Collectively Speaking

FREE!
Filmmakers Alliance
Magazine
Spring 2006
INSIDE: The Art of Exhibition, a spotlight on L.A.'s treasured
American Cinematheque, words of wisdom from indie film icon, Bob Hawk,
Inspiration from the folks at EZTV, a search for signs of intelligent life
in Cathy Pagano's Where Are Our Bards?, and more...
Filmmaker’s Alliance is a non-profit collective dedicated to supporting independent filmmakers in Los Angeles.
The members of FA help each other make films of all styles and lengths. It’s that simple.
The Filmmakers Alliance
10920 Ventura Blvd. Studio City, CA 91604
818-980-8161 ph
213.228.1156 fax
[email protected]
www.filmmakersalliance.com
Date ___________
Filmmakers Alliance Membership Application
Name __________________________________________ Company Name ____________________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
City ______________________________________________________ State ____________________ Zip ___________________
Home Phone ____________________ Work ___________________ Cell ______________________ Fax ___________________
Email ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
What are your filmmaking goals? How do you think Filmmakers Alliance can help you achieve those goals?
BASIC FILM EXPERIENCE:
What is your primary area of expertise?
What is your secondary area of expertise?
Do you possess any filmmaking resources you would be willing to share with other filmmakers? If so, please list
FA ACTIVITIES:
DISCUSSION FORUMS: Would you be interested in hosting a discussion forum? If so, which would you prefer:
Classic, Documentary, Experimental, Post-Production, or Filmmakers Forum?
WRITERS GROUPS: Would you like to be a member of a writers group or start your own?
STAGED READINGS: Do you have a script you’d like to submit for a staged reading?
MEMBERSHIP FEE: $125 per year
Payment method is credit card* or check only.
Credit card type (circle one): Visa
Mastercard
Discover
American Express
Credit card #: ______________________________________________ Expiration Date: ________________________________
* A 4% fee will be added to all credit card transactions.
Please mail this application with check (if applicable) to the letterhead address, payable to Filmmakers Alliance.
Please note “dues payment” in the memo line of the check.
Filmmakers Alliance is a 501(c) non-profit corporation. Your dues are tax-deductible.
The Filmmakers Alliance
10920 Ventura Blvd.
Studio City, CA 91604
www.filmmakersalliance.com
Visit the website or call the office for meeting and general information.
Guests and prospective members welcome.
The F.A. Officers
Executive Director
Diane Gaidry
Associate Director
Amanda Sweikow
President
Jacques Thelemaque
Mission Statement
Filmmakers Alliance (FA) is a community of film artists bound by a commitment to realize the full creative potential of
independent film. FA supports its members in bringing humanity, authenticity, diversity, originality, intelligence, relevance,
personal vision and emotional resonance to American Cinema.
FA facilitates a unique mutual support system where members share time, energy, equipment and, most importantly,
creative support on one another’s work from concept through distribution. Support is facilitated via monthly meetings,
screenings, seminars, discussion forums, writers groups, labs, workshops, staged readings, and our website.
Vice President
Liam Finn
Web Site Manager
Cliff Robinson
Social Director
David Andrew Lloyd
In This Issue
FA MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION to your left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Editor’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Diane Gaidry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Collectively Speaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jacques Thelemaque . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Interview with Kate Johnson and Michael Masucci of EZTV . . .Mary Jane Mullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Broken Flowers, Film Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ben Hoekstra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Touch the Sound, Film Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. Amato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
The F.A.
Magazine Staff
Legal Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael R. Blaha, Esq . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Zero Budget Filmmaking with Tim Greene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .John Accursi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Diane Gaidry
Editor
The Art of Exhibition, American Cinematheque Interview . . . . .Jean Souders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
The Art of the Documentary, Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pi Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Amanda Sweikow
Associate Editor
Budgeting Your Film: Do I Have To?, Book Review . . . . . . . . .Pi Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Hanelle Culpepper
Copy Editor
Learning After Effects with a Book, Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . Pi Ware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Erin Isaacson
Issue Designer
Quote Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Where are our Bards? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cathy Pagano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
Shawn Nelson On Directing Actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shawn Nelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Passion and Patience: Interview with Bob Hawk . . . . . . . . . . .Diane Gaidry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
2 Many K’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Michael Cioni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
To contact the editor
of this magazine email:
[email protected]
Cinema Charlatans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cain Devore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
7 Steps To A Decent Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Andrew Lloyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Farwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Cover Art Photographer
Tom Bonner
FA Project Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Member Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Editor’s Note
As you’ll see reflected in some of the
articles and columns in this issue of the
FA Magazine, 2005 has been a turbulent
year here at FA as in many other parts of
the world. We’ve suffered some terrible
losses as well as walked through some
exciting new doors. Whenever we speak
about FA to people who might be interested in the company, we always try to
convey that the most valuable asset of
FA is not the equipment or free labor,
but each individual member and the
community that we all comprise. And in
the 13 years of FA’s existence, this community has been in constant flux as
members come and go. But we are
shocked and deeply saddened and still
somewhat in denial at the loss of two
veritable fixtures of the FA community
in recent months. I hope that their passing will serve as a reminder to all of us,
as this world seems to spin ever faster,
to stop and appreciate the people and the
beauty and the miracles around us in
every moment. And as filmmakers and
artists, I hope that we will infuse our
work with the simple profundity of this
awareness.
But in spite of the sadness and overwhelm that many of us have experienced
recently, we at FA are also experiencing
changes and growth that give us great
hope for the future. As we move into our
13th year of existence, we are beginning
to find greater confidence in our identity
and purpose as an organization. We are
instituting policies that challenge our
members to commit more fully to their
work. We are strengthening existing programs and creating new programs that
encourage and empower these filmmakers to successfully give voice to their
unique world view. And the quality of
work that is emerging from FA members
is truly inspiring.
This issue of the FA Magazine is
brimming with articles, columns, and
reviews that reflect possibility and passion and a different way of thinking and
working. We have a rousing call to arms
from Cathy Pagano in “Where Are Our
Bards?” and an inspiring interview with
indie film icon, Bob Hawk. The visionary and yet pragmatic views of Kate
3
Johnson and Michael Masucci of EZTV
are expressed in Mary Jane Mullen’s
interview with them. John Accursi’s profile of Tim Greene introduces us to a
successful filmmaker whose enthusiasm
and optimism have moved mountains.
And Jean Souders reminds us of the
treasure that we have here in L.A. in her
conversation with Margot Gerber of the
American Cinematheque.
Our regular columnists, Shawn
Nelson, Michael Blaha, and Michael
Cioni, have graced our pages again with
their wisdom and expertise. Plus Jacques
Thelemaque, Cain DeVore, and David
Lloyd contribute their thoughts and
insights. And no FA Magazine would be
complete without Pi Ware’s discerning
book reviews. And don’t miss the film
reviews.
Wishing you a creative 2006 filled
with passion and possibility.
Diane Gaidry
Co-founder, Executive Director
Filmmakers Alliance
Collectively
Speaking
The New FA;
or “Why We’re All Sick Of
Crappy Movies And What
We’re Finally Going To Do
About It!”
by FA President Jacques Thelemaque
2006. The shift has begun.
Imperceptibly, at first. But now growing
ever more dynamic. FA is changing in a
lot of both nuanced and dramatic ways. In
challenging ways, too. Ways that may
shake out much of the membership as we
define who we are and chart a new course
for our future. It’s kind of scary, but necessary and exciting. Necessary? Hmmm.
Many members, comfortable in what we
have been, may be perplexed by the
urgency of that word. But necessary is
indeed one of many appropriate words to
describe our need to re-invent FA. But
before I detail the nature of those changes,
I’ll let the mystery hang in the air a bit
longer while I delve into the single factor
that has motivated these changes.
In a word…crap – avoiding it when
possible and decreasing it when not. We
watch a lot of films. Films made by
members, films made by friends, films at
festivals, private screenings, revival houses, microcinemas, etc. And every once in
awhile we’ll see a film in commercial
theatrical release. Most of them, frankly,
are crap. Ouch! Yes, I know that is harsh,
insensitive and politically incorrect. But
I’m choosing to be indelicate throughout
this column to make a point about what is
sad, but true in the current state of filmmaking. Ask any festival programmer or
other professional movie watcher. Or ask
a passionate amateur. Thousands of films
get made every year – short and long –
but most never see the light of a projector
bulb…and for good reason. When I first
started writing scripts, I was told that
20,000 scripts per year get written. I was
daunted by this until I realized 19,500 of
them are complete crap. Now that technology has democratized access to filmmaking, that sad statistic translates no
more optimistically to films.
I want to be clear that we at FA obviously know how hard it is to make a film
and applaud anyone who can simply succeed on that level. And filmmakers often
need to make crappy films as part of the
evolution of their creative development. I
know I have. A few of them. Maybe more
than a few. Maybe all of them (depending
on who’s watching them). And that would
be fine if filmmakers weren’t so emotionally invested in the outcome of their
work. If they didn’t need validation for
the Herculean effort they put into making
the film. Emerging filmmakers can often
be like excitable children intensely proud
of each new thing they create in the
world. It’s great when a young child has
developed enough coordination to reach
FA President Jacques Thelemaque.
the back of his/her butt with their hand.
But I, for one, am not interested in what
that child might proudly display as the
trophy for his/her accomplishment. Many
filmmakers think we need to see the cinematic analog to this and submit their
films to every festival and every screening that they possibly can. And even
though there are close to an average of 6
festivals a day here in America alone (let
alone screening series), many of those
films will suffer endless and complete
rejection. And the ones that do manage to
back into a festival somehow (pun intended), can often be assaultively bad (if
we’re lucky, only hilariously bad) to the
detriment of the entire universe of independent filmmaking.
Why is this all such an issue?
Precisely because of the volume of crap
4
being produced. And crap stinks, of
course. But crap actually hurts, too. It’s
painful to watch crap. Painful as an experience, but also painful knowing the kind
of energy filmmakers have poured into
even the worst crap. Not just energy, but
also expectation. And it hurts to contemplate what will become of most of those
expectations. They will be crushed and
buried under the very crap the filmmakers
themselves created – along with the
aforementioned energy as well as enthusiasm and creative confidence. And crap is
dangerous. It sends a message to the
world that we are willing to settle for
less. That we don’t care about what we
create here on earth. That our point of
view and aesthetic don’t deserve full
development and expression, and consequently, anyone’s attention. But most
insidiously, we are sending those same
messages to ourselves. Selfishly, however, I’m personally just sick of watching
crappy movies. Time is short. I don’t
want to waste one more second of it staring into the black abyss of crappy
moviedom, if I can avoid it.
