Yes there are way more films released than any one person can possibly see.
But there are 7 billion people in the world. Perhaps there are huge
numbers of people who have not seen many or even any of them. Even with
50,000 annual indie films, it should be mathematically easy to find
audiences of 100, 000 for each one. Why is there a problem with
marketing? Perhaps we are the problem. Perhaps we need to find our
audience beyond the normal places we've been looking. Perhaps we need to consider more universal languages.
YouTube is doing it. And that's not about production value or talent or
feature length films. But maybe it could be, or maybe filmmakers could
morph into that format.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Review: A Serious Man
Title: A Serious Man [download a PDF version of the script here].
Year: 2009
Writing Credits: Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
IMDB rating: 7
IMDB plot summary:
Bloomington, Minnesota, 1967: Jewish physics lecturer Larry Gopnik is a serious and a very put-upon man. His daughter is stealing from him to save up for a nose job, his pot-head son, who gets stoned at his own bar-mitzvah, only wants him round to fix the TV aerial and his useless brother Arthur is an unwelcome house guest. But both Arthur and Larry get turfed out into a motel when Larry’s wife Judy, who wants a divorce, moves her lover, Sy, into the house and even after Sy’s death in a car crash they are still there. With lawyers’ bills mounting for his divorce, Arthur’s criminal court appearances and a land feud with a neighbor Larry is tempted to take the bribe offered by a student to give him an illegal exam pass mark. And the rabbis he visits for advice only dole out platitudes. Still God moves in mysterious – and not always pleasant – ways, as Larry and his family will find out.Tagline: …seriously!
Awards:
Nominated for Oscars for Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture;
Nominated for Golden Globe for Best Actor, Michael Stuhlbarg
Nominated BAFTA Best Screenplay
Won AFI Movie of the Year
Nominated Eddie Best Edited Feature
Nominated Art Directors Guild Excellence in Production Design Award
Won Independent Spirit Award Best Cinematography Roger Deakins
Won Robert Altman Award
Nominated Independent Spirit Award Best Director Ethan & Joel Coen
Nominated WGA Best Original Screenplay
Numerous others
Analysis: What stood out to me immediately was the detailed camera directions in the script, and very much a big part of telling the story. Of course the Coens are director-writer-editors. It makes sense that they might see the film at the script stage in terms of how they intend to direct and cut it. The film is 107 minutes. But the script is 133 pages, which testifies to the added camera direction, despite a page or two of cuts at most. I looked at two other Coen scripts and saw a similar treatment at the beginning of Fargo and Raising Arizona. But A Serious Man is a bit more so. I think there is a tendency among novice filmmakers to write this way until they are corrected to leave that detail to the director, even if it’s themselves. But this is not generally recommended. They also ignore conventions like INT. or EXT. in the scene heading. Instead they just put the location there. They do not place the character name line when the same character speaks with action lines between. It makes for easier reading.
I watched the film after reading the script. Though I had seen it before. But I didn’t notice much difference from the script, except stuff that was cut. It’s impressive that the script is pretty much exactly what the film is. The theory on making movies is that there are three versions, the script, the one you direct and produce, and the one you edit. Not so with the Coens. What they write is what the final product is.
It’s been said that film has a long way to go, that the best films are yet to be made. I like to compare film to music, which has been around since the classics, about 400 years. I like to think that film could be more like a classical composition with the various instruments, melody, bass, rhythm and so on, analogous to image, sound, dialog, effects and so on. Could film be done more harmoniously as music is? The Coens seem to approach this concept, especially considering their script as the composition, is strictly adhered to as a musical composition is. The idea that the writer(s) control everything from image, to effects, to music. to dialog, in the script, the direction and the editing; makes this kind of harmony more likely than relegating these things to separate people, or at separate stages.
The theme of A Serious Man is quirky and magical for me; about the futility of being concerned over things in your life you cannot control. The setting is a period 60s Jewish community. The characters are both religious and irreverent, and perhaps naturally hypocritical. They are all either shallow or self centered. This reflects on the protagonist as someone who isn’t really close to anyone, considering everyone is seen through his perspective. The film even seems to say that irreverence is a part of life and a part of Judaism, at least among lay people. In this way it pokes fun at being serious or at taking religion literally. And this is the dilemma of the protagonist who wants desperately to understand things in his life that affect him and that he can’t control, and who looks to his religion for answers.
The protagonist goes through nearly all of the film with no real arc or change. He is simply put upon by his family and people around him. He mostly accepts his fate and everything his wife tells him to do. He is pushed around. Yet at one point he decides to take a stand. But this has absolutely no effect, which makes him even more frustrated. He looks to Rabbis as mentors. Externally they appear more as tricksters who tell him there is no answer. Yet internally they are telling him not to be concerned over such things. By the end he does arc ever so subtly. He accepts that he cannot understand these things and must move on.
The film is very unusual and original in having a passive protagonist and no real dramatic overcoming of an obstacle. It’s all very subtle and even easy to completely miss. I think this is why the film is misunderstood, underrated and even considered a failure by people who are used to being lead by the hand through a more conventional traditionally structured story, with a strong arc or strong climax. On the other hand, if you can accept the originality, it’s a film that makes you really think.
In this clip the protagonist sees the junior Rabbi, who talks about the inner world or the expression of Hashem (translated as the Name or God) in the world, as opposed to seeing Hashem as externally living only in shul (the synagogue). I see this as a parallel to inner world and outer world of the protagonist, and his inability to reconcile them. By the way, this script sent me to the dictionary. Though the word meanings are apparent in context.
The Jefferson Airplane song ‘Somebody to Love’ is used as a device in the film and echoes the theme with the line ‘When the truth is found to be lies, and all the hope with in you dies…’ You could even say the entire film concept stems from that line. It’s a simple genius. Another rule the Coens break is to explicitly use known songs in the script.
Most Memorable Moments: The second Rabbi tells Larry the story of a man with inscriptions in his teeth, that turn out to be meaningless. Larry doesn’t understand the point of why he was told the story. And the Rabbi basically responds that here is no point. That’s the point. It is wonderfully comedic. This also echoes encounters with others characters.
Larry: So what did you tell him?Most Memorable Dialogue: The last and elder Rabbi, Marshak, at the end talks to the Bar mitzvah boy, Danny, and returns the transistor radio confiscated from him by his teacher.
