Indie Film Cliches

Via Filmmaker Magazine: Declaring War on Indie Film Cliches!

Who Shot Mamba's Social Networking Strategy

As a follow-up to the Facebook for Filmmakers post, I thought I'd link this interesting post from filmmaker Brian Spaeth, who lays out his strategy for promoting his film Who Shot Mamba? on various social networks.

MYSPACE
I’m gonna have to do a page for WSM?. I hate MySpace, and I know it’s shrinking, but it’s still a major force, especially in the video world – plus it skews young/teen, which WSM? does, also. To me, this one is just a numbers game anymore, so it is what it is.

[Via thraveboy]

The Future of 3D Filmmaking

Guest post from Germain Lussier. Enjoy.

* * *

3D filmmaking might be giving the phrase “Here’s looking at you, kid,” a whole new dimension.

This past Saturday, footage from films such as “Titanic,” “The Matrix,” “Star Wars Episode 3,” “Transformers” and yes, even “Casablanca” were shown in full 3D as created by a company called In-Three.

No, those films aren’t going to have 3D releases anytime soon. They were played as examples of where the 3D medium is going and the type of work In-Three is currently doing. They held a conference on the latest medium to rock Hollywood and MakingtheMovie was there.

In-Three, a ten year old company based in Westlake Village is the inventor of a new 3D process called Dimensionalization. What that means is they can take any movie, put it in their patented software (called IN3D) and break the image down into layers. The layers can then be toyed with, moved back and forth, left and right, etc., until there’s a 3D image.

This is the process that, back in 2005, sold George Lucas on re-releasing all the “Star Wars” films in 3D. Since then, In-Three has garnered endorsements from other filmmakers too, including Peter Jackson and James Cameron who each have upcoming films that will be released in 3D.

Dimensionalization is only the latest way to make a 3D image though, explained David Seigle, the CEO of In-Three. There are also two other was for a filmmaker to “create stereo,” which means create images for the left and right eye, placed on a screen a few inches apart. The 3D effect can be achieved by shooting with two cameras at the same time or through computer graphics, which would just duplicate the image and move it over slightly.

Each process has its own positives and negatives. What In-Three employees explained, though, was that their process was so fluid and customizable, it could take into consideration the most important thing: The audience.

The whole point of this conference, besides tooting their own horn a bit, was to educate on the differences between good 3D and bad 3D. And that’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Without getting too technical, everyone sees 3D differently because we have different eyes. Making good 3D is all about manipulating the image in every frame so that things that should pop pop, while everything else is not distracting or uncomfortable. After all, according to Seigle, 3D is the only type of movie going that’s physically affecting the audience, even if it’s inside our brains. So the image should make us comfortable. And that’s something In-Three is very aware of. They like to think of 3D as more of an artistry than a learned skill.

It’s also something, apparently, Hollywood is becoming aware of. Before stepping into the In-Three screening room, we saw employees putting the finishing touches on the final shot to be locked for Disney’s upcoming “G-Force.” It was a simple tilt up on a hamster cage. Out of all the others, this shot was last because the 3D animators were having trouble making the cage doors look correct. So it went through the Dimensionalization process one more time. Each layer was extracted – deep background, background, deep foreground, foreground and more – and played with. A little tweak here, a little tweak there, for both the left and right eye and when the images were layered on each other, the final shot of “G-Force” was done.

“This is almost like the beginning of movie making all over again,” said In-Three Senior Account Manager, Damian Wader. He explained that not only had virtually every major filmmaker been through their doors to witness their technology, but rival studio heads, makeup artists and many more – all interested in seeing how this is going to make an impact on the movie industry. And for the most part everyone is, incredibly, working together.

