Making the Movie Filmmaking tips, resources, reviews, news and links.

Oscars 2012 Live Commentary

Oscars Live reactions start 8pm Eastern / 7pm Central / 6pm Mountain / 5pm Los Angeles time. I'll be using Twitter to cross post. Follow me.

On either the site here or any Twitter-enabled device you'll be able to get my live commentary on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science's big show -- who won, who should've won, and analysis that will help you enjoy the big night of Hollywood narcissism! (more...)

Hollywood 2.0: The Independent Filmmaker as Small Business Owner

The following is part of a series of posts re-imagining the entertainment industry for a digital age. If it ever becomes a book, the title will be Hollywood 2.0.

The following essay will be political. Not in a partisan way, I hope. But in order to talk about how an independent filmmaker is a small-business owner, I'll have to touch on some of the electrified topics that Tea Partiers and Occupiers have erected on the political agenda. If you feel like your team is taking a beating, please just keep reading. Because I plan to pummel both sides.

Syllogism Number One: Big Government is Bad for Indies

If you think there is too much government interference in your daily life, then you must support campaign finance reform. I can demonstrate this conclusion quite simply. All corporate lobbies try to do two things:

1. Remove regulations that cut into their profits.
2. Add regulations that make it harder for upstarts to compete with them.

If they succeeded at #1 more often, then government would get smaller over the years. It hasn't, so obviously they are better at doing #2. A lot of lip service is paid by politicians to 'small businesses' as 'job-creating engines'. But actions speak louder than words:

• Linking healthcare to employment - Makes it harder for small businesses by creating a burden of providing healthcare which involves lots of money and paperwork
• SOPA/PIPA - Allows big Hollywood studios to label upstart distributors as "pirates" and shut them down without due process, passes off costs of fighting piracy to taxpayers
• Patent system - Only companies with enough cash to buy "patent arsenals" or pay "protection money" can compete
• Copyright legislation - Has locked down all culture which has been created since Mickey Mouse, restricting today's artists from building on the shoulders of previous artists or reviving 'orphan works'; international treaties like ACTA are negotiated in secret, contain language verbatim from industry lobbyist wishlists

Etc. I could go on, but I chose these examples because they are all government initiatives that harm independent filmmakers and help large corporate interests. (Healthcare costs become an issue if an indie producer wishes to employ a member of many unions and guilds in the industry; patent law makes it harder for new technologies to filter down to low-budget filmmakers.)

I don't imagine most people have a problem with companies growing large from success on a level playing field. I certainly don't. But once they are large, they shouldn't be allowed to change the game. Like many, I am wondering how we can assure the playing field is level. And the latest developments in campaign finance look to be pushing in the opposite direction.

If you have been paying attention to Stephen Colbert recently, you know about the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which allows unlimited spending by corporations -- a short-sighted ruling that he has satirized mercilessly. As a rule of thumb in U.S. law, corporations are treated like individual people. Citizen's United was meant to extend corporations the same 'free speech' protections as individuals through allowing unlimited campaign spending. We are now two levels removed from common sense. Ask any taxi driver, plumber or other average Joe: corporations are not people and spending money is not speech. Hence the comedic potential.

But we may have a hard time laughing if Citizens United means no politician can ever be elected who isn't in the pocket of a big-money corporate backer. Even if the worst does not come to pass, Citizens United has already dealt a large blow to the average American's faith in the system. And we need that system to level the playing field...

Syllogism Number Two: Big Government is Good for Indies

Economists on the left and right agree on one thing when it comes to government: government should be in charge of public goods. The rule of thumb is that a public good is: "something that we all need that will make our lives better, but the market will not provide."

For example, having a private fire department is all well and good. But if your neighbor's house catches on fire, then your house is at risk. The whole town is at risk. You don't want the fire department showing up and then waiting to confirm you are up to date on your fire subscription. It's better for everyone involved if the local government maintains a fire department that fights any and all fires.