The rabbi seems surprised by the question.
Rabbi Nachtner: Sussman?
Larry: Yes!
Rabbi Nachtner: Is it. . . relevant?
Larry: Well—isn’t that why you’re telling me?
Rabbi Nachtner: Mm. Okay. Nachtner says, look. . .
The consultation scene again, with the rabbi once again narrating in voice-over. He silently advises the fretful Sussman in sync with his recounting of the same.
. . .
Rabbi Nachtner: The teeth, we don’t know. A sign from hashem, don’t know. Helping others, couldn’t hurt.
Back to the rabbi’s office in present. Larry struggles to make sense of the story.
Larry: But—was it for him, for Sussman? Or—
Rabbi Nachtner: We can’t know everything.
Larry: It sounds like you don’t know anything! Why even tell me the story?
Rabbi Nachtner: (amused) First I should tell you, then I shouldn’t.
Larry, exasperated, changes tack:
Larry: What happened to Sussman?
Sussman, back in his office, works on different patients as the rabbi resumes the narrative in voice-over.
Rabbi Nachtner: What would happen? Not much. He went back to work. For a while he checked every patient’s teeth for new messages; didn’t see any; in time, he found he’d stopped checking. He returned to life.
Sussman, at home, chats with his wife over dinner.
Rabbi Nachtner:. . . These questions that are bothering you, Larry—maybe they’re like a Toothache. We feel them for a while, Then they go away.
Sussman lies in bed sleeping, smiling, an arm thrown across his wife.
Back in the rabbi’s office, Larry is dissatisfied.
Larry: I don’t want it to just go away! I want an answer!
Rabbi Nachtner: The answer! Sure! We all want the answer! But Hashem doesn’t owe us the answer, Larry. Hashem doesn’t owe us anything. The obligation runs the other way.
Larry: Why does he make us feel the questions if he’s not going to give us any answers?
Rabbi Nachtner smiles at Larry.
Rabbi Nachtner: He hasn’t told me.
Larry rubs his face, frustrated.
Finally:What Did I Learn About Screenwriting From Reading This Script: I learned that camera direction can be very useful and can help to visualize the story cinematically. One criticism I’ve heard about some screenplays is that they aren’t cinematic enough. I think screenwriters have to be conscious of this, and able to picture the script on the screen. Reading this script is like watching a film.
Marshak: When the truth is found. To be lies.
He pauses. He clears his throat.
At length:
Marshak:. . . And all the hope. Within you dies.
Another beat. Danny waits. Marshak stares.
He smacks his lips again. He thinks.
Marshak:. . . Then what?
Danny doesn’t answer. It is unclear whether answer is expected.
Marshak clears his throat with a loud and thorough hawking.
The hawking abates. Marshak sniffs.
Marshak:. . . Grace Slick. Marty Balin. Paul Kanta. Jorma. . . somethin. These are the membas of the Airplane.
He nods a couple of times.
Marshak:. . . Interesting.
He reaches up and slowly opens his desk drawer. He withdraws something. He lays it on the bare desk and pushes it across.
Marshak:. . . Here.
It is Danny’s radio.
Marshak:. . . Be a good boy.
I learned that there is something very beautiful in simplicity. Something like a phrase from a song you love, or even the basic theme of a bible story (like the story of Job), can inspire a cool movie.
I learned that ambiguity and subtlety can make the audience think and make a film much more interactive that way. Those are the kinds of films I tend to like the most. The idea that some people can get something out of it, while others may not, gives the film a controversial reaction and starts a conversation.
Finally, don’t be afraid to break rules and conventions. You just might invent something very original.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Sadism of American Health Care
Let's Review
- Insurance is not healthcare.
- Insurance is premiums and co-pays
- Insurance companies are known to deny claims for expensive catastrophic conditions, such as cancer treatment.
- 61% of bankruptcies are due to medical debt.
- Many people in debt had insurance when they first got sick, but claims were denied.
- There are no regulations to require insurance companies to honor claims, or to regulate premiums.
- Cancer is a multi-trillion dollar annual industry
- Most all processed foods and chain restaurants sell carcinogenic foods.
- Good food, such as organic food, is more expensive than bad food.
- Health care costs are multiple times higher for the insured than the uninsured.
Ask Your Doctor
Just check with your doctor on what the charges are for you when you are insured versus when you are uninsured. The same goes for your pharmacist. I have heard reports (and have personally experienced) pharmaceutical costs at three to ten times higher when you are insured than when you are not insured. Why should I pay $600 per month to get "free" medications (plus a small co-pay) that cost $500 when I'm insured? But if I am uninsured, I pay for the same medications outright for $100 and I save $500 monthly, because I pay no premiums. I can use that money to buy high quality foods that prevent health problems.Insurance is the Catastrophe
If I should face a catastrophic health care claim, I would have no insurance and therefore be billed at the uninsured rates of one-third to one-tenth the rates I would be billed if insured. Suddenly catastrophic costs are not as high and are somewhat affordable. If I go to the right hospital, they will provide a social worker to help me work out payments or get alternative insurance. I don't need to have catastrophic insurance in advance. I can live without insurance and get it when I actually need it. If unemployed, there are state programs (like Medi-cal in California) that will cover everything. So it becomes very clear that having insurance is more expensive, more risky, and downright life threatening, compared to not having it. With no health insurance I can afford a better healthier life with better foods, and prevent the need for insurance.Insurance companies may or may not deny coverage. So you are gambling that your exorbitant premiums might cover you and your family when you need it the most. But there is no guarantee. Insurance companies do not guarantee they will cover you for anything. We know that many people die for lack of coverage even when they have insurance. Why buy it? What we really need is insurance for insurance companies that will cover you when they don't.
Is your life and your family's lives worth the risk of insurance that is worse that not having any? At least without insurance, you qualify for care under numerous social service programs. But with insurance you run the risk of being denied care and left to suffer and die. The cost of care when you are insured is also many times higher, making it more unlikely for you to get care. Just tell your doctor, hospital ad pharmacist that you have no coverage and your bills will be cut down drastically.