Of course there are people who are against it too. But the biggest problem isn’t the detractors. It’s the reason why audiences haven’t seen “Star Wars 3D” yet – the number of theaters available. According to a spokesman for the National Association of Theater Owners, who was also on hand, there are roughly 2,500 digital 3D capable theaters currently in the US. The number everyone is waiting for is double that, 5,000, which is when Lucas said he would invest in the transformation. Everyone feels that’s the number that would make the extra money (which, according to Seigle, is “as expensive as the cheapest possible CG effects”) worthwhile. The quality is there; the math just doesn’t match yet.

So until that happens, the 3D industry will still grow slowly. More and more movies are being released in 3D each year and 2010 will be no exception. People are working, too, on quality 3D for the home theater. Seigle explained, however, that the screen size would have to be huge to truly have the impact the medium is capable of, so home theater 3D is not really a worry. Piracy is also not a worry with 3D because it’s virtually impossible to do so.

In-Three wouldn’t reveal what their next new project would be (Seigle got a twinkle in his eye when I mentioned “Tintin” but that’s purely speculative). So in the meantime, they will continue educating the masses on this new medium and getting people excited by 3D by showing them their favorite movies like they’ve never seen them before.

Oh and how do those movies look? Well imagine a Jedi Starfighter flying over you and Coruscant at the same time. People falling off the Titanic and into your lap. Neo dodging bullets that are being shot at you too. Optimus Prime destroying a bus you can touch. And Bogey and Bergman’s skin looking so real, it’s as if she’s leaving not just him, but you as well.

In short, buy into 3D and In-Three. It’s awesome.

* * *

Germain Lussier is a freelance entertainment journalist who just moved to L.A. He can be found at germainlussier on Twitter.

MORE:
In-Three's list of the 3D film resources
Dimensionalizing

The GH1 Formula

The Panasonic DMC-GH1 is the hot new camera with its ability to use interchangeable lenses and shoot HD. It does have some limitations, since it evolved from DSLR stills cameras. Filmmaker George P. Schnyder shares his secret recipe for getting great moving images out of the GH1...

GPSchnyder | The GH1 Formula

UPDATE: Here's an example video he shot.

LA Film Festival Review: Cold Souls

Thursday evening, I braved the freeways and the helicopters circling the late Michael Jackson at UCLA Medical Center to get to the Mann Center in Westwood for the LA Film Fest Screening of Cold Souls.

Writer/director Sophie Barthes was in attendance, as well as star Paul Giamatti and supporting actress Katheryn Winnick. They had a talkback later, which I took notes on. But first, about the film...

If Charlie Kaufman hadn't written Being John Malkovich or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Cold Souls would seem wildly imaginative. As it is, the concept -- Paul Giamatti, playing himself, has his soul removed and, eventually, replaced with the soul of a Russian factory worker, then tries to get the original soul back, only to find it has been stolen by a Russian soap actress -- is sadly derivative. Not that I think writer/director Barthes meant to be derivative. As she said, the concept and images came directly from dreams that she had.

Nonetheless, when you have an actor playing himself with wry self-deprecation, comparisons to Being John Malkovich are inevitable. And the dreamlike imagery in Cold Souls could have been straight out of Eternal Sunshine, as well as the present-day sci-fi premise. In the comparison, the Kaufman-penned movies win.

That said, Giamatti is excellent as always and watching him act the part of Uncle Vanya under the influence of different souls is a great pleasure. The plot is interesting, with a side story about a trafficker of souls from Russia who takes a shine to Giamatti after transporting his soul. It makes some odd leaps -- all of a sudden they stop trying to get Giamatti's soul back and seek to return the Russian factory worker's soul -- but it doesn't make itself particularly difficult to follow as indie movies often do. The photography, particularly the sequences shot on location in St. Petersburg, is darkly beautiful.

Supporting performances are also fine, other than Emily Watson, whose character isn't written with any chance for her do anything of interest. Katheryn Winnick, as the Russian actress Sveta, I thought was just fine, although my Russophile friend said her fake accent stood out like a sore thumb next to all the real Russian actors, including the actor playing her shady mob-boss husband, who was wonderfully menacing. (Giamatti praised him in the talkback, calling him Dimitri and saying he is like the Martha Stewart of Russia. He speaks no English and had to learn the lines phonetically. I could find no Dimitri on the imdb page as of writing -- so I'm not sure of the full name.)