We at FA can’t help but feel some
responsibility for this phenomenon and
are compelled to explore and address it.
In our early years, we were all about
making stuff – anything – no matter how
good or bad it was. It was about practical
empowerment. Giving potential filmmakers the tools and ability to make
whatever they wanted to make. And even
though it seems, in retrospect, we were a
bit idealistic about what those creative
choices would be, we nonetheless – with
the help of ever-evolving technology –
succeeded hugely! FA, perhaps as much
as any other single organization and/or
individual (outside of Group101 and the
various 48 Hour-type film groups), contributes voluminously to the pounding
torrent of cinematic work annually crashing onto screens and monitors. And like
so many other organizations and individuals, much of the work we produce is
crap. The protective father in me wants to
scream out about all of the good films
that we make – and we have made plenty
of them. But this column is about the
truth of what has mostly been made.
Consider it a cold, hard slap in the face to
wake us up to the reality of what we’ve
largely been doing and what we are no
longer going to enable.
We, of course, have stridently clear
reasons why the big studios make so
much crap. And many of those same reasons apply to the smaller IndieWood
films. Y’know, the usual profit-agenda,
lowest common-denominator, corporate
hegemony kind of arguments. But there
are slightly different reasons why students, low and no-budget filmmakers
(including FA members) make crappy
films that has a lot to do with a lack of
resources, experience, training, reflection,
education and, sadly, fresh ideas. The latter, however, can simply be the product of
far too much poor cinematic conditioning. Too much exposure to bad studio
movies will snuff every bit of creativity
out of even the most original of filmmakers. But these are all correctable and
addressable issues and at FA, we have
begun developing and instituting programs to confront these issues head on.
Now, we both know I’ve been intentionally pushing your buttons by throwing
around the word “crap.” Of course, how
does one even define crap? Crap can
highly subjective. One person’s crap is
another one’s treasure. Therefore, it is not
for us at FA to tell filmmakers they are
making crap, but rather to create an environment where they are challenged by
fellow filmmakers to explore the full
potential of their creative abilities and
offer tools to help them achieve that end.
In doing that, we will magically turn
“crap” into “works-in-progress” and “cre-
ative evolution” and, at worst, “failed
masterpieces.” It may seem like hokey
semantics to many of you, but there is a
significant difference in these terms. All
of those phrases reflect a journey of creative development while crap goes
nowhere but in the toilet.
So what precisely are we doing about
it? Right now at FA, we have the various
Discussion Forums, which are immensely
inspiring and educational. We have the
Screening Series, which exposes us to
challenging work as well as work that
needs to be challenged. We have at least
2 member-created Writers Groups in
which scripts are intensively developed
through the collective contribution of the
group. We have the Monthly Seminars,
an eclectic mix of practical and aesthetic
education that addresses a full range of
filmmaking issues. And we have the FA
Magazine (newsletter, really) with its
wealth of commentary and information
that is truly an archive of meaningful
filmmaking knowledge.
In 2006, we are introducing two more
exciting programs for filmmakers to challenge, educate and inspire each other. The
FA Lab program will take up to six filmmakers, with short films on the verge of
production, for three 4-month sessions
throughout the year. The projects will be
developed from script through pre-visualization, preparing them thoroughly to shoot
and doing all that is necessary to bring
5
them to their highest level of creative
potential before even one second of film or
tape rolls. We are also restarting a Staged
Reading series, that will read features and
shorts (on an as-available basis) up to two
times per month and will be cast with
actors and attended by those who can contribute meaningful feedback to the writer
and/or provide support for the script’s realization as a film. Although the Staged
Readings will be facilitated and supported
by FA management, each reading will be
produced by the filmmaker whose work is
being read and will cost the filmmaker
nothing (unlike the previous Staged
Reading program) except a commitment to
taking their project to the next level.
Finally, and perhaps, most challengingly, we have begun to close the door just a
bit on FA’s open door policy. Although
anyone can join FA for their first year,
membership in the second year and
beyond is by invitation only. We long ago
let go of the desire to “grow” FA by large
membership numbers. It’s not quantity
that counts, but quality. We want members
who are truly invested in each other and
willing to contribute to each other in a
dynamic and meaningful way. That first
year gives members a chance to demonstrate their commitment to the other filmmakers, and indeed, to their own filmmaking lives. If they aren’t themselves
making a film, they need to be supporting
the making of film. And if they aren’t
doing either of those, they must be participating in as many filmmaking development programs and events as they possibly can. They need to demonstrate that
they are serious about being a part of this
filmmaking community and committed to
making an impact on it. Otherwise, this is
not the community for them and they are
wasting their time with FA.
As a filmmaker, I am extremely excited about these changes. I take advantage
of as many FA programs as I can and
have seen the quality of my work develop
immensely from my participation in
them. My latest short film, “Transaction,”
has been programmed at both Sundance
and Clermont-Ferrand, which, for my
money, is the most prestigious short film
festival in the world. Now, anybody who
knows the festival circuit knows that this,
in itself, is not conclusive evidence of
creative accomplishment. But it does
mean that world-class programmers, who
screen thousands of films per year, are
taking our work seriously, which is a far
cry from the way they might have viewed
my earlier work. But my recent films
have been developed through this FA
community and clearly benefited from it.
The films would not be what they are if
not for what I’ve learned in the seminars,
writers group and discussion forums.
They would not have reached their full
creative potential if not for the feedback
I’ve received from Diane Gaidry, Sean
Hood, Liam Finn, Lisa Moncure,
Gabriela Tollman and many others. Elyse
Couvillion and Gina Levy actually rolled
up their sleeves and each edited versions
of “Transaction” from which I could steal
ideas wholesale to take the film to the
next level. These are world-class filmmakers themselves, giving me worldclass feedback and reflection. Priceless.
And the second year invitation is simply a way to keep that community sharp,
active and meaningful. My wife, Diane,
told me about a film she saw at the
Toronto Film Festival in September that
will be playing this year at Sundance, a
documentary about Leonard Cohen. In
this film there is a segment in which they
talk about a collective of Montreal poets
that met when Leonard was starting out.
These poets were brutal with one another,
challenging one another to defend every
word and aspect of their poetry. They
reflected his work back to him, sometimes harshly, unafraid to tell him that
crap was crap. And to this day, Leonard
Cohen labors over his songs, tossing
aside work that most of us would be
proud to claim as our own creative legacy. Terry Gilliam told us when he accepted his Vision Award in 2001 how important community was to his development
as a filmmaker, and that if you really care
about your friends as artists, you will not
be afraid to challenge them and share
with them your ambition for their creative accomplishment.
This is what FA wants to do for you.
And more importantly, what we want you
all to do for each other. Challenge,
reflect, educate, inspire and more. As
we’ve said for many years, FA could own
dozens of cameras and fleets of grip
trucks, but the most valuable resource in
Filmmakers Alliance will always be the
community itself. It is the other members/filmmakers offering their time,
resources, info, connections, insight,
energy and, perhaps most importantly,
ideas. Use them. Use the old and new
programs. Grow with each other creatively. Say good-bye to thoughtless crap and
at least be making thoughtful crap. Look
forward to standing back from your film
at the end of the day and feel the deep
contentment of knowing you have given
it all you have creatively – that you have
left no stone unturned in realizing its full
potential. Send a message to your audience, and more importantly, to yourself,
that your creative voice has meaning in
this universe and therefore deserves the
very best attention you can give it.
Because you deserve to be heard the way
you truly want to be heard.
Juxtaposing a person
with an environment
that is boundless,
collating him with a
countless number of
people passing by close
to him and faraway,
relating a person
to the whole world,
that is the meaning
of cinema.
— Andrei Tarkovsky
Interview with
Kate Johnson and
Michael Masucci
of EZTV:
Experimental Film vs.
Traditional Narrative and
the Future of Filmmaking
by Mary Jane Mullen
November 8, 2005 at the Steve Allen
Theater, Hollywood, CA
Mary Jane Mullen (MJM): Can you
talk a bit about your projects?
Kate Johnson (KJ): Because I come
from a performance background, I work a
lot with choreographers, so a lot of my
work is creating live media design for
dance, for live performance. I work a lot
with a woman here in town, Loretta
Livingston, who’s one of the most
respected modern dance choreographers.
That’s one side of what I do. Another side
of what I do is I create experimental video
short pieces that are currently single channel. And then I also am in the midst of
creating a sculpture multimedia project.
That’s what I do for fun. To make a living,
I work doing a lot of design, editing, production, and some directing. And oddly
enough, we make our living doing independent documentaries a lot of the time or
stuff for broadcast. And then recently I
was part of the lead video designer and
editor for this big conference for women
that Maria Shriver does. One of the things
I’ve always been interested in since I was
a child was how to walk the line and how
to kind of explore both the art side as well
as the more mainstream and commercial
side of media. I think both sides support
each other quite a bit; both sides have
their strengths, and both sides can learn
from each other. I’ve always been very
much into bringing experimental ideas to
even some of the more mainstream projects I do. Our work is very eclectic.
Michael Masucci (MM): Another
project we’re co-directing currently is an
experimental documentary. Now one thing
we’re very, very interested in is combining the vocabularies of so-called experimental film with the vocabularies of socalled mainstream media. In my experi-
ence, there never has been a true distinction. Is Tim Burton a mainstream filmmaker, or is he an experimental filmmaker? If his films were not commercially
successful, he clearly would be considered
an experimental filmmaker based on the
visual style and vocabulary of his work.
So in my experience, what we’ve found is
that we have often been seduced by
Hollywood. We have usually turned them
down because of either time commitments
or work on other commissions at the time
or just disinterest with specific projects.
But when we have from time to time
decided to jump into bed with Warner
Bros. or Sony or people like that, it was
because they wanted to
experiment and they
realized that they could
not find within their
whole multi-national
corporation the people
who could do that. So
early on, back in the
80’s, it became clear to
Warner Bros. that animation was going to
become, after a very
long dry spell, a major
commodity for motion
pictures. They realized
that. Disney realized
that. Obviously they
realized that. So at that
point, Warner’s animation department – which
isn’t a department, it’s
an entire corporation
within the Warner
empire – had completely atrophied its knowledge base as to how to
make good compelling animations. The
people that had done Daffy Duck were
dead or retired. They didn’t know how to
make them anymore. They knew technically you drew pictures, you shoot them
with a camera, but they didn’t understand
the aesthetic principles. So what did they
do? They went to New York and pulled a
guy out of academia who had never made
a film in his life but had studied the aesthetics of animation his whole life and
made him the head of Warner Bros. animation. After a few weeks, he was going
crazy. He calls up a distributor of obscure
French independent films in LA named
Lloyd Cohen. Now Lloyd has impeccable
taste in film culture. And Greg called
7
Lloyd and said, “Is there anybody cool in
Los Angeles? I’m going crazy.” So Lloyd
said call Michael at EZTV. So without
applying for a job, showing them a reel,
schmoozing, pitching, or any of the
clichés you hear, I was suddenly working
as a partner with the head of Warner Bros.
animation to help them re-develop not
only the aesthetics of animation, but to
bring it to a modern technological base
because oddly enough, little EZTV was
able to do things that giant Warner Bros.
was not able to do technically. Why?