Obamacare
The ACA (Obamacare) is supposed to make insurance affordable for people who previously could not afford it. In fact Obamacare insurance is hardly less expensive. Poor people who can't afford even low cost insurance are left out in the cold, having to buy cheap foods that are actually a health risk. California's Prop 65 lists over 900 carcinogenic chemicals that may be found in our food, air, and environment. The law merely requires establishments to post a notice that these chemicals exist in their products. Most every food chain, including McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, Carl's Junior, Starbucks, Wendy's, Chili's, Applebees and many more, sell food with carcinogens. Some of them post the required notice. Most do not. Any processed and prepackage food is a likely candidate for carcinogenic chemicals or malnutrition.Even with Obamacare, children over 26 do not qualify to be on their parents plan. In our lousy economy, it is most likely these kids are unemployed, grossly underemployed, or faced with extravagant college loan payments, and cannot afford insurance on their own, no matter how cheap it is. This is a blessing in disguise as insurance is more of a liability than a protection.
We choose our own fate. We can choose to deny insurance companies our money and support, instead of paying for them to deny us coverage and charge us both exorbitant premiums and exorbitant health care costs.
Insurance is not what we should be discussing. As activist Dr. Margaret Flowers says, we need to change the discussion to be about health care, not insurance. Care for your health. Eat nutritious, organic, non-carcinogenic foods. Your food is your medicine. Your medicine is your food. Insurance is just a sadistic business based on keeping people sick. Don't buy it.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Honesty
How do we know what is actually known. Scientists and even social researchers use hypotheses to test theories. They never say they know something as fact. As a masters candidate in communications, I learned that it takes many researchers doing years of study and having the same conclusions before you can say that a certain theory has some validity. So how then can we watch a documentary film, made by a handful of people (usually not scientists or scholarly researchers), and expect to come to a conclusion about certain things being a certain way?
And this is not a criticism of audiences. It's a criticism of filmmakers, including me. I recently screened a doc for a small group of activists. They couldn't have had better criticisms, and accolades as well, of my film about healthcare reform. But one criticism that bothered was that the film left one person confused. So what? Am I a school teacher or something? Things are confusing.
We are conditioned to expect documentaries to be entertaining. Even Michael Moore suggests to filmmakers that a successful documentary is entertaining. That may be true for audiences that have come to expect what they are conditioned for. But that is not necessarily honest. Perhaps that's why he is harshly criticized by opponents to his conclusions. Filmmakers like this do your thinking for you. They basically tell you what to think. I like Michael Moore and I like his films. But I think he is pandering to the base audiences that expect resolution and certainty, which may conventionally be the most marketable audiences. Distributors and gatekeepers don't want to promote films for thinking people, where you have to consider what you've seen and maybe even then not be sure what it was about exactly. But isn't that what art is?
When a documentary filmmaker writes a script with themes, resolutions, questions, and expected answers, and then goes out to find people who fit into that written mold, that is dishonest. It is a contrivance. It is as fictional as any work of fiction. An honest documentary should merely capture what it finds through open questions and exploration, such as, "What are you concerns?" "Why are you here?" and not, "Do you agree with single payer?" or "Is healthcare a right?" Those are loaded questions.
Even in doing that, any filmmaker has their own bias which comes through to create a sort of narrative. But at least it is found and not sought after. An honest filmmaker would seek unexpected findings as well, to question the expected. At least such things should be revealed. But I think it is wrong to judge or to comment on what is found as most filmmakers do in narration. Keep that bias to yourself. Let the audience look at your characters and make their own judgements, if any, and create their own interpretations. Respect that your audience can think for themselves.
In fiction, good actors strive for honesty in a performance that's true to the character they play in whatever circumstance they are in. A screenwriter avoids expositionary dialogue, which would too conveniently reveal exactly what a character is thinking or what circumstance prevails. Honest characters don't talk that way. They hid emotions or try to. They lie. But the audience sees through them. So do screenwriters avoid convenient coincidences that explain exactly what is going on in the story. But not so in most documentaries where the filmmaker is conveniently at the right place and time to get the story.
In this way, a narrative fictional film could be more truthful than a documentary. In exploring characters, actors (and cinematics) can reveal what's in the mind, unlike in a typical documentary where characters are on guard to keep their personal lives secret. But an audience may be able to read into documentary characters just as they read into fictional characters, if the filmmaker can capture nuances in their emotions, gestures and expressions, and if the filmmaker allows them to do so; or perhaps catches them in an uncomfortable moment or even a lie. I remember a psychotherapist who suggested a mental diagnosis of George W. Bush, just based on observations of his gestures. But we are used to news analysis and narrators telling us what we've just seen, instead of making these sort of judgements for ourselves.
 |
| Screenshot from got healthcare? Arrest of Drs. Paris and Flowers footage by William Hughes |
This may leave the documentary audience confused, wanting more, and unsatisfied. It's like an ambiguous ending in a fictional film where we can't figure out what happened for certain, or what will happen in the future. There is no closure. This is true to life. In life we have no closure. We simply accept and move on. But we might come away with a new insight from the filmmaker perspective. We may be lead to think about things and see them in a light we hadn't seen them in before. That should be good enough.
I haven't seen Big Men yet. But it looks promising.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Film Investment Index Futility
Colin Whitlow of the Cinema Research Institute has an interesting article, The Clarity and Color of Film Finance1), on how to devise an investment index for films. Great idea, except the typical business indicators he speaks of amount to only 5% of what might make a film successful. The other 95% is the script and cast, as any filmmaker knows.
Regardless of all these indicators, even if you came up with a useful index, it would indicate that less than 50% of mainstream films ever break even, and less than 1% of indie films ever see any return at all, let alone a profit (Leipzig, Sundance Infographic 2014: Are Indies the “8th Studio”? 2). Such an index would turn investors way and probably make things worse than ever. It is a known fact in the industry that films are highly risky investments and that most investors are there for the glory and glamor, not for profit.
Case in point, The Grand Budapest Hotel written and directed by
Wes Anderson, with Ralph Fiennes, Adrian Brody, Willem Defoe, Jeff
Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Saoirse
Ronan, Tilda Swinton, Tom Wilkinson, and Owen Wilson; to name just a few
of the stellar cast. But marketing powers opened this film in only four
theaters. Yet
it grossed over a million dollars on it’s opening night, putting it
eighth on the charts beating out many films playing in 1000 theaters4. How is it that industry business marketing geniuses couldn’t figure this one out ahead of time?
