This Savage Art

Technology has upended everything from the music industry to shopping to how we get our news. Why should film festivals be any different? Scott Kirsner has a post announcing the first feature film, The Cult Of Sincerity, to debut on YouTube. That’s quite a feat and definitely raises some serious questions for any filmmaker creating content nowadays. New rules, more options, different workflows.

The film’s producers chose to just bypass the whole accept/reject process of the film festival and offer it up to whoever wants it for free. As compensation they will earn money if viewers sign up for a music service for a fee in order to watch the film online. It’s not the first film to set up this kind of structure but it’s obvious the distribution model is going in a different direction. One of the key questions that comes up is; will your film play better on the internet? Meaning, will it find its audience from online viewers versus a theatrical release? If you have a twenty-something post-college comedy [far from a new concept] like this one, your demographic is already sitting in the theater, their laptops. If you have an oddly sweeping, landscaped epic shot with anamorphic lenses on 35mm, maybe not.

Either way it seems that this new process of cutting out the festival middle man might have a serious trickle down effect. There are so many festivals right now, too many to even count [Okay, I'll look it up. Around 4,000 worldwide. Source: FilmFestivals.com.] Will online festivals and distribution put a crimp in real world film festival attendance? It seems that if festivals aren’t programming important, relevant films that need that exposure to push them into the stratosphere you might have an answer sooner than later.

Popularity: 26% [?]

If there ever was a time when the film world was in a total state of flux it would be now. With a writer’s strike still looming everyone needs a new slate and fast. Sundance starts today and it should be interesting to see what studios will want to push out to its audiences this year. Safe is in and has been for a while which doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that we will be seeing a big push of daring new independent films this year but you never know. Damn I miss them! It seems that smaller films that were bought up last year and expected to break out just didn’t. There is definitely a Little Miss Sunshine vibe in the air I’m sure. There will much press and analysis of the festival in the next week so check this little tidbit out before the floodgates are opened. Remember, nobody knows nothing [or anything depending on how grammatically correct you want to get.]

Also, starting tomorrow you can watch festival shorts for free from the Sundance site.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Like I promised, here are my notes from the IFP Conference. I’ve attended the Conference in the past and I have to say this was one of the better ones. I’m still not sure if it’s because I’m a little older, a little wiser or the IFP just started tuning in and listening to the attendees more. Some things can improve, they always can. One thought that kept rolling through my mind is here you have a room full of writers, directors and producers with projects in the works or looking for someone to help them get from A to B. It would be a great feature of the Conference if the IFP could arrange some sort of matchmaking scenario for these participants in the future. Another observation was that the average age of attendees seemed to be older where I remember a few years back the age was about twenty-something.

Overall I felt that there is one consistent feeling for the filmmaker attending the Conference — you’re always walking the line of optimism/pessimism. Being wrapped in the climate of this independent world feels empowering. Hearing people speak about projects, running into colleagues. It’s an energy boost for the individual who feels tapped out, disconnected or just temporarily lacking in creative drive. Its a place for intelligent swapping of ideas and an open dialogue.

The downside, we’re all broke. We’re all in the same boat, pushing our projects, saving our pennies and jonesing to make the next or first film. Now with more product, choice and options for exhibition the real estate for new films is harder and harder to attain. Fighting through the clutter has become more of a challenge. It’s a long haul. The obvious thought on everyone’s mind is the validity of internet and how is it going to serve us.

So these are some fast and loose notes regarding the panels I attended. You can refer to the Conference link above for more information on each panel. The panelists listed on the site aren’t all accurate, some speakers were subbed out for others. Like the title says Filmmaker Conference, the following information deals with the world of producing films independently. That word has many different meanings but I think one theme that everyone who attended this Conference agrees upon is we are the driving force, the inertia that will get our films made. Do It Yourself.