Because we experiment. So that word
which may be a dirty word to you,
“experimental film,” is the basis upon
which every aspect of
film vocabulary has ever
come from. The closeup, the montage, the
tracking shot, the rotating shot, rotoscoping,
everything that is what
filmmaking is was once
experimental
filmmaking.
KJ: I think Jacques
(Thelemaques) came by
and visited last week,
and I said to him that if
it weren’t for experimentation, we still
wouldn’t have talkies.
We would never have
made a leap to sound or
color and any of these
other things. Regarding
Memento, the whole
idea which sounds pat
now – you change a
story line around, you
go from backwards to
forwards – but when it happened, people
argued about it. People weren’t sure if
they liked it, and it was a huge risk. And
even when you look at Baz Luhrmann,
today musicals in films seems like, of
course. Chicago’s a big hit. Well, Moulin
Rouge was a giant risk. I mean, no musical on film, no modern one, had made it
at that point. Certainly not one as crazy
as that one. Certainly not one mixing
musical genres and eras all together. And
then the editing, people actually left that
theater nauseated because they couldn’t
take the speed of that editing. And yet
today that film is a classic. That film
paved the way for Chicago to happen;
that film paved the way for Memoirs of a
Geisha that’s coming out to happen.
That’s experimentation. It takes those
people to push everybody forward. So
yeah, content in experimentation is very
important, too, and Hollywood is always
looking at it.
MM: My experience has been that
Hollywood is always at war with itself.
There are those people who are sort of,
dare I say the word “hacks,” who are
cowards, are afraid to try anything new;
whatever is a hit right now is what they
want to make. They’re basically clone
artists. There are the other people who
are really the people who ultimately end
up leading the system, and they oddly
enough become the most commercially
successful people in the system. I’m not
a big fan of these people, but we have to
acknowledge that Steven Spielberg,
George Lucas and the guys at Pixar have
reinvented the vocabulary of cinema as
we know it. Every one of those people
was a commercial long shot; every one
of those people came out of left field,
through the side door, and didn’t do the
tried or true film school, this-is-whatyou-got-to-do-to-have-a-career approach
to having a career. They were ALL
experimentalists, and they all have a
tremendous knowledge and appreciation
of experimental film culture. People like
Burton go to experimental festivals.
People like Lucas go to things like
Siggraph. In fact Lucas keynoted this
year’s Siggraph. Some of the most commercial people you can imagine know as
much about so-called contemporary art
or experimental film or video art as they
know about what’s playing at Mann’s
Chinese this weekend. And the more you
understand that their radar is perhaps
wider than the perceptions being portrayed in Time magazine or
Entertainment Tonight, the more you’ll
get a clue as to what’s really being decided in the greenlight meetings, where people are looking to do things, using that
overused expression, “outside the box,”
because the box continues to work less
and less. Hollywood has made a lot of
money this year, but to Wall Street
they’ve done dismally, terribly, and as
video games now make as much money
as movies, Hollywood is running scared
about continuing to do the gospel according to the USC Film School. And make
no mistake about it, they are looking for
other voices.
KJ: I think one of the reasons that
documentaries have taken off is that documentaries are experimenting more.
Fewer documentaries look just like each
other. They are experimenting with different camera techniques. They’re experimenting with different story lines and
story structure. They’re experimenting a
lot with graphics. They look different.
They feel different, and they’re real.
Reality television and documentaries
have kind of had this uneasy union
recently because of their seeming similarities, although we all know that a wellproduced documentary is vastly different
than a vapid reality show. But take a look
at docs that have come out recently,
some that are well known, some that are
not well known, like for example Enron.
Nothing like Enron to really raise your
hackles and get you truly involved. And
then take foreign films; some of the most
interesting films this summer were from
Korea and China. For example 2046,
which was a very kind of experimental
piece that blended futurism with kind of
a noirish present. And so I think we have
to look at why trends are beginning to
change and why audiences are suddenly
interested in things that people used to
think nobody was interested in. And
again, I think it’s because documentaries
have such permission to experiment. I
think that one of the things that mainstream film has lost is the understanding
of film camera movement, sound design,
compositional choices, and lighting as
being metaphorical for the story.
Everything has to look the same in main8
stream film, and I think people have lost
interest because of that.
MJM: Can you define some of the distinctions between traditional, narrative vs.
experimental filmmaking?
MM: There are clear film school formulas that exist, particularly if you’ve
gone to traditional film school, like NYU,
AFI, UCLA, or USC, particularly if you
accept the dogma, the scriptwriting
notion, that first of all, cinema is a script.
Cinema is not a script. People do not go
to a movie and watch a script. They
watch a film. They watch something that
is a visual and sonic medium, that among
its many components are characters and
story, but that is not the totality of what
they are. So, the first distinction between
experimental film vocabulary and mainstream Hollywood vocabulary is the
notion that the film is a script.
Experimental filmmakers understand that
that is not the case, and they work under
the assumption that they are making a
visual statement. More and more you’ll
hear the term previsualization.
Previsualization is an alternative way of
constructing a film, either in addition to
or instead of a script, understanding fully
well that camera movement is not something that can be denoted properly in
script format. So one of the major differences is that, if you believe Syd Field’s
notion that on page 30 you have to have a
turning point, then you are a mainstream
filmmaker. Kate mentioned Memento.
Memento doesn’t follow that at all. So
there are lots of you-can’t-do-this’s that
you will hear in film school. If you
believe them, you will be a mainstream
filmmaker. If you listen, say well, there
are many cases where that is true but
there have always been major milestones
that have totally negated that, then you
will have a wider perception as to what
might happen. Once you start taking a
wider perception, then suddenly the
choices that are available to you are larger. From what we’ve said so far, you may
think that we only do documentaries. The
fact is we don’t. We do a lot of experimental work that is actor-driven. We are
in deep consideration to direct and edit a
major-budget motion picture. They fully
know who we are. They’re calling us in
because we’re not Joe Hollywood. They
can get a standard approach to directing
every day of the week, and guess what,
every time they do, they make less and
less money. This is first and foremost a
business. It is about stockholders making
money. So the powers that be, who sit in
offices in New York and have law
degrees and are accountants and CPA’s
and MBA’s, are looking at the numbers
and saying get me something different.
MJM: How do you define that fine
line dividing artistic and commercial
approaches?
KJ: An artist’s approach to a subject is
to find out all the research they can and
what do they need to be able to explore
this subject or story or idea and then they
go about it with that kind of focus. The
commercial focus is what do I need to do
in order to sell this subject to the most
people. So what that means is often times
experimentation isn’t used as much, if the
focus is purely on how to sell it to the
most people, with the most tastes, with
the most backgrounds, for every age and
now for distribution around the world.
We’re finding more and more that international filmmakers who are naturally not
working in the language of English are
finding many ways to create incredible
stories, and they’re concerned with as few
subtitles as possible. So they’ve become
very visual and very sound-based. They
still have very relationship-driven pieces,
very character-driven pieces. There are
still a lot of subtitles, but any audience
can follow it and really go into the story
and understand it. There’s no clear division, but in order to make a very successful experimental project you have to
understand how to speak to big audiences
or you have to choose to not have a big
audience. That’s where our interests are;
how to bring more experimentation, have
more ideas, really look at what this medium is evolving to be rather than trying to
keep it where it was in the 1940’s, 50’s,
60’s, 70’s or even 80’s, and at the same
time, be able to express and speak to
more people.
MM: If you’re just beginning your
career now, you have to look ahead and
extrapolate where entertainment is going
to be in the next 15 or 20 years. I assure
you it’s not going to be 90-minute linear,
narratively-driven work. We’ve got plenty
of that. If you just look at the history of
literature, you see the evolution of the
novel, you see the evolution of the short
story, you see the evolution of prose, you
see they are always evolving. So clearly
if there’s any given, it is that whatever is
being sold today, it’s going to be the discount, 99-cent bargain basement thing of
the future. So the more you get a glimpse
of not only what’s happening in cinema
but what’s happening in interactive
media, what’s happening in gaming. I
understand fully that Hollywood is looking for people who design games to direct
movies. They understand that with young
people today their quintessential entertainment medium is the video game not
the movie. So they’re looking for movie
directors who understand that aesthetic.
EZTV is a 25-year-old organization of
digital media artists and producers based
in the 18th Street Arts Center in Santa
Monica, CA. Throughout its history, it has
produced, collaborated on and exhibited
videos and media art that have become
landmarks in the timeline of digital media
history. Check out their web site at
www.eztvmedia.com. Kate Johnson,
President, is a media artist, performer and
speaker. Her work as an editor, producer
and/or performer has been seen in venues
ranging from The History Channel to The
Institute of Contemporary Art, London.
Michael Masucci, an award-winning
director, is an oft-requested video artist
and producer, speaker and panelist on a
wide range of topics concerning video
and multi-media culture. Mary Jane
Mullen is an FA member and an employee
of FA Productions. Currently she’s helping
to produce Lisa Moncure’s project,
“Flyfishing in America.”
9
Broken Flowers
dir. Jim Jarmusch, 2005
Film Review
by Ben Hoekstra
Don, played by Bill Murray, is a middle-aged bachelor, ex ladies’ man. The
impetus of a mysterious letter that
claims he has a son and the spurring of
his next door neighbor sets Don off,
begrudgingly, on a journey to visit his
former lovers and to discover the truth
about the letter.
Dull, tedious, flat, vacant – here are
words that could be used to describe the
imagery of Jarmusch’s latest film,
Broken Flowers. In it, the spiritually
dead urban aesthetic of America’s postindustrial capitalist society is evoked as
a mirror of inner human decay. We are
made to look at the atrocities of urban
sprawl in its ugly abundance, as we are
made to face the superficiality and
generic in film. This film is synonymously an internal critique of film in
America and an external critique of
urbanism. The connection is a strong
one, considering that both film and the
urban in America reach powerful heights
of anti-aesthetic. American film has
itself become primarily a superficial and
deceptive facsimile of human behavior. I
say deceptive because films, besides
imitating, succeed in generating widely
accepted/followed paradigms of behavior. This is an easily observed phenomenon. Perhaps somewhat less observable
is the effect that the urban landscape has
on us – so obvious that it can no longer
be observed – its presence being accepted everydayness.