In the meantime it makes the most sense for filmmaker business plans and investor due diligence to rely on the right objective script readers and cast experts to evaluate projects based on script and cast. But they would have to base evaluations based upon what is considered artistically great, not what the current industry erroneously considers marketable. Art precedes business. You have to have the art before you can sell it.
References
1 Colin Whitlow. (March 2014). The Clarity and Color of Film Finance. Cinema Research Institute, Retrieved 3/14.2014, from http://cri.nyu.edu/?p=3597#comment-1448
2Adam Leipzig. (January 2014).Sundance Infographic 2014: Are Indies the “8th Studio”?. Cultural Weekly, Retrieved 2/14/2014, from http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2014/
3 Steven Soderbergh. (April 2013).Steven Soderbergh – The State of Cinema Video & Transcript. SF Film Society Blog, Retrieved 3/14/2014, from http://blog.sffs.org/home/2013/4/steven-soderbergh-the-state-of-cinema-video-transcripthtml
4 Peter Knegt. (March 2014). Friday Box Office: ‘Budapest Hotel’ Jumps Into Top 10 In Just 66 Theaters (And Beats ‘Veronica Mars’). IndieWire, Retrieved 3/15/2014, from http://www.indiewire.com/article/friday-box-office-budapest-hotel-jumps-into-top-10-in-just-66-theaters-and-beats-veronica-mars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
Regardless of all these indicators, even if you came up with a useful index, it would indicate that less than 50% of mainstream films ever break even, and less than 1% of indie films ever see any return at all, let alone a profit (Leipzig, Sundance Infographic 2014: Are Indies the “8th Studio”? 2). Such an index would turn investors way and probably make things worse than ever. It is a known fact in the industry that films are highly risky investments and that most investors are there for the glory and glamor, not for profit.
On the other hand, an index that exposes the poor performance in the industry, might incentivize and pressure the business minded MBA ridden industry execs to make films with great scripts and great cast, instead of following the piss poor business market indicators that they use now. Filmmakers know that cast and script are the two main elements that account for 95% of what makes a film successful, and that industry execs have no clue as to what a good film is. So if you did ever want to turn around the poor performance of the industry, you'd have to remove all business minded execs and replace them with well experienced filmmakers (producers and directors). As Steven Soderbergh said at the SF Film Society 3:
....I think there are too many layers of executives, I don’t know why you should be having a lot of phone calls with people that can’t actually make decisions. They’ll violate their own rules, on a whim, while making you adhere to them. They get simple things wrong sometimes, like remakes. I mean, why are you always remaking the famous movies? Why aren’t you looking back into your catalog and finding some sort of programmer that was made 50 years ago that has a really good idea in it, that if you put some fresh talent on it, it could be really great. Of course, in order to do that you need to have someone at the studio that actually knows those movies. Even if you don’t have that person you could hire one. The sort of “executive ecosystem” is distorted, because executives don’t get punished for making bombs the way that filmmakers do, and the result is there’s no turnover of new ideas—there’s no new ideas about how to approach the business or how to deal with talent or material. But, again, economically, it’s a pretty straightforward business; it’s the third-biggest export that we have. It’s one of the few things that we do that the world actually likes...
In the meantime it makes the most sense for filmmaker business plans and investor due diligence to rely on the right objective script readers and cast experts to evaluate projects based on script and cast. But they would have to base evaluations based upon what is considered artistically great, not what the current industry erroneously considers marketable. Art precedes business. You have to have the art before you can sell it.
References
1 Colin Whitlow. (March 2014). The Clarity and Color of Film Finance. Cinema Research Institute, Retrieved 3/14.2014, from http://cri.nyu.edu/?p=3597#comment-1448
2Adam Leipzig. (January 2014).Sundance Infographic 2014: Are Indies the “8th Studio”?. Cultural Weekly, Retrieved 2/14/2014, from http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2014/
3 Steven Soderbergh. (April 2013).Steven Soderbergh – The State of Cinema Video & Transcript. SF Film Society Blog, Retrieved 3/14/2014, from http://blog.sffs.org/home/2013/4/steven-soderbergh-the-state-of-cinema-video-transcripthtml
4 Peter Knegt. (March 2014). Friday Box Office: ‘Budapest Hotel’ Jumps Into Top 10 In Just 66 Theaters (And Beats ‘Veronica Mars’). IndieWire, Retrieved 3/15/2014, from http://www.indiewire.com/article/friday-box-office-budapest-hotel-jumps-into-top-10-in-just-66-theaters-and-beats-veronica-mars?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
Your Sickness is Someone's Payday
There were people on both sides, for example, that did not like the government's handling of healthcare reform. There are gray areas. You cannot draw a clean line with people taking one side or the other. Even if they stand on one side they have ideas that cross the line. And there are more than just two sides. There are as many sides as there are people.
The media would have you think that proponents of Obamacare are liberals or progressives, and that opponents are conservatives or Republicans. In fact most liberals and progressives disfavor Obamacare as much as conservatives, and sometimes for the same reasons. Are people always strictly liberal or conservative? We are conditioned to think in terms of right or wrong, one team against another, or liberals against conservatives. It is a paradigm of competition. But not everything is in competition. There are gray areas. There are gentile endeavors where there are no winners or losers. There are only humans who live life, or try to.
Health care is the maintenance and sustainability of human life. It is not a game. It is not a competition. It should not be a business where human life is in play for profits. There are gray areas. You may live in pain. You may live with the best care money can buy. You may have the most expensive insurance money can buy, and be denied care. Money cannot buy life. Health insurance is a business. It is a matter of money, except in civilized countries where life takes priority over money and everyone is guaranteed health care by their government. That is what single payers does. This is what America does not have.
There are those who don't understand Obamacare. Who does? In reality, Obamacare was designed to be confusing and to create chaos. It was effectively written by the insurance industry (primarily Liz Fowler, a former Wellpoint Insurance executive who became an aide to Senator Max Baucus). It guarantees insurance companies more subscribers. It guarantees no one health care. Insurance is not health care. Insurance is premiums and co-pays (as Maureen Cruise, our executive producer and effective narrator says). It continues to evolve with more and more regulations added to it all the time. It is a massive piece of legislation and regulation that can't possibly be fathomed by anyone. The alarming stats in 2009 concerning the pain, suffering, and death in America over lack of healthcare have increased, not decreased. If the state of healthcare insurance in America is chaotic and confusing, how could it be possible to make a film about it that is not confusing? The film defines the confusing elements, such as lack of care, denial of care, pain, suffering and death at rates that rank America 37th in world healthcare performance (and much worse now). But the film does offer a simple, clear and understandable solution: Single Payer (Medicare for All). That is all you can know for certain about healthcare reform, and the fact that our government will not consider it.