The same concept is true for markets. The best markets are not ones with no government interference, but ones where government interferes only to create a level playing field. A level playing field is something that "free market theory" is based on. However, in the messy real world, theories that assume perfection -- communism, Platonism and Noam Chomsky's generative grammar come to mind -- are doomed to be defeated by theories that treat the world as it really is.

Unfortunately, the sword cuts both ways. Because of second-order effects which create winner-take-almost-all outcomes [PDF], markets quickly become tilted toward the big players. If government steps in to 'un-tilt' the market, chances are the regulators will be "captured" by the leading market participants. So neither the policies of the left nor the right will ever create a fair market. To paraphrase Chasing Amy: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and free markets -- all of them are figments of the imagination.

This may all seem rather abstract, but here's how I see it applying to films... The major studios and their lobbying organization the MPAA do a very good job of protecting their own interests. Vice-president Joe Biden just negotiated a deal with China to allow more U.S. films. Guess which ones -- those which have a 3D or IMAX format. (They don't actually have to be shown in that format, though.) Who can afford to produce in those formats? Rarely indies.

Since the demand is higher for big Hollywood movies everywhere (not just in China), why should this matter? Because it is a clear case of tilting the market. Given the chance, Chinese audiences might like to watch an independent film from time to time. A market that is 90% Hollywood blockbusters and 10% independent films offers more choice than one that is purely Hollywood blockbusters, a better outcome for audiences. When the studios had quasi-independent arms, they had reason to keep the market open to less-than-mainstream films. Now they don't.

Somebody needs to step in and even out the market. Enter the Tech Companies. If government will only work on behalf of a corporate lobby, then it will take a larger lobby than Big Content to save the market. Google and its allies managed to stop SOPA/PIPA for now. Yet they have anti-consumer issues of their own, such as privacy. Apple's and Facebook's deals with the major studios shows that they accord indies a lower priority. What can filmmakers do?

Striking Back Against the Empire

Filmmaking can be a lonesome pursuit. But a key to good filmmaking is organizing a team of talented people to create something larger than any individual could make on his or her own. It's a small miracle that never ceases to fill me with wonder. We do this all the time to make our movies, so let's do it outside of filmmaking just this once.

The independent filmmaking community is, yes, independent and, yes, makes films. But it is also a community. A project like Lucas McNelly's A Year Without Rent reminds us of that. (McNelly has spent the last year traveling the globe volunteering on independent films.)

I think what gets lost a lot in talking about A Year Without Rent is how important the community has been in quite literally keeping this thing afloat. Ultimately, this is your project and a document of how you collectively operate. I'm just the guy going from place to place to see it first-hand.

In this election year, we need to drop our outmoded party affiliations at the door and form our own Filmmakers Party. Gather those voices into one that can compete with the Chris Dodds and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world. We need to let them know we want to live in a world where any filmmaker with a great story can find funding, make the project to a level that is competitive and find meaningful distribution that gives the story a chance to find an audience. And we need to be smart about how seemingly tangential issues like health care bureaucracy and patent law end up making it harder for us to do this.

Like it or not, a film is its own form of small business. And filmmakers are deeply and profoundly affected by the lobbying of the major media companies. When they do anti-competitive things, we must stand up and shout them down. And since we are storytellers and media-savvy, we need to tell our side of the story in a smart way in the media.

Make your voice heard. Inside the theater and out.

Image credits: fresh by eren {sea+prairie} under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0. Colbert via MediaBistro. Chomsky a fair-use remix of Duncan Rawlinson's photo under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Your Wednesday Links: Nikon D800 Preview

Anthony Artis dissects the Nikon D800 - Nikon's answer to the Canon DSLR revolution

Lucas McNelly is days away from completing his year of volunteering on indie films! - Congrats to Lucas!

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings' slide deck - Now I know why Netflix didn't care about Warner's DVD window move: they think of themselves as web TV. There is literally nothing in here about movies.

TechCrunch: How Google Created Its Epic(-ish) Valentine's Day Doodle

EatSleepFilm: A letter to the UK cinema industry: This has to stop - Rude moviegoers irk cineaste.