If you want understand, for example,
what’s behind the hyper-abundance of
concrete in New York City, or light pollution in Los Angeles, you will eventually (given your investigation is a serious
one) ask what kind of a society it is that
provokes such development, and subsequently, how individuals are affected by
it. Such a study might even lead us to
ask about the health of a society overall.
I say all this because the dynamic
between the aesthetics of a society and
its individuals is investigated in this film.
A lack of aesthetic may suggest a
lack of vision, even a nihilistic bent.
There are somewhat fatalistic personalities who say: yes, these corridors of tarmac and iron are awful, but there’s nothing we can do about it. In all things tied
to our economic ideology, we’ll have to
trust the invisible hand. Do we have to
like it? Well, the tacit premise of neoclassical economics applies: people will
choose what essentially is best. But they
don’t, do they, if they think there is no
choice. At the cinema, we must choose
from the almost total exclusivity of big
studio productions, which are all of the
same cloth. And we have grown accustomed to the conventions of cinema and
its own artistic bankruptcy.
The opening scene is a long slow pan,
during which we see children playing in a
front yard strewn with broken or abandoned children’s toys. The toy bedecked
front lawn (all the pink plastic!) is a
familiar eyesore. This disarray is strikingly ordinary, repugnant not so much for its
messiness as for the disposable quality of
the toys themselves.
The rubbish gives
itself away as having been rubbish all
along – somehow
this is disconcerting.
When the camera
continues its pan to
the next lawn (in a
state of immaculate
accord with suburban orderliness), the
contrast with the
previous yard makes
something apparent:
the modern house
with its groomed
lawn looks like little
more than a prefab,
built to fall apart,
oversized cheap toy
itself. The other yard had at least the animating force of children with their creative/destructive impulses generating
vitality – but this house, it seems unfortunately, may last a little longer.
The tended house belongs to Don, the
ex Don Juan. He is even introduced
watching a film about Don Juan. Don’s
neighbor refers to him as a Don Juan
repeatedly until the redundancy becomes
the joke (and goes against our willingness to accept the category as final) – a
cliché pointed out as a cliché, in cliché
10
terms, within the context of a medium
overwrought with clichés and stereotype-redundancies. As if aware of the
tedium, Don sits in his chair with nary a
flicker in expression. The exterior
reflects its interior. Just as the house
suggests an aesthetic deficiency, so does
Don’s taciturnity suggest lethargy.
What actually makes Don such a flatline of emotion, such a bored person?
Precisely, maybe, his society and its aesthetic flatline (which mirrors his spiritual
vacancy). The ugly results of the idealization of pragmatism and utility inhabit not
only the landscape of the film, but also
the character. His fact (a Don Juan type)
and functionality (dysfunctional relationships, successful career) fulfilled, Don
sits around his modern-décor house and
watches movies. He is a type, waiting for
his next role, waiting for the television,
or Hollywood, or society itself, to tell
him what’s next. His unwillingness to
revisit the past (as his neighbor encourages him to do) parallels the resistance of
modern cinema to go
beyond superficiality.
A heavy investigation
of cinema would
reveal its destructive
capacity and deprivation of artistry.
Imagine Don’s prior
relationships as other
films and surely they
would be those bouncy
romantic comedies of
the postmodern type,
wherein, as I once
heard them described,
the film ends just as
the relationship begins.
In Broken Flowers,
which is about aesthetic dumbness, the
image is laden with as
much importance as the language and
sometimes more. Don’s previous flames
are heavily contextualized by their interior/exterior décor and their surrounding
neighborhoods. The various neurotic
dystopias of Don’s priors function to
demythologize the Casanova stereotype.
This disassembly begins in the affirmation of the stereotype within the film.
Something strange happens when the
cliché is reified as such within the context of the film. Destabilization occurs.
Somehow we’re blocked from applying
the category. And this gives Jarmusch,
and Murray, the capacity to unravel it,
and examine, perhaps, where some of
these stereotypes go after leaving the
screen. The film becomes about people.
People, anyway, who seek to identify
themselves through idiotic surroundings,
and through what they have accepted as
reasonable bounds for
consumption/excess – how they have
dealt with the (American) conundrum of
appetite as central to a way of life. Rather
than allowing these cliché surroundings
to become only cliché, Jarmusch’s dialogues, etc., reveal that these characters
have themselves adopted these readymade clichés in their own attempts to
deal with this cultural condition of incapacity to have one’s own sense of aesthetic. Characters in this film seem real in
part because we are made aware of the
reductive power of cliché cinema by
which they have been affected. That this
is more ‘realistic’ tells us something
about the level of affect of cinema on
TOUCH THE
SOUND:
A Sound Journey with
Evelyn Glennie A film by
Thomas Riedelsheimer
Film Review
by E. Amato
Thomas Riedelsheimer’s TOUCH
THE SOUND is a prayer of a movie. It
prays that life is what we make it, that
wonder exists in abundance, that magic
is a by-product of human curiosity, and
that meditation in any dose releases
memes of enlightenment.
Like the prelude to a musical piece,
the opening shot encapsulates the meaning and thrust of the film, making it clear
that this is not another talking-head documentary. Beginning close and tight on
two hands holding sticks to a drum-skin,
the hands begin a drum roll, which, at
first, is almost invisibly faint. The camera swooshes further and further away as
society. Thus Broken Flowers achieves a
powerful criticism of contemporary film.
The audience, for the first half-hour,
is restless, waiting for the dramatic
clichés perhaps, for action, for something to happen. But things are happening – and that’s actually what we aren’t
used to. Indeed, some of us go the
movies precisely to see nothing. Which
is what makes a real filmmaker’s film, in
which things happen, actually frustrating
to experience (for some). A good first
criterion for a film is whether or not it is
engaging. If the mind is made active
rather than passive, then this first criterion is satisfied. Abbas Kiarostami was
absolutely correct to say that we have
been trained to experience a certain kind
of film, and the difficulty of opening up
the medium is incredible. Wim Wenders
has said that Hollywood films have a
content deficiency, that they are heavily
cosmeticized, that you can fill up the
hole where the content used to be, but
it’s still just filler. Which we are used to.
In America, one doesn’t go to the theater
for a contemplative moment, to activate
the senses, to experience time lost or
time in a new way. One goes to the theater to zone out, dull the senses, to crush
our ability to perceive the world in time.
Or many of us do. Which makes watching the likes of Jarmusch something of a
difficulty for some of us.
Jarmusch’s films do not garner vast
audiences. His films can easily be perceived (given the climate of explosive,
violent, hyper-cosmeticized shit that our
screens get projector-vomited over, and
the resulting frailty of capacity for experiencing film in any other way) as slow
and uninteresting.
After the first half hour, the audience
stopped its constant shifting, coughing
and expecting the usual distilled sentiments. The pace had been adjusted to.
We accept that things are happening, and
that there is a story being told in its own
manner.
the sound of the tremendously powerful
taiko drum becomes almost unbearably
loud, revealing a lone drum and a lone
woman in a vast abandoned building.
The woman is Evelyn Glennie, a
Scottish percussionist who travels the
world collaborating with
musicians, drummers
and other percussionists.
Her first collaboration is
with the surprisingly jocular avant-garde musician/composer Fred
Frith. Upon arrival at
their “recording studio,”
an abandoned factory in
Cologne, Germany, Frith
and Glennie begin playing with the possibilities
of sound in the space,
timing echoes, throwing
voices, tapping pipes,
violin-bowing vents and errant strings.
Immediately we are in a world where
craft and inspiration are informed by
play and openness. Without ado,
Reidelsheimer plunges us into the true
creative realm of the artist.
Ostensibly a portrait of Glennie,
TOUCH THE SOUND incarnates as a
lesson in beauty for the audience.
Meticulously and lovingly shot on film,
not often the case with documentaries,
each location is more cinematic than the
next, from the abandoned factory to the
splendor of Grand Central Station and
11
the Guggenheim all the way to the desolation of her childhood farm home.
However, it is the production sound
recording/mixing and sound design
which stand out so far beyond the rest of
the genre. It received a well deserved
LOLA for its sound design, which takes
you inside the ear of Evelyn Glennie, a
challenging feat, considering that
Glennie is not only a musician, she is
also a deaf musician.
The film does not resort to trickeries
like distorting sound to mimic what
Glennie might hear.
Instead it aspires to
caress the process by
which Glennie transforms sound into
music. The camera
takes walks among her
many landscapes, photographing the diagetic
sound of waves slapping rocks, car wheels
on pavement, and flapping bird wings, then
incorporating them into
the soundtrack. Like a
percussionist, the film
does not distinguish
between sound,
rhythm, and music.
Anything percussive is
a possible element in
the stew that makes
music music.
Visual interfaces are
one source of inspiration; sensory perception
is another. Glennie uses
her whole body to feel
the music as she plays.
She tells a young deaf
student that it’s okay to
put her tummy against the drum to hear it
better, and when asked why she plays
barefoot, she replies that it is so she can
feel more of the music. To Glennie,
sound is a form of touch – a caress with
rhythm that can come from another person, the environment, or, perhaps least
often, an instrument made specifically to
create sound.
As she sits in a Zen rock garden while
a young monk mindfully rakes the small
rocks into a new pattern, every moment
of this watching and listening is like a
breath – the breath which Glennie
believes is the crucial element to creating. Glennie is poetically articulate, carefully but freely describing her world of
sound and music. As such, she is inspiring. So often artists have no idea of their
own process or how to impart it, but
Glennie is also a teacher. Whether by
nature or by force of it, she has the
words to share the secrets of what she
cares about most. Her observations show
a life led by the artistry that defines it
into an unpredictable unity of strength
and spirit. Glennie certainly never cowed
Riedelsheimer’s film offers the kind
of catharsis we’ve forgotten to expect
from a night at the movies. His filmmaker’s eye is used only to enlighten; in fact,
the often cumbersome artifice of filmmaking seems to float along its subject
like an invisible fairy whose wings occasionally brush you into believing it’s
real. His filmmaker’s ear allows us to
understand that in experiencing this visual and aural meditation of celluloid, we
have actually touched Glennie, her compatriots and her music – vibrations of
light and sound holding our skin as surely as our nighttime covers and hugs from
old friends. If this film is a prayer, then it
answers its own petition, remixing its
subjects into an awesome and delightful
meditation on the artistic spirit.