The other thing about my film is that it is unconventional in not taking the audience by the hand and down the garden path to understanding, as most documentaries appear to do. We are used to telling our kids about Santa Claus and other fantasies about how wonderful life is. We expect Hollywood endings in films. We don't want to hear that there are no viable answers under consideration. We don't want to hear that our government is made up of narcissistic greedy individuals that care only about themselves. In the real world, we don't really know all the answers, and there are few Hollywood endings. In the real world we don't live in a democracy. We live in a corporatocracy, a corporate welfare state, where government answers only to Wall Street.
Documentary filmmakers make profound statements concerning how things are, when in fact, their sources may not be as credible as they appear. Historically, even the greatest minds and scholars have been incredibly wrong. At one time the greatest minds believed the world to be flat. How is it that a documentary filmmaker can choose unreproachable sources? Everyone is reproachable. Everything is questionable. Statistics change with time. So how is it that by the end of a documentary you would have a clear understanding of the subject at hand? More likely you would have clearly defined questions. Great scholars are students, not authorities. There is no final human authority. A documentary is one view and that view may be somewhat abstract.
I am considering adding a disclaimer at the start of the film:
The film you are about to see may leave you confused, because it is about American health care.There is nothing more confusing and chaotic than American health care. But there is a clearly defined resolution known as single payer. With single payer the government is the insurance provider for all people in America, just as it protects people from fire with fireman and from crime with policemen. Just as you have a drivers license or a credit card, you would have a healthcare card to pay any and all heath care bills. Until that happens, expect confusion and chaos in all things health care and sick care related. Your sickness is someone's payday.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Build Your Movie Website
 |
| Movie Website |
- The logline
- A trailer, concept trailer, or poster art
- A five minutes scenes reel of key scenes if you want to attract sales agents or distributors
- An about page with film story summary, a pitch with a comparison to a similar film, and the director and key team bios
- A director's statement and writer's statement
- Characterizations or bios of the main characters in the film
- A contact form so people can get in touch
- An email sign up form so people can subscribe to your newsletter, but more importantly, so you can amass a list of emails to send out notices to, for things like your crowdfunding campaign
- Links to social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest
- If the film is completed, a reviews page with testimonials and reviews
- A store to sell the DVDs, Blu-rays or digital downloads if available.
No matter if you build the site yourself or hire someone, you need to work out this stuff in advance. You should decide how many page you want, what goes on each page and which one is first. It's typical to have the poster or trailer on the front page along with a logline, and maybe a short summary. You want to intrigue people to look through the rest of your site.
For posters on a webpage, it may be better to use a horizontal format instead of typical poster vertical, because webpages are horizontal. However, if the poster is on a page with other material it may make sense to have it vertical with the other material next to it. You can hire designers or graphic artists to decide this stuff for you and design it. For early stages of development you can use concept art, which might include obscure images that don't clearly show faces if the cast isn't attached yet. You could get royalty free images form various web services that provide it. You can also get royalty free greenscreen and other video clips that you can use to create a concept trailer. You could use gaming software to do the same thing.
You have to decide if you want to build it yourself or of you want to pay for someone to do it, and how much you can afford. If you go with online free software, like Blogger or WordPress, you can do those yourself or likely hire someone fairly cheaply to do that, since very little programming, if any is required. There are also some free flash website builder web services around.
Blog sites like WordPress and Blogger are useful because you can incorporate a blog as a news page. They are also very maintainable and you can easily pass them on to a new designer or webmaster as needed. These sites also have built in widgets and plugins for things like social media links, like buttons, RSS feeds, and many more. These sites also let you post links to your RSS news feed and comment feed.
You should incorporate social feed links like these with image buttons for Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and RSS. This can be programmed with simple HTML in a text widget.Pinterest is great for sharing picture book ideas for your film, especially useful to cast, wardrobe and makeup.
You should have an email blast server like MailChimp, which has a free level. MailChimp has a widget plugin that places an email signup form on a WordPress site. They also have one for Facebook pages. They also provide the HTML for you to place into a text widget. MailChimp also has an RSS feature that schedules an email blast every time you add a new post to your blog.
Google Translate offers text for you to place into a text widget so that visitors can choose to auto translate your entire website. They also have a WordPress plugin. Considering that the foreign film market is huge, this is important.
With blogger sites you don't have to use the blog page as the front page. You can create additional pages for all the items listed above and put whichever one you like up front, such as a trailer or poster. You are also able to have a page menu item display a different website, either by jumping to that site or possibly in a frame inside a page on your site.
You can create custom RSS feeds for topics other than your website blog. Delicious has this feature. You sign up to Delicious and then you can save other website URLs to your Delicious feed with tags. Lets say you want to have a feed for 4K. Every time you come across a website or article that you want in your feed, you save it to Delicious and tag it with 4K. Then when you want to send that feed to others or display it in a widget, you get that RSS feed URL for that tag from Delicious.
On Delicious you choose the TOOLS link at the bottom and then the RSS link, which explains how to create the RSS feed link.
My 4K link is http://previous.delicious.com/jonraymond/4k. You simply place this link inside an RSS widget in WordPress, Blogger or your own feed reader. A feed reader is sort of like email. You install one on your computer. You subscribe to a feed like this one. Then every time a new item is added to the feed it pops up at the bottom of the screen of whoever subscribes to it.
You can create custom RSS feeds for topics other than your website blog. Delicious has this feature. You sign up to Delicious and then you can save other website URLs to your Delicious feed with tags. Lets say you want to have a feed for 4K. Every time you come across a website or article that you want in your feed, you save it to Delicious and tag it with 4K. Then when you want to send that feed to others or display it in a widget, you get that RSS feed URL for that tag from Delicious.
On Delicious you choose the TOOLS link at the bottom and then the RSS link, which explains how to create the RSS feed link.
My 4K link is http://previous.delicious.com/jonraymond/4k. You simply place this link inside an RSS widget in WordPress, Blogger or your own feed reader. A feed reader is sort of like email. You install one on your computer. You subscribe to a feed like this one. Then every time a new item is added to the feed it pops up at the bottom of the screen of whoever subscribes to it.