After the movie, Barthes told the story of the dream that inspired the movie, where she was in a clinic with a bunch of other New Yorkers who were getting their souls removed. Woody Allen happened to be there, and he got very neurotic when he found out his soul was small and looked like a chickpea.

Continue reading about Cold Souls LA Film Fest talkback...She said she considered, for a moment, writing the part for Woody Allen, but was afraid he would wind up directing the movie. Giamatti was always her choice, and it so happened she won an award for the script at the Nantucket Film Festival when Giamatti was there presenting an award to Alexander Payne. So she got very drunk and approached Giamatti's wife (who ended up producing the film) and they agreed to read the script.

Paul Giamatti said he was attracted to playing Russian factory worker, not himself. There was also the challenge of playing Uncle Vanya both horribly and very well. (The scene where he plays Vanya by making every wrong actor choice is the highlight of the film). He thought of the soul as a superego. Barthes had a hard time directing him in the bad-acting scene because she felt he was playing William Shatner. Giamatti stressed that he loves Bill Shatner and was not doing an intentional impression.

Winnick said she liked working with Giamatti and taking on his soul. (Not that she ever gets an opportunity show off as an actor in the same way Giamatti does.)

Barthes said she wanted to make a science fiction movie that takes place in the present day, inspired especially by Jean Luc Godard's Alphaville. The concept of soul removal as a salve for psychic distress is Prozak taken to next step.

They had no problems shooting in Russia after bearing horror stories of bribes. Winnick has Ukrainian background but had never been to Russia before. She was humbled by poverty. Russian actors are really serious. According to Giamatti, every one of them bills themself as 'greatest Russian actor'.

Barthes realized the tale of Princess and the Pea was a similarity while editing.

Q: What kind of soul do you have? Giamatti says he doesn't have a soul. Barthes: I'm in the process of selling mine to Hollywood.

How to make soulful visuals? Paintings and photography inspired Barthes. Francis Bacon. Bill Hansen. A new York woman who took photos in Russia whose name I didn't catch. She has kept a dream journal since she was young. The image of a man picking something out of kid's head was from a dream she had at age 15.

If she knew what happened to the soul, Barthes said, she would be God.

MORE: Karina Longworth interviews Sophie Barthes for Spoutblog

August Responds to Stern

John August has thoughts on the dour James D. Stern speech about the state of indie film.

Your Weekend Viewing: RIP: A remix manifesto

RIP: A remix Manifesto 2.0 | Open Source Cinema - An Open Source Documentary Film about Copyright

Ancient Cybertronian

The folks at Language Log talk about the language of the Transformers and speculate a bit as to whether the writing is phonetic or syllabic. Some funny comments ensue.

Movie Review: Transformers 2 in IMAX

Enjoy this guest review from Jonathan Chang, production designer, model builder and general movie enthusiast. WARNING NOTE: "IMAX Digital" is different than the traditional large-format IMAX experience reviewed here, so be wary of the theaters who try to mislead you.

* * *

In TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, director Michael Bay -- well known for his ability to capture exquisite explosions and fast-paced visuals tailor-made for his core audience of young males -- continues to deliver the action and carnage with more of everything I can remember enjoying from the film's predecessor. This time out, he's armed with IMAX cameras, filling the screen with heaps of robot-on-robot destruction that once again proves, as THE DARK KNIGHT did last summer, that the IMAX experience is far beyond that of the normal theater-going kind. When Devastator -- the largest, most complex evil-robot-from-hell in the Decepticon's arsenal -- appears, filling the entire IMAX screen with countless moving parts and combining pieces, one can't help but feel tiny by comparison. In a box office where visuals are steadily becoming more and more digital, TRANSFORMERS REVENGE OF THE FALLEN highlights the theater-going promise of putting the audience alongside the protagonists, giving us a true sense of size and scale. From a technical standpoint, the film achieves a level of computer-generated realism and hugeness that far exceeds the first film and expectations alike.