Reidelsheimer’s previous film,
RIVERS AND TIDES, is on the top of
my Netflix queue; I pray it comes today.
www.evelyn.co.ik
www.touch-the-sound.com
www.fredfrith.com
Previously published in poetic diversity
(Nov. 2005)
www.poeticdiversity.org
to other people’s ideas of what she could
accomplish as a deaf musician, but neither, it seems, did she march on in defiance. Simply, she seems to have just followed her inner ear from sound stroke to
sound stroke in each moment.
While the soundtrack to TOUCH THE
SOUND is available for purchase and
would certainly be a worthwhile one, the
true soundtrack to this movie is life.
Familiar childhood sounds, like the way
an open car window resonates when passing different landscapes or the rhythm of
a bouncing ball, become fresh and compelling – it’s not that they’ve stopped
sounding, it’s that we’ve stopped listening. As remix becomes the dominant form
of our ever-evolving culture led by a new
master percussionist, the DJ, the classical
percussionist is the archivist, guiding us
down long-forgotten passageways through
treasure troves of discovery.
12
To tell you the truth,
in my work, love
is always in opposition
to the elements.
It creates dilemmas.
It brings in suffering.
We can't live with it,
and we can't
live without it.
You'll rarely find
a happy ending
in my work.
— Krzysztof Kieslowski
Legal Advice
by Michael R. Blaha, Esq.
Question: I am producing a film and
think I should form some kind of company to do so. What kind of company
do you recommend?
Answer.: First and foremost, if you
are going to form any kind of company,
you should consult with an attorney and
a tax specialist to see what type of company is best for your particular situation. However, as a general matter, the
most popular type of entity for a film
production company is a Limited
Liability Company (LLC). A regular
corporation, or even subchapter S corporations, are very rarely used because
most people find them unnecessarily
complicated and restrictive. A Limited
Partnership is another way to go, but
that does not offer the same level of liability protection to everyone involved
(there still would have to be a “general
partner” who would be liable for the
company’s debts or liabilities). The
advantages of an LLC include: (1) you
can form it with only one Member
(similar to a “shareholder” in corporations); (2) all Members are protected
from the LLC’s debts and liabilities
(unless someone “pierces the corporate
veil,” which is tough to do if you have
filed properly and have otherwise followed the legal requirements); (3) the
LLC’s income is only taxed once, like a
partnership, on the individual member’s
taxes (a corporation gets taxed on its
income.) Another advantage to filing
for an LLC is that the main cost
involved, the $800 annual state tax,
does not have to be paid until the 15th
of the fourth month after you file. See
www.ss.ca.gov for more information
about how to form an LLC.
14
Q. Which SAG contract should I use
for my film?
A. Well, the main qualifying factor
for the various SAG contracts is the
budget of your production. The main
agreements for lower budget indies are
the new Ultra-Low Budget Agreement
(under $200,000), Modified Low
Budget (under $625,000) and Low
Budget (under $2,000,000). Each has
different Day and Weekly Rates
($100/$268/$504 Day Rates; the UltraLow has no weekly rate/$933/$1752)
and specific rules about overtime, consecutive employment and Background
Performers. Their website,
www.sagindie.com, has helpful contract
summaries and FAQs; also, SAG hosts
monthly workshops on the various
agreements.
Zero Budget
Filmmaking with
Tim Greene
by John Accursi
Just when you thought you’d seen
everything in the world of independent
filmmaking, along comes Tim Greene.
With no film school education, no rich
relatives, and without putting himself
into credit card debt for the rest of his
life, he has completed three feature films
in five years. And as if that isn’t enough,
he also distributes his films himself.
A former radio DJ with a background in talent management, Tim
found himself in a situation many aspiring filmmakers can relate to.
“I was managing other people’s careers and dealing with
people’s egos, which wasn’t
satisfying me. Finally I just
decided that I had my own stories to tell. I woke up and gave
everyone I managed a chance
to get out of their contracts and
got myself to work.”
He started off in the horror
genre, always a reasonably safe
commercial bet, with a hip hop
flavored horror spoof called
“Creepin.” And right out of the
gate with this first film, he had
a unique approach. Though he
graduated from Shaw
University with a degree in
business, perhaps an even
greater influence on his business plan came from growing
up in a single-parent household
with five siblings. One tool his
mother used in particular stuck in his
memory.
“My mom raised five boys and one
girl by herself, because she knew how
to work coupons,” Greene says. So he
followed her example. And we’re not
talking about a few coupons here and
there to knock a few dollars off his
budget. Tim showed me the beginnings
of a book he’s planning to publish soon
that details his filmmaking process so
that other financially-challenged filmmakers may follow his path. It was
simply unbelievable. Coupons for
everything from digital tape stock, to
blank DVDs, to craft service supplies,
to full meals for the cast and crew. And
many of these coupons, used in combination, resulted in free items. There
were even a few where Tim actually
MADE money by buying materials in
large quantities.
“I got over 300 tapes and a thousand
DVD-Rs for free. And a thousand DVD
shell cases for free; all my Xerox
copies for free. My internet was free.
Even the computer I got for $40 with
rebates and I got $250 back on my
camera.”
This of course means lots and lot of
coupons. But leave it to Tim to find a
way to get even his coupons at a discounted rate.
“When I would see the guys on the
corner selling the Sunday paper, toward
the end of the day I would go buy the
rest of the papers for 80 percent off,
because he’s trying to get rid of them.”
As far as the nuts and bolts of filmmaking, Tim is fully self-educated. In
keeping with his low-cost philosophy,
he educated himself at the library
instead of the bookstore.
“I read everything I could get my
hands on: directing, writing, video production, photography. Really, every
book is useful, because everybody
writes their own thing.”
By the time he was finished, Tim
had read over 50 film books. After all
of the coupons and study sessions, Tim
15
wrote, financed, directed, shot and edited the film himself. The entire process
took him three years, and the film was
an instant direct-to-video success.
“It stayed on the new release shelf at
video stores for 11 months. The average
studio film stays on the shelf for three.
That meant that people were renting it
like crazy.”
Tim attributes this success to the
fact that he knows his market. “You’ve
got to have a business sense and
you’ve got to know what’s going on.
There are, like, 27 million kids online
who are into hip hop. If I just sell my
movie for $1.99, out of 27 million,
you’re going to get at least 7 million
kids.”
He kept this market in mind when he
made his second feature, “Raykwan’s
Cuties.” Another hip hop spoof, this
time of “Charlie’s Angels,”
“Raykwan’s Cuties” was shot
on an even tighter schedule and
is now available on DVD
through outlets such as Target,
Circuit City, Best Buy, Barnes
and Noble, and Amazon.com.
Tim’s feature films are now
in 21 countries in 3 languages.
He has lectured at colleges,
conferences and film summits
throughout the country and was
even elected Grand Marshall of
the Martin Luther King
Kingdom Day Parade in his
hometown of Philadelphia.
Having accomplished all of
this at the young age of 31,
Tim is still setting higher and
higher goals for himself. His
newest goal is to become the
Walt Disney of hip hop cinema.
Inspired by the success of so
many recent children’s films, Tim
moved into G-rated territory for his latest film, the details of which are still
shrouded in secrecy. Even the title is
under lock and key. All he’ll say is:
“The new picture is a totally Grated, hip hop kid’s picture. When you
think of hip hop, you usually think of
girls dancing on cars and all that, but
this film has no cursing. It’s a mixed
cast, and I think it’s going to be my
breakout picture.”
Maybe he’s right. With even that
description, it’s not hard to imagine one of
the major studios trying to jump on the
bandwagon or even beat him to the
punch. But even the studios will have a
hard time matching Tim’s marketing plan.
“I’m going to be on every urban
radio station in America when this picture comes out. I still have those contacts in radio. That’s the way I’m pitching the film, as a whole package. I’m a
marketer and as soon as I get this deal
signed I’m hitting the road, promoting.
As soon as the picture comes out, I’m
getting a huge van, even if I have to
drive this van myself, and going from
New York to Tennessee and
from San Francisco back out.”
And speaking of the major
studios, does this definitively
independent filmmaker have
any desire to work on big
budget Hollywood fare?
“I’m still shooting my films
independently. But one or two
studio films won’t hurt. I’ll be
able to tell bigger stories. But
I’m not one to sit around and
hope that my phone will ring, so until
that happens I will continue to do my
thing, give people breaks, and make as
many good films as I can.”
When asked if there was any advice
he would give to aspiring filmmakers,
he offered the following:
“All I’m trying to do is let people
know by example that you can’t just sit
around in life and complain about what
someone is not doing for you. You have
to learn to do for yourself. I’ve shown
that there is no excuse for anyone not
16
to get their films done except laziness.
There are a lot of people out there who
are much better filmmakers than me,
but I’ve got the hustle, drive, determination and focus. The advice I would
give to others is don’t just talk about it,
do it. Take calculated well thought out
risks. Also, this has to be your whole
life. You’re going to use a lot of people’s time and energy. So you have to
really love it and really prepare, and
then finish! Make a plan how you’re
going to do your film, and then execute
it. Don’t stop midway, or everybody
who quit their job for you is going to
say, ‘yo, I’m never going to be on your
set again!’ ”
And what’s the next step for Tim’s
unique career?
“The next step is sleep. For the next
six months.”
The Art of
Exhibition
An Interview with Margot
Gerber of the American
Cinematheque
by Jean Souders
Margot Gerber does not take prisoners. As the longtime publicist for
American Cinematheque, her agenda is
direct and simple: to present and make
accepted the best and broadest movie
experience.
The following interview with the
gracious Ms. Gerber is offered as an
encompassing introduction to American
Cinematheque and its venues, history,
programs, and philosophy. There will
not be a quiz.
Beginnings
FA: So tell us, what is American
Cinematheque?
GERBER: The American
Cinematheque was founded in 1981 by
Gary Essert and Gary Abrahams, the
two people who founded the FilmEx
Festival (the biggest and longest running L.A. film festival through the
early 80’s.) The idea was: they had
done this successful festival since, I
think, 1971, and they wanted to bring
this kind of year-round festival environment to Los Angeles. Their idea was to
model it after the Cinematheque
Français in Paris. This was a different
concept – people understood the whole
festival thing, but they didn’t understand the year-round thing, and they
didn’t have a building. So here they are
with a concept and no building; it was a
little bit difficult.