The cost for a website builder is typically around $1500. But this can vary based on what platform you use, how many pages, and how complex and customized you want to get. The big studio sites usually use complex flash programming. You can do your own free web builder site or blog site.
 |
| Actor Website using ASP.Net and JavaScript |
I build my own sites using ASP.Net with frames that display pages and WordPress blogs as news feeds. I would not suggest ASP.Net. It is overkill for this purpose. But I'm used to it and can do some interesting things incorporating frames and JavaScript. Simple blog sites are much easier and faster. Here are some examples of sites I have done with WordPress and Blogger.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
The Making of a Political Documentary
Directors Statement: got healthcare?
Background
In 2008, thinking people were very tired of George W. Bush, and especially the wars that waged on endlessly. There was a lot of political issues debate between McCain and Obama supporters during the presidential campaigns. I had done some pro-Obama political blogging with the Huffiington Post. I bought his hype and lies. In September with the market crash and subsequent bailouts, McCain as a Republican, became the underdog in the presidential race. This was all a function of what happened on Wall Street. In a way, it was Wall Street that elected Obama, including through direct financial contributions. Earlier, in March of 2008, there were some big anti-war protests marking the anniversary of the war and occupation of Iraq. I decided to do an anti-war documentary. I filmed local protests. I did research and built a website. I read The Three Trillion Dollar War (2008, Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes). I found RSS feeds to veterans anti-war groups, like the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War), and the West Point Graduates Against the War. Then this activism was subverted by health care reform.The war protests were subverted by Congressional interests in health care reform. Senator Max Baucus (D - Montana) held hearings (excluding 'single payer/medicare for all' advocates), and then hired Liz Fowler (former Wellpoint Insurance PR exec) to write a bill. This launched street protests by activists around the country. These were activists often subverted from war protests. Obama successfully got the attention away from the wars and onto health care reform. But the media had virtually no coverage of the street protests nor the ones inside the Baucus hearings. Since I was on activist email lists, I got wind of these protests and decided to go out to film the coverage the media ignored.
Protests
I used this to go back and forth between one side and the other to get responses to the opposition. The activists laughed at the competition argument, saying that what we already have and that's what's caused the problem. They said tort amounts to only one percent of costs compared to the 30% insurance companies spend on administration and advertizing. They said we pay taxes and deserve care and that health care is a right and should be handled by government, just like fire and police protections to life. They said lobbyists spent millions daily to buy Congress. Senator Baucus received hundreds of millions from health care industries. In this way I constructed a stream of conversation film with one side making a point and the other side making a counter point.
Going it Alone
 |
| Maureen Cruise RN |
Editing and Distribution
I had a cut ready at the end of 2009. It was two hours. I got some feedback that it had to be cut to at least 90 minutes. I did that about five more times with improvements in each version. Maureen became involved in 2011. She even attended the AFM with me. She found AFM somewhat disgusting with all the posters for blood and gore horrors and thrillers. She later wrote that she thought Hollywood would never give issues like this a forum. But the experience gave her an education and helped me a lot. I got a good handle on what it takes to market and distribute a film. I did connect with sales agents interested in the film. But they were relatively unknown and didn't have any kind of track record I could have any faith in. You have to research these companies. They also wanted all-rights deals for outrageous time ranges (up to 20 years) and percentages (up to 40%). I could have negotiated better deals. But I had no faith in any of them and turned them down.The latest major cut was in March 2013. I added footage of the Baucus hearings protests and coverage of the ACA (Obamacare) passage and reaction from 2010. I was able to sell a few hundred dollars worth of DVDs on my website and through Amazon. A few activist organizations have had screenings. Lately I've had renewed interest in the film.
More about got healthcare? (a political documentary) here.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
A Rape Culture?
Stephanie Palmer has some great advice on giving a five minute pitch. One thing she says that is most important is that you must be able to answer lots of questions about your project. Of course she's talking about pitching to producers or distributors, not the general public. But when you do a film about sex issues, and you get questions about what was it like to do the sex scenes, I can understand how Nymph()manic actor Shia LaBeouf and director Lars Von Trier tend to shy away or even walk out of press conferences. The public can get pretty base.
In response to the latest media circus there is an interesting Daily Beast article by Robert B. Weide, The Woody Allen Allegations: Not so Fast, the Farrow article on Vanity Fair, Mama Mia , and then there's Aaron Bady in The New Inquiry, Woody Allen's Good Name, that states that perhaps we live in a "rape culture." Then there's The Wrap with Woody Allen May Not Be Talking, But His PR Offensive Is Heating Up.
Some of the most interesting stuff is in the comments sections of these articles. Many people are taking this media circus very seriously. In Weide's piece alone, there is so much material here, you might consider writing a screenplay based on it.
Weide is an Emmy winning and Oscar nominated director who produced and directed a PBS special, Woody Allen: A Documentary, and also supervised and consulted on the brief clip montage for the recent Golden Globes telecast, when Allen received the Cecil B. DeMille Award for Lifetime Achievement (and while Mia Farrow was happily watching the latest episode of Girls although she also gave permission for Weide to use clips of her in Allen's movie for that award ceremony) (and while Woody, according to Weide, was watching football playoffs or whatever sports thing he's into). He makes some excellent points, starting with these ten facts, that would seem to negate the entire issue, and write it off as a vengeful ploy by the Farrows to hurt Allen's career. Though Allen appears to be somewhat oblivious and could care less about awards anyway.
- Soon-Yi was Woody’s daughter. False.
- Soon-Yi was Woody’s step-daughter. False.
- Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia’s adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and Andrรฉ Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
- Woody and Mia were married. False.
- Woody and Mia lived together. False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia’s apartment in 12 years.
- Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage. False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.
- Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure. False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother’s boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, Andrรฉ Previn.
- Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations. False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or ’72.)
- Soon-Yi was borderline retarded. Ha! She’s smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.
- Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride. Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia’s own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody “had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi” so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly “had his eye on her” from the time she was a child.
 |
| Aaron Bady is a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Texas, teaching African literature. He writes the blog zunguzungu. |
....The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance–to assert that we can never know what happened, in that attic–then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story. .... more
There is a wonderful analysis of the whole thing in the more than 200 comments to that post. Here are a few:
Sarah Horrocks says: ....Maybe we should stop having courts of public opinion and stop acting like we’re all lawyers and judges, and start listening to people’s pain rather than spending all of our time mobbing up on matters where we may not have all of the important information.