Paste Mag: The 100 Best Movie Posters of the Past 100 Years

WEEKLY WISDOM:
Make films like a drunk searching for his keys -- only where the light is.

OLD POSTS UPDATED:
List of Movie Collaboration Websites - Added Film Break

Your Weekend Viewing: Archetype

A sci-fi short from the Aaron Sims Company:

This didn't come from nowhere. Sims has worked with legends Rick Baker and Stan Winston and has a lot of Hollywood blockbusters in his filmography. Still, phenomenal production values. Reportedly, a feature version is being developed.

On the YouTube page, Sims claims "a budget of $0 with personal expense on my part and no funding" -- so probably a sizable budget, but out of his own pocket. He says it is "a labor of love" and I believe it. I hope the feature project goes through -- this is clearly a filmmaker who has a command of visual effects and compelling story sense.

Movie Review: A Separation

You may have heard that the Iranian film A Separation is a masterpiece. You have heard correctly. Some world court needs to make it a crime for this film not to be nominated for Best Picture. (I know it is nominated in the Best Foreign Film ghetto, but can we acknowledge that often the Best Picture of a given year is not in English?)

Like the Best Picture-nominated The Descendants, A Separation is a family drama played out against the background of a broken marriage. But A Separation makes The Descendants look like a clumsy student film. Husband and wife Nader and Simin are getting a divorce. Simin wants to take their 11-year-old daughter outside the country. (Why, she refuses to say. A sly political statement from the filmmaker?)

Nader's aged father suffers from Alzheimers and cannot be left alone. With his wife out of the house, Nader hires a poor and highly-observant Muslim woman named Razieh to care for his dad. Razieh finds the duties a challenge to both religious observance -- is it a sin to undress a man who is not a family member? -- and her own stamina -- she has a 4-year-old daughter and is expecting another. Pay close attention at the beginning of the story, because every detail returns as the movie turns into a courtroom drama that will threaten to destroy the lives of each character in turn.

The characters are so perfectly acted and the script, by Asghar Farhadi, who also directs, is so skillfully constructed, that a series of slight misunderstandings between Razieh and Nader build believably to scenes of explosive dramatic force and heartbreaking revelations.

As 'foreign' as some of the elements of Iranian society in the film may seem, the story here is universal. The tragedy and the comedy of the tale lies in the deep understanding human nature. Every character reacts just as a real person would in the same circumstances. Liela Hatami (as Simin) and Peyman Moadi (as Nader) suggest layers and layers beneath the surface. Indeed, the entire cast, right down to the little girl who plays the four-year-old daughter, feel more like real people captured in a documentary never actors.

Read more... (includes a discussion of the ending which may be considered a spoiler)

FilmCraft Book Reviews: Editing and Cinematography

It was my pleasure recently to get a look at two filmmaking books in new series called FilmCraft from Elsvier's Focal Press. Large, square, and in full color with handsome layouts, you might mistake them at first for art or photography books. They wouldn't, in fact, look out of place on a coffee table. But there is much more inside to enjoy than browsing pretty movie stills: they are chock full of information and wisdom on their respective crafts.

FilmCraft: Editing
by Justin Chang

Editing begins just where you would want a book on the art of film editing to start: Walter Murch. If you haven't heard of Walter Murch, you probably haven't studied editing. Murch has been a leading theorist and lecturer on the art of montage, as well being, you know, the guy who cut films like Apocalypse Now and The English Patient. After a brief bio, the text on Murch explains his theory in his own words, with a nicely-edited interview and breakout boxes that discuss the challenges of particular scenes in various films.

The entire book is structured in this way, and after Murch we meet more of the huge names in the world of editing, including Ann V. Coates (Lawrence of Arabia), Richard Marks (As Good As It Gets) and Lee Smith (Inception). There are also short "Legacy" articles which touch on the work of other famous editors, like the late Sally Menke (Pulp Fiction). (more...)