It's only from a story perspective that the film fails to satisfy, as its long, drawn-out plot finds our protagonist, Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) chasing down answers for why he's seeing visions connected to the Transformers and their never-ending civil war. All the robot characters from the first film and then some (32 additional robots, to be exact) make an appearance, but only a few are given a real chance to shine: Autobots' Bumblebee (Sam's personal protector) and newcomers Mudflap and Skids (voiced by Tom Kenny). Played mostly for laughs (and maybe a bit for the kids, who will undoubtedly be buying the toys), most of the humor in this sequel lands right in the same category as the first film: dated. Its 90's slang and callbacks to catch phrases of yesteryear provide plenty of mental groans as the film progresses through its bloated 150 minute runtime. One thing can, however, be said about Bay's inability to keep his films at a reasonable running time: at least he keeps it moving at a brisk pace and makes sure there's plenty going on for everyone to look at.

But in the end, when we -- the young, eager males of the world, that is -- march to the theater to buy a ticket to TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, we don't buy it for the story, or the performances, or any of the typical things we ask our movies to deliver. We demand action, effects, and things blowing up on a scale we've never seen before, bigger than anything we could possibly imagine. We want to see the United States military mobilize against an unstoppable force never encountered by armed forces anywhere. We want to see chaos unfold on-screen, giving us all the digital destruction we could ever ask for, while keeping us moderately entertained with antics and jokes, and perhaps the occasional hot babe. I think it's fair to say that Michael Bay delivers that here with his first foray into filming for IMAX, and my guess is that we'll be seeing much, much more in the future from Bay and his alien robot friends.

* * *

So you heard it here first. Transformers 2 features lots of explosions and special effects. I've also heard that there is a new duo of Autobots that tries to make comedy out of racial stereotypes. If this is true, expect some controversy to ensue. There's no way that should be happening in a big-budget, Steven Spielberg-produced summer popcorn flick.

Jonathan will be seeing the movie again soon in a conventional theater, so hopefully we'll get an update of how the generic version of the film compares to the IMAX version. Much like Dark Knight, Transformers II switches between scenes shot in IMAX and in 35mm, the 35mm shots appearing 'letterboxed' in a sense. Not to worry, the switching between formats is "seamless," he said.

Profit During Your Festival Run

Nice cheat sheet from Truly Free Films with some ideas of how to turn festivals to your advantage:

1. Some festivals will pay you
2. Maybe they can do a PAL dub for you
3. Foreign fests could supply you with translation that you can use later on DVD
4. Connection to local theaters

--Truly Free Film: Cheat Sheet #3: Profit From Festival Play

Playing festivals seems in a lot of ways like a money pit, so I'm really taking a hard look at how much I want to spend on entry fees and postage when I start submitting my short, "Stull".

I have a spreadsheet with tons of fests so you can sort them by date of submission, cost, etc. I didn't make it; I got it from another, generous filmmaker. I plan to update it and post it soon for all, after I've gone through it in detail for "Stull". It's really a shame that the document needs to exist. Certainly Withoutabox could make their database able to generate a spreadsheet.

Should You Give Away Your Movie For Free?