What ended up happening was that
the Cinematheque did a few presentations with other organizations, such as
LACMA. There was a big “Rock On
Film” event that was presented at the
Wiltern theater.
Eventually, in the very late 80’s, the
Cinematheque started doing monthly
programs at the Directors Guild of
America here in Los Angeles. The programs would take the form of a weekend tribute. We had a vampire weekend
at Halloween; we did a tribute to Roger
building for one dollar from the city of
Los Angeles with the stipulation the
renovation be complete and that the
building would become an historic
landmark, registered with the National
Trust for Historic Places. [The renovation won a National Preservation Honor
Award in 2000.]
The theater was completed on
December 4th, 1998. We had our grand
reopening; it was the exact 75th
anniversary of the premiere here of
Cecil B. DeMille’s 1923 version of
“The Ten Commandments.” If anyone
was ever going to go through a time
warp, it would have been that night. Sid
Grauman, who built
the theater originally,
was a great showman
and we wanted to
honor that. We had
people dressed in 20’s
attire; we presented
[“The Ten
Commandments”]
with a 16 piece live
orchestra. We [had a]
camel and all kinds of
festivities on the opening night.
We’re really
thrilled we have this
building that has such
Margot Gerber
a great legacy within
A Permanent
the film exhibition
Home
world, and that this is
In the meantime, the city of Los
where we’re now showing new work by
Angeles had purchased the Egyptian
people who will hopefully go down in
theater from United Artists, [who] didhistory.
n’t want it anymore. It was rundown; it
The Cinematheque began year-round
was too expensive to run a single
programming on an almost daily basis
screen theater – everybody was doing
in 1999. So that’s a brief history of the
multiplexes. The city of Los Angeles
organization and how it relates to the
bought the theater because they saw it
Egyptian.
might get turned into a t-shirt shop or a
Then last year, on January 6, 2005,
church if they didn’t. [They] then put
the American Cinematheque reopened,
out a notice looking for proposals to
after a more modest renovation, the
take over the space to do something
Aero Theater in Santa Monica. That
with it.
theater we are just leasing.
The American Cinematheque, of
Unlike the Egyptian, which was truly
course, put in a proposal – to keep it as
a premiere palace, the Aero was more of
a movie theater, to restore it. And after
a neighborhood theater. It’s smaller,
several years, that proposal was accept- though we’ve expanded the seating to
ed, and then the Cinematheque had to
435. The Aero is a great asset to the
raise money. At the time, the building
West Side community to be able to see
estimate to do the renovations was
our programming. So we pay rent over
about nine million. It ended up costing
there at the Aero, but the Egyptian we
fifteen in the end.
own, although we have significant bank
The Cinematheque purchased the
loans to pay back for the renovation.
Corman, Ed Pressman, Marlene
Dietrich, the RKO studios, Ginger
Rogers, Kirk Douglas... Generally
speaking, the tributes were organized
around a living artist who could come
and share their experiences making the
films with the audience, which, by the
way, has always been a public audience, not a private audience, so you
don’t have to be a member of the
Cinematheque to come to the programs.
So after some years, the
Cinematheque began to explore the idea
of having a permanent home, which
was something the two Garys, as they
were known, had always wanted.
Unfortunately, the
Garys both passed
away in late 1992, so
the legacy was left to
Barbara Smith, who
had been the managing director of Film
Ex. And to this day,
she runs the
American
Cinematheque. We
were still doing
things at Raleigh
[Studios] in 1992; it
was in ‘96 that we
expanded to doing
things once a week.
17
The Ideals and the
Programs
FA: Your web site speaks of ‘the
broadest possible experience.’ What
does that mean?
GERBER: [It] means that we don’t
just want to show one kind of repertory
cinema. During any given year, [people
will] have plenty of opportunity to see
Hitchcock and Orson Welles and all the
filmmakers’ work heard about in film
school or in seminars... to actually see
that work on the big screen, which is a
much different experience than watching
it on television at home; I don’t care
how big your tv is.
We also cover the spectrum of new
international cinema where we bring in
showcases of, say, Argentine or Spanish
cinema. We had new films from Korea
[last] year... I think we’re going to do
Brazilian [this] year. Maybe a few of
[these films] will eventually get distribution, but a lot of them don’t, so it’s an
opportunity to see films they wouldn’t
ordinarily get a chance to see.
We have our share of sneak previews.
The studios will offer us a new film and
have the filmmakers come and talk
afterwards. We’ve had actors and directors, [for example, director] George
Clooney; we have had Nicole Kidman,
Nicolas Cage, and Ewan McGregor.
Robert Wise, who did “The Sound of
Music” and “The Day the Earth Stood
Still,” was a frequent guest here.
We developed the Alternative Screen
Independent Film Showcase [ten years
ago] to show Los Angeles audiences
what was out there on the film festival
circuit. Tom [Harris, who is also a part
of the FA family] and I would go to
Sundance and see all these great
movies and realize they were never
coming to Los Angeles. Generally
speaking, we have the filmmakers in
person and we give the filmmakers a
sense of what they can do to make the
most out of the screening because here
they have this really great screening
environment. So they should invite
industry; they should tell the actors to
invite agents if they’re not represented;
this is a great showcase for them.
We’ve shown some films by filmmakers who have gone on to become,
well, better known; we showed Larry
Fessenden’s “Habit.” We showed “Star
Maps” early on, before anybody really
knew who Miguel Arteta was.
We show documentaries and features, and our only criteria is that the
film has to have a personal voice; it has
to be something that really shows
there’s a director’s voice, and that the
filmmaking is kind of unique. We take
submissions on a year-round basis;
there’s no submission fee.
We have a shorts program at the
Cinematheque as well; Andrew [Crane]
is our short film programmer and he
does packages of shorts, like a night of
short films. We’ve been running for the
last few years, with Apollo Cinema,
the Oscar® nominees and winners
from each year.
We’ve been trying to do more children’s programming at the Aero because
that neighborhood has a lot of families,
and we like the idea that the kids are
being exposed to seeing a movie on the
big screen.
We’re really trying to educate a new
generation (who grew up being able to
see films whenever they wanted on
tape) on why it’s so good to see a
movie on the big screen, and how it’s a
much different experience seeing it
with a live audience.
On Competition
and Quality
Photo by: Tom Bonner
Since we started all this, there have
been a lot of things that have happened.
Now there’s some twenty theaters [in
Hollywood], plus all these organizations doing things. There’s a festival
almost every week here in L.A. Now
we even have venues like Cinespace –
you know, every restaurant that can get
a screen and a video projector is now a
movie theater. So if you like people
eating sushi and drinking beer while
they watch your movie, great, but if
you want to be in an actual theater and
let people experience the film the way
it’s meant to be seen, then coming to
[the Egyptian] is a much better option.
We took great care in the renovation
18
to make sure that it was a pristine experience technically to see a movie here
because so often you go to see something and the sound is muffled, or the
picture isn’t quite the ratio it should be.
Our projectionists are projecting everything the old-fashioned way: reel by
reel on film. Paul Rayton, our head projectionist, absolutely just loves what he
does, and he loves putting on a perfect
technical presentation. I mean ArcLight
can say what they want about their
black box theaters, but this theater was
initially built in ‘22 with amazing natural acoustics – just the auditorium itself,
without amplification. And then when
you bring in a state-of-the-art sound
system, I think it’s the best in the city. I
mean, I’d rather see a film here than
pretty much anywhere else. And I like
the seats here, too.
In the old days, we just had UCLA
and LACMA. We had a very cooperative agreement; we’re friends with all
those people. And I do think one of the
things that’s helped us is we have maintained very good relationships with
“our competitors.” We do meet with
them; we try not to step on their toes. If
they’re considering doing a tribute to a
certain filmmaker and we had the same
idea, we work it out. We are also very
friendly with the Landmark and
Laemmle chain[s] because we consider
them an extension of what we do.
The Red and the Black
The Cinematheque kind of hangs on
by a thread as far as being successful.
The cost of what we do is extremely
expensive because we’re showing a film
on one night, and we’re paying to ship
that print in; we’re paying to promote it
on our calendar, advertise, the whole
bit. So the cost of a ticket doesn’t really
pay for that person to come in and experience that movie. We used to operate
pretty much in the black (even though
we’re non-profit) when we were just
renting the venues, but we have many,
many, many more bills to pay now. We
ended up having to actually run theaters
as well as program them, which are very
different things [laughs].
We do a fundraiser every year [the
presentation of the American
Cinematheque Award] that generates a
big chunk of money for our annual oper-
ating budget, which, by the way, is less
than Sundance’s budget to put on a festival for ten days. We operate year-round.
Revenue comes from the fundraiser,
from ticket sales, from membership, and
the last way is through private donations
and rentals. We do rent the theater a certain number of nights a year.
All the money really goes onto the
screen. We have a very small paid staff.
People here are paid [laughs] 1980’s
salaries, and a lot of what we do is
done by volunteers, too.
Volunteers are very important to the
Cinematheque: we generally have a
pool of at least 200 at any given time.
Our volunteers do everything from
helping in the office to working in the
theater to help[ing] us in programming.
Philoso-theque, or
Dreams and Ideas
FA: What’s your dream program,
that you’d like to start?
GERBER: We want to do more educational stuff because we do believe
that seeing a film on the big screen is
fast becoming a lost art form. You
know, get kids in while they’re young
and impressionable, and teach them
about seeing movies on the big screen.
And also familiarize them with silent
film and things they don’t really have
access to anymore.
FA: Is there anything you’d like to
get the word out about?
GERBER: Well, I guess, just hitting
filmmakers over the head with the idea
that if they want to make films, they
should be watching films. I’ve worked
for many years with independent filmmakers, and the stuff I see that is the
more informed and the more interesting
work, usually when you meet that filmmaker, you find they are a huge cinema
buff, and that they’ve seen everything,
and that they’ve seen silent film and
they’ve seen films from different periods, and all that has informed their ability to make movies. And you can tell
the people that are like “hey, I can be a
filmmaker; that sounds glamorous,” and
they go out without that basis.
By coming to the Cinematheque, in
any given year, you can have a really
cheap film school education because
19
you can see a lot of films, especially if
you become a member, for six bucks
[each]. You can really learn from the
greats, get a great sampling, and see
how other people have made films in
the past. So we encourage filmmakers
to use this as a resource and to take
advantage of all the obscure things we
show here. Come and see the stuff we
highlight in the program. [It] is not on
video; you can’t see [these] at home.