It is entirely possible to give Dylan Farrow the space to speak, and to listen to what she has to say with empathy, without also forming a lynch mob. We’re not judges, jurors, or executioners. Let’s try just being people, yeah?
Michael Delaney says: I love the logic: he probably did it though who can be sure etc. What’s next? The Witch Trials. Throw him in the water and if Woody floats he did it and if he drowns .
David says: I can both believe that what she is saying may (may) not be true and that she is not lying nor being malicious. We’re talking about a childhood memory, and not one that is recent or fresh in the alleged victim’s mind. I absolutely believe that she believes what she wrote happened. And I have no idea if it did.
I really wanted to read this, but I’m sorry to say that I could not finish.
You didn’t provide any context for me to dive into and develop a foundation for your article. Your assumption is that I’ll know what Woody Allen “did,” and that misplaced assumption is bad writing technique/disinterest in developing readership. Obviously I can read between the lines and deduce, but that’s not good enough.
Fatima says: “The second reason it’s okay if I’m wrong is that I’m probably not wrong.”
Oh. Okay?
Sheesh. This entire column is literally claiming that facts don’t matter, because rape culture. It also ignores the very plausible idea that everyone in this believes what they are saying, and that no one actively lying. What I read is that Dylan’s story (amid a messy divorce) kept changing was one of the reasons this was not brought to trial. Testimony of children as evidence is notoriously unreliable and has lead to wrongful convictions — but, wait, do you even care? From what you write, no.
It’s one thing to be a creep and date a 19 year old, but another to suddenly be a pedophile (you don’t seem to know what the word means or its pathology — look it up). I prefer to live in a society where such a leap at least gets to be questioned (and yes, defended!), without some hectoring column piece telling me that saying “we don’t know” is “silencing” the victim or calling her a liar (it’s worth noting that her open letter has been printed in every major publication).
You are so certain in your entire world-view that looking at evidence is secondary. Nothing is case-by-case since all subscribe to a black-and-white rape culture view of the world, so I guess I can understand why you look down at the entire legal system or evidence in general. Unfortunately it makes for terribly unconvincing columns, undercuts your credibility and is obnoxiously self-serving.
....I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but my very tiny leaning toward presuming innocence is not at all due to rape culture or assuming her lying. I have no idea what to think. I know, because I’ve studied the topic, that memories created through suggestion (especially in childhood) are a big problem in these cases, both sexual abuse and in more general cases of trauma. But at the same time, you can’t assume that’s what is happening or happened, because it strips the individual of their agency. Many people have been abused. Many secretly. Many in ways that have no corroborating evidence.
This case was investigated at the time and the investigative team either found that he didn’t do it or that there was no evidence (I can’t tell which based on reports, they’re conflicting). If there was going to be a way to show his guilt, that would have been the time. But they didn't.
Which doesn’t prove he’s innocent. And it doesn’t prove she’s mistaken or that she is lying. It just leaves a massive question mark that I have no idea what to do with. Everyone wants to pick a side but I feel like there is no way to pick one without making judgments about the other side that we can’t reasonably make.
And there is something to be said for the continued victimization of an individual who was assaulted, and then must watch their attacker go without punishment, or even be celebrated. But at the same time, the horror of having one’s legacy destroyed by an untrue accusation, potentially ruining one’s career and the way people look at you as a human being can’t be discounted.
Potentially worsening the pain of an innocent victim, taken advantage of by a figure of authority and celebrated by the world, versus potentially ripping down the life of ANYONE over a nasty dispute created in a bitter divorce, putting the scarlet letter of “child rapist” on their chest, is not a decision any one should every have to make.
But make no mistake, the court of public opinion may not have the power to take away a persons freedom, but it does have the power to destroy the life a person has spent their entire life working for. There IS a responsibility there, because our willingness to damn him matters a great deal for an individual who spends their life on the public stag.
I don’t know what happened back then, and I don’t think most people ever will. Passing judgment on either side is a game of assumptions, and a game I’m personally unwilling to play, given the stakes. But if I say that he deserves no awards, should be marked in any way other than “accused,” that is a judgment. She may struggle with his face in the news receiving praise, but at the very least that does not necessitate judgment of her. It is a judgment of the deficiencies in our ability to punish the wicked and protect the innocent.
That is my view and thought process, though I know many have one that is less nuanced and more influenced by rape culture. I just want to make it known that that’s not the only way to arrive at this conclusion.
Bob Westal says: Actually, it’s not THAT okay to assume Woody Allen is a child molester (far from proven) as well as something of a gigantic creep when it comes to his personal life. (Pretty much proven.) if the writer is wrong because there is also a third possibility which this writer fails to entertain.
It’s entirely possible — indeed, it’s probably the most likely scenario — that every single person involved in this case (Woody, Mia, Dylan, etc.) is telling the exact truth as they know it to be. This writer lacks either the knowledge or the imagination to realize just how slippery a thing reality really can be.
If this all seems too weird, just try reading about the McMartin Pre-school, watching “Rashomon” or reading “A Passage to India.” It is not rape culture to suggest that memories of sexual crimes can’t be induced, it’s just reality that we all need to live with.
Also, since we’re talking about rape culture, what are we to make of Mia’s continued defense of Roman Polanski, who very definitely did drug and molest a 14 year old girl?
Andy says: So because this (violence against women) happens, he’s probably guilty, because, like statistics, and stuff – the establishment of mens rea, actus reas, and attendant circumstances be damned, according to this writer. Yes, men are more likely to commit these crimes, but statistical likelihood doesn’t provide us the evidence that HE did THIS crime. Statistical likelihood is NOT evidence, no matter how you spin it.I say, perhaps we live in an anarchy of media profit driven consent. We no longer need any government. Occupy had it right. Aaron Bady concurs. Our troops die in vain for nothing. If there ever was a rape culture it is the US military. Our country reveres the military for what they do and who they are. If you have a problem with a rape culture, you have a problem with the US. To try someone in the media is anarchy in the worst possible sense of witch hunts, gang violence, or lynch mobs.