There’s a lot of information here and I encourage those who are reading this post and/or attended the Conference to leave comments about what these speakers had to say and/or how it reflects your own experience as a filmmaker. Also, go to the Filmmaker Magazine Blog and CinemaTech and search for more coverage of this event. Continue Reading →

Popularity: 100% [?]

It begins tomorrow September 16th and runs through the 21st. Looks like a solid lineup of panelists. I’ll be there Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.

Popularity: 16% [?]

When a lot of independent [for lack of a better word] filmmakers that are getting recognized now for their brilliance were making there bones back in the 90′s there was a charge in the air. It was real. You know, all the Spikes, Mikes, Slackers and Dykes. Sayles, Jarmusch, Spike, Haynes and many more. There was no agenda other than making the most creatively compelling film you could make with what little you had – by any means necessary. Time has passed and the climate has changed but it’s good to see the spirit of that style of filmmaking is still alive and kicking with Frownland.

In Ronnie Bronstein’s valentine to the immediacy of 16mm independent filmmaking, Frownland takes a look at a small circle of socially retarded individuals living on the fringes of white urban twenty-something life. At the center is Keith, an inarticulate brain aneurysm waiting to happen. As he performs his reverse commute out of the city, feebly attempting to sell coupons door-to-door, Keith is challenged by the simple minutia of life. There is so little this character can actually handle but when he attempts to it is pure heartbreak.

To keep in time with the fractured nature of the film let me quickly segue into the quote that sums it up beautifully from heir director:

More succinctly, Frownland is my own small contribution to the sinking barge of the 16mm indie model; both an overripe tomato lobbed with spazmo inaccuracy at the spotless surface of the silver screen and a mad valentine to the craggy tradition of unadulterated cheap-o-independent expression. Its inelegance is its spirit. – Ronald Bronstein

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the way you sell a film. I’m sorry I can’t describe it better than that but I look at this as a good thing. Films that I have had trouble articulating immediately after seeing them are the ones that have never left me like some chip that’s been embedded under my skin. Bad Lieutenant, Lost Highway and now, Frownland. Props to all involved in making this film, selling out the IFC Center screening last Wednesday night and reminding us what it’s really all about.

I still can’t get the snot bubble out of my mind.

Popularity: 16% [?]

It’s no secret that the fall is the time when the cream of the crop get placed into theaters. This one is no different. Here are some must-sees:

The Ten
From the guys who brought us Wet Hot American Summer and the MTV sketch comedy show The State. I saw the trailer before Sunshine, effing hilarious. August 3.

I’m Not There
Todd Haynes’ meditation on the life of Bob Dylan. This looks like a very special film that stylistically and thematically will probably be the most exciting thing we’ll see in a very long time. September 21.

The Darjeeling Limited
Wes Anderson does it again and we are there. I don’t want to read too much about the film I just want to see it. September 29 [limited.]

No Country For Old Men
The Coen Brothers are back with a vengeance. November 9 [limited.]

[...]

The Darjeeling Limited and No Country For Old Men are opening and closing the New York Film Festival this year. Hopefully, with a little luck, I’ll grab me some tickets.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Sometimes being an independent filmmaker is like the celluloid life of a New York cop. You trudge through a career trying to make a difference but in the end you don’t know if you even made a dent. Cynical, maybe, but that’s how I felt a couple of weeks ago after having lunch with a Nicholl Fellowship winner. This writer played the game. He came out of a major screenwriting program then won the Fellowship, the most prestigious award that can be granted to a screenwriter. Got heavily courted by Hollywood, got a manager, got optioned, got major star interest. Manager relationship went sour, broke off with his representation. Options didn’t take. A significant amount of time has passed between the award and now. Back to square one without representation.

It was tough to hear this story because I know it is so common for so many — to try and because the planets didn’t align have a hard earned accomplishment like finishing a screenplay you’re proud of fall short of a deserved destination. I guess the more obvious insult to injury was that this writer won the Fellowship — basically saying “We the Academy aka The Industry, deem this work exceptional and worthy of such accolades.”