Stats and info:
www.americancinematheque.com
(don’t forget the “h”)
Egyptian physical address: 6712
Hollywood Blvd. (a couple blocks east of
Hollywood & Highland)
Aero physical address: 1328 Montana
Ave., Santa Monica (at 14th Street)
To sign up for the mailing list, send first
and last name and phone number to:
[email protected]
Annual membership: $60, individual
Ticket prices: $9 general, $6 for members
Student and Senior discounts available
Phone: (323) 466-FILM
I formulated
my own directing style
in my own head,
proceeding without
any unnecessary
imitation of others…
for me
there was no such thing
as a teacher.
I have relied
entirely on my own
strength.
— Yasujiro Ozu
20
The Art of the
Documentary
By Mary Cunningham
Book Review
by Pi Ware
Mary Cunningham’s “The Art of the
Documentary” is an attractive full-color
compilation of interviews with some of
the world’s foremost documentarians.
It’s an intimate and insightful glimpse
Budgeting
Your Film:
Do I Have To?
Book Review
by Pi Ware
Yes. You have to. (Unless you like
constantly surprising yourself with
unplanned credit card purchases.) How
you go about budgeting your movie
depends on your producing ambitions
and the scope of your film.
For the serious producer or line producer, I recommend that you bite the
bullet and purchase EP Budgeting
(about $700 for the full version but
only $200 if you can swing an academic version). If you’re a control freak (or
an AD), I also recommend that you purchase EP Scheduling as well. Bundled
together with EP Budgeting at the
Writer’s Store, it’s only an additional
$100, (www.writersstore.com). These
programs (sometimes referred to by
their old name of Movie Magic
Budgeting and Scheduling) are the
industry standard. While many other
programs aim to break into the biz
(Gorilla, ProductionPro, Easy Budget),
EP’s programs are both the most professional and popular. And they can
save time by automatically breaking
down scripts that are created in Movie
Magic Screenwriter.
into both the art
and craft of docs
and a must-read
for filmmakers
serious about creating non-fiction
work. You’ll learn
how Errol Morris
creates “first-person cinema” using
The Interrotron;
why Ken Burns
locks music before script; how DA
Pennebaker furthered art via technology; and how cinema verité documentarians like Haskell Wexler are able to
“inspire” scenarios within
their films.
Notably missing are the
king of the personal documentary, Ross McElwee, and the
masterful doc team of Bruce
Sinofsky and Joe Berlinger.
But Cunningham fills the
spaces with interviews of editors, executives and cinematographers. And in doing
so she gives you a broader
picture of the doc world and deeper
insights into what it will take for you to
make a successful non-fiction film.
necessary evils as “cash flow
schedules,” “completion
bonds,” and, gulp, “unions.”
Then it takes you through each
and every line item you’d want
to include in your budget.
But EP software is expensive. And their
documentation is
aimed at experienced producers,
so the learning
curve is steep.
Sure, EP offers
dozens of sample budgets with
the software, but
they’re for huge
studio productions. And if
you’re about to
make a short film or
a no-budget feature,
that doesn’t help.
Cheap & easy, with great
sample budgets
But perhaps the most valuable resource that “Film &
Video Budgets” provides, and
indeed, perhaps the only
resource that a short filmmaker will need for the budgeting
process, are the terrific samples provided—for free—in
Excel format at
http://www.mwp.com/yourbudgets.php4
The samples from
“Film & Video Budgets”
range from a student film
So should you, as
to a $5 million feature and
a gritty, down-andinclude both a no-budget
dirty writer/-producmini-DV feature template
er/director, get
and
a $250K HD feature
cheaper budgeting
Professional grade software,
but expensive
template. By starting with
software?
the template closest to the
scope of your film, you
No.
save hours of typing all the basic line
items into Excel. Then you supplement
Here’s what you should do: get
the basics by comparing your budget’s
Microsoft Excel and buy “Film & Video
line items to the others printed in the
Budgets”, by Deke Simon and Michael
book and customize your project with
Wiese ($26.95 at www.mwp.com). Now
its specific needs and costs. Thank you,
in its 4th edition, “Film & Video
Michael Wiese Productions. Finally. A
Budgets” starts by advising you on how
to set up your business. From there the
killer pre-production resource for the
book leads you through the treacherous
low-budget indie.
waters of preproduction by defining such
21
Learning After
Effects with a
Book
aging 3D space and cameras, expressions, and exporting Flash animation, to
name a few. This book is both handy
and inspiring. Highly recommended,
and a great intermediate step between
Volume 1 & 2 of Motion Graphics.
by Pi Ware
If you want to create motion graphics
for a title sequence, de-interlace your
footage with Magic Bullet, or animate
like Terry Gilliam, chances are you’ll
have to learn Adobe’s After Effects. And
it can be a slow learning curve. Here are
eight books to help you acquire the
basic, intermediate and advanced skills
necessary to operate one of the media
world’s most versatile programs. Each
title (except the QuickPro Guide) comes
with a CD or DVD containing footage,
source files and projects, and a trial version of After Effects 6.0 or 6.5. But
buyer beware, the prices can be steep,
and not every guide is worth it. (By the
way, I’ve supplied the list prices, but the
actual prices are much lower at sites
like amazon.com)
Adobe After Effects
6 Hands-On Training ($44.99,
by Lynda Weinman, Lynda.com)
This guide takes the reader gently
into the realm of AE 6.5 by using simple step-by-step projects and easy-tounderstand teaching tools. The guide
also supplies tutorial movies that
directly reinforce the technical skills
you’re learning in the book. At the end
of each chapter, there are tests which
let you know if you’re ready to continue on or need to review the concepts.
Lynda.com publishes dozens of titles
on learning software, and they’re considered some of best guides around.
I’d have to agree. If you’ve never
touched After Effects before, this is
the guide for you.
Creating Motion Graphics
with After Effects –
Volumes 1 & 2 ($59.95 each,
by Trish & Chris Meyer, CMP Books)
Volume 1 gets down to basics. Trish
and Chris Meyer explain After Effects
fundamentals as they guide you through
hands-on examples. Colorful graphics
and sidebars make the book attractive
and a pleasure to use. Some of their
sample projects in Volume 1 are cheesy,
others slick, but the knowledge is
always spot-on. Because things get
tricky quickly in this book, I’d recommend it for those who have some experience with Photoshop or a non-linear
editing system.
Volume 2 begins by demystifying
alpha channels and plunges deep into
advanced filmmaking realms such as
motion tracking, color correction,
blue/green screen keying and compositing, integrating non-linear editing programs and working at 2K film resolution. Real world examples and loads of
cool sample footage make your time
spent in the Advanced Volume feel like
training for the big leagues.
After Effects in
Production ($49.95, by Trish &
Chris Meyer, CMP Books)
Written as a companion piece to
their excellent Creating Motion
Graphics series, this is a peek behind
the curtain of major ad agencies and
how they crafted campaigns using
After Effects. It’s also a step-by-step
tutorial through intermediate and
advanced projects that are perfect for
those of you who like to learn while
doing. What’s covered? Animated
text, parenting, motion tracking,
looping Illustrator sequences, man22
After Effects 6.5: Visual
QuickPro Guide ($29.99, by
Antony Bolante, Peachpit Press)
The Visual QuickPro Guides are a
must-have reference for any complex
computer program. They are easier to
use than the instructions that accompany a program, and they’re faster than
help files. The Visual QuickPro Guide
for After Effects 6.5 is one in a long
line of terrific manuals. Highly recommended for day-to-day operations.
Adobe After Effects 6.0
Classroom in a Book –
($45, Adobe Press)
Specific step-by-step instructions
lead you through a variety of terrificlooking hands-on projects. After each
chapter, you feel like you’ve created
something cool. Although the book is
great for beginners, it does tend to hypnotize you into following directions
rather than teach you to think for yourself within the After Effects interface.
Adobe After Effects 6.5
Magic ($39.99, by James Rankin
& Anna Ullrich, New Riders)
This guide is geared toward the
experienced After Effects artist who
wants to take a step-by-step ride
through 22 projects of varying degrees
of coolness. There’s lots of creative
work done with text and solids and 3D
layers.
24
After
Effects 6.5 Studio
Techniques ($50, by Mark
Christiansen, Adobe Press)
Its aim is to teach realistic visual
effects creation, and the author, who has
worked at ILM and The Orphanage, is
more than qualified. However, there is
very little hands-on work within the
manual, so while it covers many realworld concepts like 3D tracking and
creating explosions and gunfire, you
won’t find yourself actually doing any
of that fun stuff.
Where are our
Bards?
by Cathy Pagano
There is a deep silence in our world.
It is not the silence of peace. It is not
the silence of wonder. Perhaps it is the
silence of shock. But the sound of this
silence is deafening.
Just as our soldiers are fighting
fanatics abroad, we have the right and
the duty to fight the fanatics and hypocrites within our own culture. We
Americans are now living with
Orwellian doublespeak, Machiavellian
arrogance and religious hypocrisy. If
artists don’t stand up against it, who
will? We all have to examine our own
conscience, or the extremists in all religions will feel they have the right to do
it for us. Our political, economic,
social, environmental and military policies are being detailed and discussed in
books and on television. But, for the
most part, our artists remain silent.
It is the silence of our artists.
Where are all our artists, our filmmakers, our musicians, our storytellers?
Why this silence in the face of what is
happening in our country and in
the world? Granted, we are hearing from a few: Tim Robbins’s
play Embedded and, because of
Michael Moore, many documentary films; there are a few films
such as The Day After Tomorrow
and The Constant Gardener;
Bono, Sting, Springsteen and
some of our Hip-hop artists are
speaking out about government,
AIDS and the environment. But
still…where is the artistic vision
that speaks to our times? Where
is the music of protest? Where
are the stories of hope? Who or
what has silenced our artists at
this time in our history?
Cathy Pagano, the author.
If there was ever a time to
call upon our collective talents and will
As a Jungian psychotherapist, it is
to transform our culture, it is now. If
my experience that most men and
there was ever a time when our counwomen are hungering to understand
try, and the world, needed artists, it is
themselves and their world. While many
now. Not to go off and wage war on
people are turning to religion, many
our projections of evil, but to work
more have abandoned the traditional
right here on ways to help people
religions and are left without guidance.
understand the American shadow and
This is why artistic visions and voices
our part in creating the chaos of our
are needed right now. The great mystic
times. If no other good comes out of
and artist William Blake believed that in
George Bush’s time in office, at least it
the coming age, artists would be the
has brought into focus the shadow elepriests and ministers of the people. I
ments of the American national charac- know that stories and music can change
ter. Now is a good time to confront and our unconscious perceptions and open
heal our national shadow. To begin
us to new possibilities because they
with: our willingness to embrace genospeak to the human heart. So where are
cide and militarism, the lack of moralithe stories? Where is the music?
ty in our free market economy, the real
Artists bear a responsibility to all of
lack of separation of church and state,
us. Their gifts are not theirs alone –
our unconscionable waste of resources,
they are the legacy of the collective
our adolescent refusal of responsibility, culture. Art for art’s sake is sterile and
our unwillingness to be equal partners
ultimately deadening. Just as individuwith the rest of the world.
als search for their own individuality
25
and truth, each profession must stay
true to its purpose if it is to remain
viable. So what is the purpose of storytelling and music?