Your Wednesday Links: Oscar Reax

NYTimes: Oscars 2012 Ballot - Get yours printed and ready for the office pool. Remember Making the Movie's Oscar Tips.

Grantland Oscarmetrics: The 'Yes,' The 'Huh,' And the 'What The Hell?!' of Nominations Day

Vulture: Patton Oswalt’s Wonderful Oscar Snub Response

Kickstarter: A $60 Fifty Dollar Follow Focus

Chris Jones Blog: Avid or Final Cut Pro X? Tips for setting up your first feature film cutting room. - Interestingly, he lists some none-of-the-above options, like Lightworks.

A photo gallery of old movie houses - from John Ott on Google+

Deadline: How Did Last Year’s Festival Films Fare At The Domestic Box Office?

Most of these links come from the @makingthemovie Twitter stream. If you'd like to see them as they come, follow us on Twitter.

Movie Review: Coriolanus

Screenwriter John Logan was just lauded with an Oscar nomination for his adaptation of the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret into the Scorsese-directed film Hugo. But he tops himself with yet another kind of adaptation entirely: obscure Shakespeare.

Though great swaths of Shakespeare's play Coriolanus have been cut out of the new film version, starring-and-directed-by Ralph Fiennes, no violence has been done to the text. It breathes with cinematic life and startling immediacy.

Part of that is accomplished by transporting Shakespeare's Rome to a modern, Balkan setting. Only a few elements seem out of place -- such as the custom of begging the people for a consulship nomination, and the laying down of guns to have a knife fight in the middle of a battle.

That fight is between Aufidius (Gerard Butler) and Caius Martius (Fiennes), a Roman general better known by his war-name Coriolanus. Coriolanus and Aufidius are mortal enemies, but when the people of Rome, stirred up by some scheming politicians, banish Coriolanus, he joins forces with Aufidius to seek revenge upon the entire city, his family included.

Like all of Shakespeare's classic plays, there are layers upon layers. You may know Shakespeare as a great poet of joy, friendship and love; after this play, you will be convinced he had equal talent in portraying pride, righteousness and rage. Coriolanus will bow to no man; but his unyielding mother Volumnia, played with hypnotic conviction by Vanessa Redgrave, has her fingers fast around his heart, moreso than even his best friend Menenius (a superb Brian Cox) or his fragile wife (Jessica Chastain).

If you're the type of person who already knows they don't like Shakespeare, then why are you reading this? If you love Shakespeare on film, as I do, then rejoice! Not since Kenneth Branagh's debut with Henry V has an actor/director given delivered such a one-two punch of a film. Fiennes is masterful in his portrayal of Coriolanus, and confident behind the camera, filling the movie with moments, small and large, that amplify the themes of the text.

Martial law, famine, war, political ambition, the meaning of loyalty to country, loyalty to one's fellow soldiers -- and loyalty to family -- the play and now film explores each in turn. To Shakespeare, Rome was not a quaint and noble old civilization, but a land of savage violence. (Witness Titus Andronicus.) It was also a reflection of the Elizabethan society in which he lived, a way to disguise political comment in the form of historical curiosity.

When Coriolanus was performed circa 1607/08, the execution of former hero general Robert Devereaux, 2nd Earl of Essex, in 1601, would still have been in popular memory. There had been famines, and popular insurrections. And the English had fought for their lives to turn back a Spanish Armada. All of which I bring up only to muse on what people will be getting out of our great films today. What has made Shakespeare transcend time and place so effortlessly? I have some ideas, but I'd rather you go see Coriolanus (if you live in one of the three cities in which it is screening) and share your own reactions.

In this time of wars and occupiers and political infighting, does Coriolanus still draw blood?

Movie Reviews: Carnage and Rampart

Carnage

Carnage does not pretend it isn't based on a play, unlike Ides of March. There are two -- at least, perhaps more -- times where the characters decide, under the flimsiest of motivations, to stay in the same room yelling at each other.