Is the Nicholl just the SAT for the film industry or is it the ticket for a screenwriter’s career? Can be. Truth is, and as the numbers¹ serve me, most winners don’t go on to have their screenplays produced but it is definitely a jumping off point.² It’s a chance to meet the industry and probably get representation. What you do with all of that is really up to you. More so, what this really illustrates is there is absolutely no logic or stock answer to how to get a pass into the club. It just makes you question the whole process. Maybe the real question to ask is — other than the money rewarded³, is a Nicholl Fellowship screenplay relevant in today’s Hollywood? Probably just as relevant as any other well-written, producible screenplay — you just jump to the head of the line.

Before we went our separate ways this writer told me an unrelated story of a well known and proven producer who was responsible for some significant achievements in filmmaking. He said “Back then we weren’t interested in how commercial a film was, we just set out to make the best film we could possibly make.” Well, maybe not so unrelated.

A final note, the writer I’m speaking of submitted his screenplay three times to the Academy before the Nicholl Fellowship was awarded.

[...]

As a coda to this entry I would like to add my personal take on contests and fellowships for screenwriting and/or filmmaking; take them all with a grain of salt. Your career shouldn’t rest on the outcome of a committee regardless of who they are. Sure, a big fat check and a little attention would be nice but the odds are against you. Should you bother? Absolutely. If you feel your work is ready to go out there and compete (let’s not fool ourselves, it is a competition) with others for that golden ticket then do it. I entered Dyre Avenue in the Nicholl, the BlueCat Screenplay Competition and the Sundance Lab last year and got an overwhelming “no” across the board. This year I reentered BlueCat with a new draft and got in the upper 10%, still waiting on Sundance Lab. None of this is stopping me from my mission of turning my current screenplay into my first feature.

Be selective with your choices. Make sure the competitions are legit and they can actually advance your career in some way otherwise what’s the point? Be proactive. Keep writing and pursuing your goals.

Popularity: 30% [?]

1. Of the 96 scripts that have earned their writers Fellowships from 1986-2006, 13 have been produced [↩]
2. Many Fellows have used the award to launch rewarding careers.[↩]
3. Up to five $30,000 Fellowships are awarded each year [↩]

I’ve been watching the three part Q&A with Peter Broderick (remember New Wave Films) on Scott Kirsner’s excellent site CinemaTech. Broderick discusses the recent Cannes Festival, current financing and DIY distribution models and downloading films via the internet. It’s definitely worth checking out if you’re an independent filmmaker looking for current info on financing and distribution.

Also, Four Eyed Monsters creators Arin Crumley and Susan Buice are offering their film in its 72 minute entirety on YouTube and if you sign up for free with Spout, an online film recommendation community, a $1 will go to the filmmaker’s debt. As of writing this they have raised around $24,000. Regardless of how you feel about the film, the way they have used the internet to get the word out is something that deserves a little recognition. I know it’s been a long, hard road for them.

Popularity: 12% [?]

Mike Curtis launches HD For Indies Premium. Analysis, deep coverage, downloadable content and tutorials. Now maybe the guy can make a little money for working his ass off.

Popularity: 5% [?]

“There is no doubt that most of the dullness of our movies is concocted in advance in the so-called heads of the so-called scriptwriters. Not only the dullness: They also perpetuate the standard film constructions, dialogues, plots. They follow closely their textbooks of “good” screenwriting. Shoot all scriptwriters, and we may yet have a rebirth of American cinema.”

– Jonas Mekas, Village Voice (November 25, 1959)

Author, filmmaker and Professor of Film in the Department of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison J.J. Murphy has written the kind of book that I’ve been waiting for for a long time. Think of Me and You and Memento and Fargo as an alternative to the slew of “manuals” on screenwriting out there. There is valid information in all of them but like we all know application of knowledge is everything. There is no magic bullet to writing a good screenplay.