A pretty heated debate broke out on the Twitters last week about the merits of giving a film away for free. Here is a portion of it:

1. 
   lmcnelly I know everyone thinks giving your film away for free online is the future, but I'm not convinced. Does it help the filmmaker? 18 Jun 2009 from web
2. 
   lmcnelly It seems like it essentially turns the film into a commercial 18 Jun 2009 from web
3. 
   britmic @lmcnelly a commercial for what? How to not pay your mortgage? :) 18 Jun 2009 from Twittelator in reply to lmcnelly
4. 
   lmcnelly @britmic i'm not looking to pay the mortgage. i'm looking to break even so i can afford the next one. 18 Jun 2009 from web in reply to britmic
5. 
   thraveboy @lmcnelly @britmic That's why my films cost $100 - $500 dollars instead of $1M. Much easier to break even. :) 18 Jun 2009 from TweetDeck in reply to lmcnelly
6. 
   lmcnelly @thraveboy @britmic but if you give it away, aren't $1k and $1M equally far away? 18 Jun 2009 from web in reply to thraveboy
7. 
   lmcnelly @thraveboy @britmic i love it too, but i like not living in my car more. :) i can't make the films I want to make for $100 18 Jun 2009 from web in reply to thraveboy
8. 
   lmcnelly I'm not against using a film to build and audience and brand yourself, but I'm wary of an approach that relies completely on that. 18 Jun 2009 from web
9. 
   thraveboy @lmcnelly @britmic If you create then something can happen but it might not be in your lifetime and might not make money from your passion. 18 Jun 2009 from TweetDeck in reply to lmcnelly
10. 
    thraveboy @lmcnelly @britmic Starting off by making something great and sharing it for free is the way that 90% of silicon valley startups work. 18 Jun 2009 from TweetDeck

-- this quote was brought to you by quoteurl
Obviously, it depends on the filmmaker and the film and the intentions for the film. Even now, free distribution over the internet relies heavily on the video hosting sites that are subsidizing the bandwidth. A precious few YouTube partners manage to make a living.

So there has to be a promotional value if you're giving it away free. That's the subjective part of the equation and why "free" works for some filmmakers and doesn't for others.

PS: If you're on Twitter, you can follow me @johnott. If you want only the filmmaking tweets, I've set up a Making the Movie account at twitter.com/makingthemovie.

Good Trailers vs. Bad Trailers

MaryAnn Johanson has the exact opposite reaction I did to the Sherlock Holmes trailer:

This is what a trailer should do: offer hints as to what's in store for the viewer without giving away the store. And here we have some slam-bang action, a dose of rowdy violence, a couple clues about the good-natured (and sometimes not) contentiousness between Holmes and Watson, and a few little suggestions that this is not quite Conan Doyle's Holmes (featuring Rachel McAdams in lacy Victorian underwear and Holmes in handcuffs). There's the merest implication that the plot will have something to do with a nefarious bad guy. Holmes devotees can guess that one unnamed character we see is probably LeStrade, Holmes' nemesis on the London police force. It's everything certain Holmes purists will need to know to know that they won't want to see this movie, without wrecking the experience for those of us who cannot freakin' wait.

--Good Trailers vs. Bad Trailers: Where Movie Marketers Go Wrong - Film.com

I guess that makes me a "certain Holmes purist." Of course, I'll see the movie anyway.

Her larger point is that a trailer should preview enough to help you decide if you'll like the movie, without giving away all surprises. Ha, such a naïve consumer perspective. Unfortunately, trailers that give away the best parts put more butts in seats. It's kind of like musicians giving away their best songs for free on the radio.

Facebook for Filmmakers

After years of getting politely pressured by friends, I finally joined Facebook last week. I wanted to get in on the username "landgrab" but unfortunately your account had to have been started before they announced they would be giving away usernames. Oh well, facebook.com/johnott was already taken.

There are already people with a head start on me with using Facebook for promoting films. I just came across this article by James Latham:

One successful indie filmmaker I know has two Facebook pages: a personal profile and another for his production company; each page connects to the pages of about 1,000 other people and numerous groups on the site. On his personal profile page he often posts comments and other material (like photos), and dialogues with people on various topics usually related to his work. His company page has descriptive info about the company and his films including photos, trailers, links to publicity articles, TV and festival screening info, and a list of awards he has won. From the company page, he sends invitations for screenings and other events to people who are on his page (these messages automatically go to both their pages and email accounts), and encourages them to invite their friends.