If you're willing to overlook that, and the rather uninspired directing by the usually confident Roman Polanski, you'll be treated to three excellent performances and a very good one. Jodie Foster is a bit out-matched by Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly and Christophe Waltz, even though her character, Penelope Longstreet, a pious liberal with a quiet desperation, is the most developed of the quartet.

John C. Reilly plays her husband, Michael, an affable cookery salesman who can acquiesce to his wife's liberal instincts for only so long. Their son has suffered from a schoolyard attack by the son of the Cowans (Winslet and Waltz), but which boy was the true victim is the subject of much debate. Waltz, as a lawyer who advises pharmaceutical companies on how to deny culpability, is perfectly cast in terms of his sly, slimy persona. His accent, however, is never explained in the text, which makes his character's hyper-sensitivity to the use of English words less-than believable. Kate Winslet has already proven her facility with an American accent many times, and has no such believability problems. Her portrayal of the buttoned-up Nancy's descent into candor is the highlight of the film.

The play is a translation of a French original by playwright Yasmina Reza, Le dieu du carnage (The God of Carnage). I saw her celebrated play Art in London in the late 90's, and that was also a very funny and very vicious examination of upper-middle-class mores. This play/movie doesn't quite have the same climactic finish as Art. The energy ramps up, but there seems to me to be a great deal further to go when the figurative curtain drops. The ending felt more like an intermission break -- the veneer of society peeled back only halfway.

The screenplay for Carnage is credited to Polanski and Reza. Christopher Hampton translated it for the London stage, and I bet I'd have preferred his version. Still, as a royal rumble between great actors, you can do worse than to give them a proven stage property and set them at each others throats. Reza's tale seems to endorse the idea that civilization is really a fragile construction, but also a self-healing one. For all they tear each other down, these couples are simpatico in many ways. I could see friendships forming out of this encounter that last longer than the marriages.

Rampart

Rampart is the second collaboration between writer/director Oren Moverman and actor Woody Harrelson, the first being 2009's The Messenger, which I watched last week on Netflix streaming, and which blew me away. Once again, they have created an unforgettable character. Harrelson's Officer Dave "Daterape" Brown is the kind of hard-ass, manly cop you would expect to be terse and plainspoken. Instead, he relishes florid language and quoting esoteric legal opinions. His tragic flaw is his own moral certainty, which blinds him to the shades of grey all around him.

Rampart takes place in the middle of the scandal surrounding the Rampart division of the Los Angeles Police Department in 1999. In this climate, "Daterape" Brown's brutal tactics that once made him a hero, now make him a pariah. Moverman, along with his co-screenwriter, the crime novelist James Ellroy, has chosen an elliptical, expressionistic style for this story and it works like gangbusters.

As Dave's paranoia and self-destructiveness metastasize, editor Jay Rabinowitz skillfully whipsaws us through his encounters with his family, the top brass and a string of women. The gritty, high-contrast cinematography by d.p. Bobby Bukowski is phenomenal. The only stylistic flourish that felt too strained was a deposition scene where the conversation literally went in circles.

Like The Messenger, this film is a difficult sell in traditional commercial terms. Is Dave a victim of weak-spined politicians, or a symbol of police corruption? What are we to make of the characters played by Ned Beatty and Robin Wright who may or may not be double-dealing against him? Can any movie which foregrounds character so much over the plot be sold to mass audiences? Then again, Drive has done okay. I hope Rampart will be able to find the same smart genre audience.

Your Wednesday Links: Hey, Have You Heard of SOPA/PIPA?

Confessions of a Hollywood Professional: Why I Can't Support the Stop Online Piracy Act - A working Hollywood editor looks at both sides of the argument before determining the flaws of the bills.

Free PDF screenplay downloads from this year's Sony films, including Moneyball

Tips for Using Audio Engineering Mistakes Creatively - warning: geeky

NYTimes: A new theory of what makes films satisfying

The documentary A Personal Journey Through American Films with Martin Scorsese is now available free online

Quentin Tarantino’s favorite films of 2011

Most of these links come from the @makingthemovie Twitter stream. If you'd like to get them as they come, throw us a follow.