What Murphy covers in this book is not a “how-to” for independent screenwriters but case studies of a dozen screenplays that range from the experimental collage of Gummo to the film noir reworking of Fargo (see the list here.) He goes on to say that independent film is a sort of amalgamation of art cinema and classic film design. What degree or side of the track the screenplay falls on is at the discretion of the writer. I wouldn’t say this is a bashing of contemporary commercial films but more a contrarian view. He allows us, through deep analysis, to see the moving parts of these screenplays. In contrast these films are more flattened dramatically, not so dependent on the overworked go-to devices of mainstream American cinema. This is not to say that these films don’t incorporate similar mappings like the three-act structure, most of them do with exception to a couple.

In Me and You and Memento and Fargo, the styles of these films are broken down into four parts with three film examples each part. In Part One we see Murphy dissect what is the Problematic Protagonist. Here he states and illustrates that manual writers like Robert McKee teach us that protagonist have to be goal-driven; ambivalence is boring and does not move the story forward. Here Murphy gives Stranger Than Paradise, Safe and Fargo as examples of how protagonists can take on different qualities and still remain interesting, Fargo probably being the most bold by shifting protagonists almost in mid-stream. Characters float through story damned by circumstance and we are engaged just for the pure enjoyment of watching these charismatic, odd and delusional characters make their way in an unpredictable world.

Continuing with Part Two, Multiple-Plot Films, we see how the use of ensemble pieces can tell interesting stories that get discouraged by the manuals. Trust, Gas Food Lodging and Me and You and Everyone We Know are the films chosen. By far the most interesting point made here comes from the two films that are created by women. Allison Anders, director of Gas Food Lodging flat out says the three-act structure is masculine in nature and that filmmakers should rely on a more intuitive and inventive approach especially if you are trying to put your name out there as a independent artist.

Part Three is where the waters get deep with Temporal Structures. These are films that deal with shifting expectations by altering time and orientation in the mind of the audience. By using Reservoir Dogs, Elephant and Memento Murphy shows us how the filmmakers use flashback, foreshadowing and overlapping time to create complex structures that challenge the viewer and probably ask more of the audience than most films. Just explaining Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s Chinese box film Memento with its demanding exploration of time and memory is an impressive feat.

The collection of the more unorthodox films in this analysis is saved for last in Part Four. Here the films live in a dream state or even possibly a state of psychosis. They are Noncausal Structures. All conventional logic is nonexistent. The film’s world creates its own logic. Mulholland Drive, Gummo and Slacker have no predictable arc, plot points or reversals. Lines of plot drop out sometimes returning much, much later or not at all. It would be easy to say these films have no rules and are a random blurting out of thoughts on a page but upon analysis you can see this is not true. They are a whole creation unto themselves.

“Classical Hollywood narration is not intrinsically superior to either art-cinema narration or the combination represented by American Independent cinema” is the sentiment that concludes Murphy’s book. After reading it and seeing the numerous examples of how these films break the rules one can only ask the question, “why can’t I break the rules?” The answer is you can. The filmmakers discussed are very aware of what the rules are for Hollywood screenwriting, they just choose to not play by them. Screenwriting should have method though. To quote Murphy’s final statement,“Real innovation in screenwriting, as the various independent films in this study boldly attest, comes not from an ignorance of narrative film conventions, but from being able to see beyond their limitations.”

Reading J.J. Murphy’s book was very freeing and I would recommend it to anyone interested in telling a good story for film, not just the independent screenwriter. With emerging technology and distribution models changing the playing field for filmmakers the thing that will never change is the need for fresh inventive storytelling. This is why I think this book is very relevant regardless of where film exhibition is going.

Prior to reading I would suggest renting all the films or at least being familiar with them. The book goes into great detail when explaining the progression of structure of the films. Me and You and Memento and Fargo is an excellent addition to any filmmaker’s library but mostly anyone who has felt tied down by the manuals and in need of a creative punch in the arm.

Popularity: 28% [?]