for expending blood and sweat on a shoot, but tying up loose ends like this will save you some.

Next, lash the PVC pipe to the cup vertically using one of the rubber bands. Then, using a marker that can be seen against the color of your cup (I used a yellow crayon), make a pair of short lines where the pipe meets the cup. Do this at the top and the bottom.

Remove the pipe and use your wire cutters to cut a path where your marks are.

Feed the hose clamps through the newly opened holes. This will take a bit of work and may deform the clamps, but don't worry.

Run the pipe into the clamps, and tighten. The clamps will wrap around the pipe and the pierced cup and reform into shape.

Finally, wrap a rubber band around the cup twice, so you have two bands next to each other. Do the same with the second band, placing both in an "X" formation in relation to the PVC. This will suspend your mic nicely in the center of the pencil cup.

And that's it! Run your mic through the center of both pairs of bands, attach the mic clamp to the PVC, and you are well on your way to cleaner sound, unmarred by any noise your boom op may make as they reposition themselves. The only thing else I might do is spray paint the PVC black so the whole thing matches and looks more professional.

Vantage Point

2008-02-22T06:11:00.000-08:00

Forced Perspective

The idea of seeing the same event from different points of view is very compelling. What appears to be one thing to one person, can be seen as something totally different to someone else. This method of storytelling was pioneered by the late Akira Kurosawa in one of his greats, Rashomon (1950). Since then it has been done numerous times, and now we get it again in Vantange Point, which involves the retelling of an apparent assassination plot seen from too many different pairs of eyes, none of which we really care about.

U.S. President Ashton (William Hurt) is attending a “War Against Terror” summit in Spain. Upon approaching the pulpit to speak to an outdoor crowd, he is gunned down from a nearby building. A muffled explosion is heard, then an enormous one rips through the plaza. The event is retold through five different points of view: A TV director, a secret service agent, a videotaping bystander, the President himself, and the terrorist mastermind behind it all. But what really happened?

This method of revisiting the same incident can be interesting when done right (see the short-lived TV series Boomtown (2002) for a good example). The problem here is that it’s used to cover the fact that this is a short film padded out to ninety minutes. After ten minutes or so, everything “rewinds” and we go back to the beginning. The filmmakers use this effect every time we switch perspectives, and it gets annoying fast. Equally as annoying is that not one of these characters we ride along with is fleshed out enough to generate one iota of sympathy. Why should we care what the truth is?

The cast is peppered with veterans (Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Dennis Quaid, Forest Whitaker) and they are always good, but the script gives them nothing to work with, and paints their characters so thinly that we hardly know them. Quaid is the Secret Service guy that once took a bullet for the president and is now just getting back into service. We get about two lines of dialogue (and one brief flashback) that explains this, but we never get a real sense of how messed up he’s supposed to be. Quaid plays it very intense, but it’s a waste of his ability when he’s not allowed to bring us into his torment.

The movie also breaks it’s own rules. We get the rewinding thing about five times and then it is suddenly dropped, and the story plays on in real time. Huh? Why did we bother seeing things from different eyes only to resort to a conventional narrative? Does this mean the whole film could have played out this way? Probably. What it says to me is that the “switching perspectives” is so much of a gimmick that even the writer didn’t trust it to carry the whole film.

The devil is always in the details and Vantage Point screws a lot of them up, too. The TV director never says “take”. Secret service guys shoot warning shots into the air, then into a crowd of people. A female terrorist hesitates to kill someone she hardly knows, then flippantly kills one of her own comrades. The final scene plays out around an event so unbelievable from what went before that it generated an audible moan from this reviewer. In a good movie, stuff like this is forgivable, but not here.

Some things in Vantage Point did work for me. It was somewhat exciting, and I really liked things that were taken in different ways by different characters (a threatening grasp of a woman by a man is misinterpreted as a passionate embrace). The action was also well done, despite being a little too Bourne-ish. It was never dull, and clocked in at a tight hour-and-a-half.

Vantage Point is an okay movie that squanders its nifty premise, under develops its characters, and doesn’t play fair. It’s a so-so diversion that will quickly be forgotten as you exit the theater. For a more satisfying experience, try Rashomon. Try Boomtown. Skip Vantage Point.

Why Festivals Don't Work

2008-02-21T06:45:00.000-08:00

From Here to Awesome is an online community whose sole purpose is to get your movie out into the world. It's been founded by four filmmakers who have experience in self-distribution, and are eager to not only pass on their knowledge, but help us to do the same thing.

In this video segment, they touch upon a classic myth of the festival system: getting into a prestigious festival will garner you a distributor and a wad of cash. The reality is just the opposite, with "sweat distribution" the only real way to make your low budget masterpiece pay off. I enthusiastically support this philosophy, and will be sharing FHTA videos with whenever I can.

Be sure to check out their site, and get your movie involved!

'Middle of Nowhere' Spotlighted on Indy Mogul's '5 Minute Movie House'

2008-02-18T06:09:00.000-08:00

I'm usually not one for horn-tootin', but it's always nice to see your work appreciated. I submitted my last short film to a simple contest being held over at Indy Mogul. They just ask for a link to a movie you've made, with the main requirement being that it clock in at under five minutes. My movie won, and is now featured on IM's blog, hosted by Wes Scoggins, who said some nice things on this forum page.

Be sure to read the comments as well. It's always interesting to see what people think, and even more so when the subject matter leaves a lot to interpretation. The intentional vague and open-endedness of this piece gets people debating, and I like that. It's also good for hiding plot holes and continuity issues which could be explained away by what is (or isn't?) apparently happening here.

The 5 Minute Movie House is a cool idea for any filmmaker with their stuff already uploaded somewhere. It's stupid simple to submit (just provide a link and basic information), and there is a new winner every Sunday. You don't win anything other than the honor, but it does get more eyes on your stuff, and isn't that what we all want anyway? Click here for the complete rules, and enter today!

Something's Been Eating Me

2008-02-15T06:22:00.000-08:00

Two weeks since the last post has probably keyed you in to the fact that I'm facing a creative dearth that has more to do with filmmaking than blogging. It has been more than a year since the completion of my last narrative project, and I'm feeling some right-brained atrophy. The lag in blog posts here is a direct reflection of this, and is something I want to fix. Badly.

Some things are going to be different, however. It seems I have become more of a reporter and less of a filmmaker, and I'm not liking that so much. I get a lot of gratification from producing my own stuff (a feeling any creative can relate to), and am pretty jealous when I see all these pioneering types blazing ahead while I stagnate. This is, of course, something I'm completely responsible for, and is something I desperately want to mend. I want to be more of a doer and less of a watcher.

The online world is in a current metamorphosis of content distribution, and I don't want to be left behind. It very exciting when I see sites like Webserials.com sporting ad banners from NBC. The big shots are paying attention to the smaller guys because they are getting people to tune in to their work. Their budgets may be smaller, but in the Wild West of the internet, that no longer matters. Create a good story and get the word out, and they will come. They will come to you.

As a result, I'm thinking of moving more toward more original content in this blog, and less "coverage" of other stuff that everyone else is already talking about. I'm not talking about commentary, but the "go here and read this" type of post that doesn't contribute to said posting, but merely acts as an arrow with no thoughts from me. I have no problem giving other people traffic, but I would like to do it in way that will satisfy me, and give more incentive to read the original article or watch the video or whatever.

I hope the change will be good. I need to dust off my imagination and do something fun, and take this blog in a new direction. A direction that will be entertaining, instructive and nifty. So stay tuned.