Rape culture? I can’t imagine a more biased phrase. Have you read Manufacturing Consent, Mr. Bady? Your terminology manufactures consent that Allen is guilty, regardless of any facts, history, or anything. Just right here in your post you convict him with two words. Genius. You could have had a great career with Hitler or G.W. Bush. Or did you Mr. Texan? Oh gee did I make an unfair assumption there?
There is a huge fallacy in your logic. You allow no gray areas. For you it’s either black or white, even though you admit you can’t possibly know for sure, nor can anyone.
What does it matter? Why must we decide what happened, who is guilty, or who is innocent? We are not a court of law. The justice system is obviously flawed. But it is all we have. Without it we are a lynch mob. Do you have a white pointy hat?
If Farrow has a case she can write a book, make a film, get rich, show Woody as she wants show him to the world. Ruin his career. Oh wait. She already has. Incarceration is barbarous and not necessarily the worst punishment.
Does she have an agent? Are the film rights available?
 |
Exclusive: Mia Farrow and Eight of Her Children
|
I don’t say he is innocent, she is innocent, he is guilty or she is guilty. I don’t know. I don’t care. Not that I don’t care about rape. I do. But I don’t care about things I can never know. It is an exercise in futility. Would I care if it were my daughter. Yes. So what? My daughter is not part of this. This is someone else’s daughter. It’s up to her and her family and friends to take care of her. Not me, and especially not many times removed through the consent manufactured media.
Mr. Bady's problem is not with Woody Allen. It’s not with any Farrow. It’s not even with the media or people who side one way or another. Though maybe it's the fact that he can't comprehend there may be infinite sides. There are as many sides to this story as there are people's ways to tell it.
You never met them have you? You never sat down with either one and looked into their eyes to see if you felt they were lying or not.And just as it is not in our place to go into people homes and lives and cross examine what goes on there. neither is it our place to pass judgement on Allen, Farrow or anyone involved here, except possibly our government.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
There is no Roger Corman
Money: The Root of the Problem
 |
| David Lynch |
| Roger Corman |
Even huge studios with business and marketing expertise cannot be assured of seeing a film production break even. But we all know all this. We know that no one knows anything. And so we make wine on the side or cut an ear off or die penniless.
The Solution
What we need to do is get the money worked out before we pick up the paint brush. That means we have to make art that will sell. The key to this is the word "art" not the word "sell." The art has to have a mass appeal. We will sell it for only a $2 to $8 rental or maybe a $5 to $25 purchase. We have to sell a huge volume to make out. We can't just make a movie that appeals to ourselves or even a circle of 10,000 like minded people. We need to appeal to half a million or more.Obviously we need that half a million people to want to buy our movie. Though government subsidies or grants could work too, except there are 500,000 filmmakers in the world. We'd have to end war to do that.
The number one reason why you can't make a living at this in this world is because you don't make movies that attract a half million people. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, because attracting them is a whole science in itself, which is why we need distributors to market films.
Distribution and Marketing
 |
| Sex sells: Marketing image of Sharon Stone in
Joe Eszterhas' Basic Instinct
|
You may not need to know how to attract a half million people if you can figure out how to attract the right distributors and investors. But they will think they know how to attract the half million and they will look for elements in your film that do that. There are a lot of distributors and investors with varying ideas on what will sell. There are a lot who will sign a deal and you'll never see a penny. You need a film that will make them agree to your terms that give you enough money to cover your costs, and in advance of going into production.
You can go with conventional wisdom with the right marketable script, probably about a contract killer, or a serial rapist, and with a name cast. Or maybe you could prove that people want to see your film by signing them up with your own marketing campaign, like crowdfunding or social networks. If you have an email list of half a million people who are engaged in your project, and if you can prove that to a distributor, you can probably sign the right deal to get your film funded.
The sellout
Does that mean you have to compromise your art? Maybe. But isn't it more of an artistic challenge to attract an audience? Wouldn't that prove to people and yourself that you are talented on many levels? Isn't that the key to sustaining a career as a film artist?
All those other technical details about how to go about producing, funding, distribution deals, budgeting, collaboration and so on, are important. But the audience is the top priority. Even without distributors you can sell directly if you have an audience. You need to be in a place where distributors need your film more than you need them. If you're not there you have to keep making films to learn how to get there. Try and try again. It's not the seventies. You aren't Coppola. There is no Roger Corman.
Indie movies that sell have these elements. Scorsese, Coppola. Lynch and the Coens make indie films that sell along with some that don't. They are in a place where I'd want to be as an indie filmmaker.
But there's always yet another Sundance movie made for a fortune that no one will buy and no one wants to see except the guys that made it and their small following. Those indie films make money for festivals, equipment manufacturers, and even the cast and crew. $3 billion is spent annually on by filmmakers who rarely ever make a sustainable career of it. The trick is to make movies that make the filmmaker a living, not everyone else.
NOT ANOTHER SUNDANCE MOVIE
A Tastes Funny Original Trailer
A Tastes Funny Original Trailer
Written by: Molly Fite, Susan Mandel, John Ott, Autumn Proemm & Chris Punsalan
Directed by: Chris Punsalan
Photographed by: Chris Punsalan & Stephen Mader tastesfunny.net
Directed by: Chris Punsalan
Photographed by: Chris Punsalan & Stephen Mader tastesfunny.net
Starring: Molly Fite, Dan Banas, Todd McClintock, Samantha McLoughlin & Lucy McLoughlin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
Leaving Las Vegas (1995) John O’Brien (novel) Mike Figgis (screenplay and director) with Nicolas Cage and Elizabeth Shue Scene INT....
-
That was you? Hey, I was just having some fun man. You busted open a major corporation. It must be worth billions. What'd they ev...
-
Yes there are way more films released than any one person can possibly see. But there are 7 billion people in the world. Perhaps there are...
-
Yes? Is this Larry? Who's calling? I'm Wendy Ferguson, with Mutual Applied Assistance Care. We show you listed at 458 Temple ...
-
Full Movie:
-
Originally posted on the Black List Title: A Serious Man [download a PDF version of the script here ]. Year: 2009 Writing Credits:...
-
SE: Jon first off I want to thank you for this opportunity to gain insight into the life and methods of a renown working screenwriter. JR...
-
The Scott Hatteberg walk off scene. This is a very typical sports underdog makes good scene, with a winning move at the climax of the m...
Mistress City