Since I joined, I started playing with 'Pages.' I have a Page for me, for Making the Movie and for Tastes Funny. (Feel free, dear readers, to become a fan.) After some noodling, I managed to get the posts here from Making the Movie posting to the Making the Movie Facebook page (hint: use 'notes') and my Twitter stream posting to the John Ott page (hint: use Friendfeed's rss of your Twitter if you're already using the Twitter app on your private page).

I have yet to play around with video, but from what I've been reading, video is among the most popular of all Facebook messages. (There is a dizzying typology of Facebook messages: status, notes, links, comments...) As I do post videos, I'll come back here and let you know if it's worth going through Facebook, or if you're better off linking to YouTube (or Vimeo or Blip.tv etc.).

Hollywood Players Pause Web Efforts

Now maybe the indies will get more breathing room:

In February 2008, Disney launched Stage 9 Digital with an initial roster of shows that included "Trenches," a 10-part sci-fi series from Felux with a budget of $250,000. But "Trenches," completed last September, still hasn't shown up on the Web. In fact, with the exception of its first series, "Squeegees," a comedy about window washers, none of the more than 20 projects in development at Disney's digital studio have ever seen the light of day. In March, after little more than a year, Stage 9 shut down.

It's far from the only Hollywood-backed Internet video business to go dark. 60Frames, an online content company that launched in 2007 with $3.5 million from investors including the United Talent Agency and advertising agency Spot Runner, closed in May. Other Web video flops have included Turner Entertainment's SuperDeluxe, HBO and AOL's This Just In, and NBC's DotComedy.

--Hollywood hits the stop button on high-profile Web video efforts - Los Angeles Times

Of course, Hollywood is having a great deal more luck just throwing their t.v. and movie content onto the web, forget about productions made specifically for the internet. I have to disagree with Scott Kirsner's op-ed about the reason for these failures being lack of imagination on Hollywood's part. It could as easily be poor marketing. I watch this space closely and have barely heard of these projects.

Or it could be that Hollywood just expected them to make more money, and sooner, than is reasonable. While the one-man "What the Buck?" show can be supported by YouTube partnership revenues, a full-on mini-show about squeegee men that was shot SAG on a t.v. low budget, has no p.r. to generate buzz and is hidden in some corporate walled garden is not going to 'go viral' out of wishful thinking.

Microphone Preamp FAQ

This is the best article I've ever read on microphone pre-amplifiers, something I've been having trouble wrapping my head around. The big conclusion: focus on technique until you can afford a really good one:

There is a threshold to high quality sound. My goal is to get you over this threshold. Until you are ready to pop for at least that much ($600-1000), don't fret about preamps. Also, don't think that any preamp over $600 is going to do. Really the cutoff point is closer to $1000, there's just a few preamps that have managed to do it under that. RNP. Grace 101. True Systems P-solo. But the real good stuff is between 1-3k. I know that price hurts. It hurts Everyone. If there was a $250 preamp that sounded like a pro preamp, all the professionals would have 10 of them. Like I said, buying a great preamp takes a big leap of faith. I've taken you to the cliff, now you have to jump.

You may realize several times--you are Not Ready for this plunge. OK, we understand. Just work on your audio skills. Huh? Again, position the mic better, use a pop filter, set a better useable level, position the monitors better, improve the vocalist's techniques, fix the room with whatever you have to fix it with, learn how to mix a vocal so it stays above the band, learn compression, applying eq, reverb, sends, returns. In a word, experiment. This approach will give you much more sound quality than replacing one mediocre preamp with another. In a way, you guys that can't afford a great preamp now are blessed.

--How to make sense out of the Microphone Preamp jungle (No attempt made to reproduce all of the bold, italics and bold italics in the original.)

The focus here is on recording music, but I've been experimenting with portable preamps and small microphones for guerrilla sound recording. Who knows, maybe I'll be putting it to use in a #2wkfilm in October.