There is a power in naming. We
name ourselves so we can know what
we are capable of, as well as what we
are responsible for. Like the Scarecrow
in Oz, we need to acknowledge the reality of what we do best. And so I would
like to name our artists as bards and
speak about the Archetype of the Bard.
Archetypes are energetic patterns,
like instincts, which make up our experience of being human. They in themselves are eternal, but their archetypal
images are not. These
images lose their power over
time and when they do, they
become stereotypes. And that
is what has happened to the
archetype of the Bard. We
have been left with the
stereotype of the Entertainer.
Like Orpheus, the figure
of the Bard has been dismembered; its parts
scattered to many other
occupations. The ancient
Bard was: shaman,
shapeshifter, wonderworker,
magician; jurist, historian,
spy, messenger and newsperson; warrior; visionary,
prophet, poet, truth speaker;
teacher and councilor to kings. Bards
held the keys to tradition and wisdom.
Their training was long and arduous;
their memory stretched back to the
beginning of time, and their purpose
was to serve their people by helping
them to understand what it meant to be
human. In ancient Greece, a bard was a
man of Logos, a man of the Word. For
the ancient Greeks, this meant the
power of language, the power of spoken words to communicate ideas, to
reason and to persuade. Logos encompasses both the speaker and the listener.
Logos reminds us of the power of
words to hurt or to heal.
So, what has happened to the archetype of the Bard in our times?
Those of us who grew up in the 60’s
were lucky. We did have bards – Dylan,
Joni Mitchell, Simon & Garfunkel and
of course, the Beatles. We took in their
message with their music. They helped
actors, writers – part of their function is
us to understand our selves and our
to entertain through the gifts of artistic
world, and then we set out to change
expression. Entertainment is the vehicle
our selves and our world. I love to
of their purpose. But it is not their main
imagine how people in 1000 years will
purpose. When Robert Redford said
remember the Beatles. Will they have
that he’s in the business of entertainstories about four Bards who changed
ment, and that he was naïve to think
the world through their message of love
that he could change the world with his
and imagination? Will they tell the story films, he had lost touch with the archeof their descent to the watery undertype at the center of his being. If you
world, in something called a Yellow
study his films, a theme runs through
Submarine, to bring back the gift and
all his works – the question of what
knowledge that ‘All you
need is Love!’? Perhaps
if we make it through
these times, and create a
loving society, they will.
The archetype of the
Bard is slowly coming
alive once again in these
times. Russell Crowe
acknowledged it at the
SAG awards a few years
ago when he said that he
and all of the actors in the
audience were members of
an ancient and honored
profession. Then there was
a recognition of it in the
man who saw Bruce
Springsteen after 9/11 and
called out “We need you
now, Bruce!”
Springsteen’s response
was his CD “The Rising.”
At the time, in an interview, Springsteen played
down his role by saying
‘Scheherazade’ by Kay Nielson
that he was just a musician, that he was just
doing his part in responding to the
makes a man if not his honor, his
tragedy. He couldn’t get beyond the fact
integrity, his principles, his sense of
that he’s supposed to be only an enterself? More than most actors and directainer. Then during the run-up to the 2004 tors, he has followed the path of the
elections, he was part of a group of musi- Bard in trying to make sense of situacians who went on a tour called Vote for
tions men find themselves in today. He
Change. Their goal was to foster change
doesn’t believe anymore that he can
in our cultural awareness, especially
teach with his works. And yet he does.
change of the current administration, by
Like the Scarecrow in Oz, perhaps he
getting people out to vote in the presiden- needs to be acknowledged as a Bard –
tial elections. And look at George
and that we recognize that he is one.
Clooney’s recent films. These are all
The fault does not lie with our artists
signs of hope that our artists are recogniz- alone. Besides the corporate takeover of
ing their responsibility to help focus our
Hollywood and the rest of the entertainunderstanding of our lives and our times.
ment business, we, the people, no
The archetype of the Bard includes
longer recognize the true worth of our
entertainment as part of its function in
artists. Look at the public outcry that
society. Storytellers, poets, musicians,
accompanied Redford’s battles for the
27
environment, or Sting’s environmental
work for the rainforests. Look at what
happened to Richard Geer after 9/11
when he made a public appeal for
peace. Or what happened with the Dixie
Chicks or Linda Ronstadt? Remember
Vanessa Redgrave’s support for the
Palestinians? And then there was the
Hollywood blacklist in the 50’s. Our
culture has forgotten that these ‘entertainers’ were once bards, and that their
purpose was to tell us about the world
and shape our consciousness of it. Our culture
needs to be reminded that
our ‘stars’ are not just
entertainers but people
who might be worthy of
commenting on the culture, the world, and our
human condition. And
maybe we would listen if
our ‘stars’ used their box
office power to create stories we need to hear.
If the archetype of the
Bard was consciously
acknowledged by our collective culture, musicians,
storytellers and filmmakers could freely speak out
on political and social
issues and create works of
art that truly comment on
them. Look at what’s happened since 9/11. The
politicians took over the
story and pre-empted a
deeper understanding of
the situation. They manipulated our emotions with a call to patriotism, while pressing their political
agendas of military might and economic
recovery. Nothing changed. Instead of
9/11 changing our perceptions about
ourselves and our place in the world, we
were herded into a war with devastating
results not only for ourselves and the
soldiers we sent to fight, but also for the
whole world. We still refuse to acknowledge that it is our policies that create terrorism just as much as the terrorists do.
When Art returns to its original
archetypal purpose, it heals and teaches
the human community. Talents such as
painting, dance, music, acting, and storytelling are meant to be shared with
the community, for the benefit of the
community. The arts can unite people
for the common good and bypass the
political structures. Now, more than
ever, we need artists to speak to the
issues of life and death facing our country and our world.
One of the greatest problems facing
America is the confusion between
appearance and substance, hypocrisy
and truth. The fact that our government,
our religions and our corporations can
say one thing and do another (and we
fall for it) is a sign of our collective
malaise. Our media mentality is a major
contributor to this failure to see the
truth. Hollywood feeds us stories that
have nothing to do with reality. As the
art critic, John Berger, puts it:
…for Necessity is the condition of
the existent. It is what makes reality
real. And the system’s [modern media]
mythology requires only the not-yetreal, the virtual, the next purchase. This
produces in the spectator, not, as
claimed, a sense of freedom (the socalled freedom of choice) but a profound isolation.
Until recently, history, all the
accounts people gave of their lives, all
proverbs, fables, parables, confronted the
same thing: the everlasting, fearsome,
and occasionally beautiful, struggle of
living with Necessity, which is the enigma of existence – that which followed
from the Creation, and which subsequently has always continued to sharpen
the human spirit. Necessity produces
both tragedy and comedy. It is what you
kiss or bang your head against.
Today, in the system’s spectacle, it
exists no more. Consequently no experience is communicated. All that is left to
share is the spectacle, the game that
nobody plays and everybody can watch.
As has never happened before, people
have to try to place their own existence
and their own pains single-handed in
the vast arena of time and the universe.
Necessity is upon us. More than ever
before, our choices will affect the
future of our world. So how can people
understand the times we live in so we
can make informed choices?
A first priority is to recognize that
artists have to take responsibility for
their gifts. What is their purpose aside
from entertainment? The archetype of
the Bard implies a social purpose, for
these arts are for healing and transformation and teaching on a collective
level. And so the archetype of the Bard
implies a deep responsibility.
Storytellers, musicians and filmmakers
need to acknowledge that their power
and purpose and responsibility is to
shape the collective imagination.
Modern people have been seduced into
forgetting that we are supposed to learn
from stories and music. We have been
fed the lie that music and stories and
films are ‘merely entertainment’ and so
have lost a primal connection to our
own inner life and imaginations. We
need to acknowledge that artists have
the ability, through their art, to change
our lives. For stories and music feed the
soul and open us to higher ways of
knowing than the merely rational. Facts
don’t always provide a true picture of
reality. Facts can be manipulated, as
George Bush and his administration
have so amply shown the world.
So where are our Bards? Where are
the voices and visions that can give us
back a true relationship to our humanity? Bards were the guardians of tradition, a word our culture shies away
from. All too often, traditions are used
by politicians or religious leaders to
consolidate their own authority. But I
am speaking about the ancient traditions
that govern the growth of consciousness
and the path of the soul, traditions that
go beyond religion, politics and race to
the archetypal patterns that make us all
human. In songs and stories, through
memory or the power of prophecy, a
bard could instruct and guide seekers.
Through the power of words, music and
images, a bard could reach across barriers to the minds and hearts of people
everywhere. Artists need to understand
this power that they channel, to give it
the respect it deserves, and to serve it
well. A rebirth of the archetype of the
Bard needs to take place within each
artist, because the archetypal energies
that engender human consciousness
need Bards to tell their stories.
This country and our world should
use this moment of silence to listen to
what is within our hearts. In the silence,
I believe people are longing to hear stories of peace and hope. Stories that
show us the hard truths of our human
situation; stories that teach us how to
28
cope with life; stories that awaken hope
in the hearts of people who desperately
want to change their lives and their
world. Stories that can wake up those
people who want to sleep through it all!
Stories to shame those who would
betray us all for greed or power or malice. We know stories can heal our personal sorrows. We know stories can
heal our collective wounds. We know
that stories can awaken us to the truth
of our lives and our times.
So I ask once again. Where are our
artists?
Into the silence I’d like to send out a
call. A call to all our artists – both our
local artists and our world artists – to
take a stand for truth, for that is your
calling. For the world needs the voices
and visions of our bards to make sense
of it all for us.
Cathy Pagano is a creativity coach,
Jungian psychotherapist, and mythic
story consultant. Her business, 9Muses,
provides creative solutions for personal
and professional life issues, as well as
consulting with the Entertainment
Industry. Her website is
http://www.9muses.biz. This article is
copyrighted by Cathy Lynn Pagano.
The most difficult thing
in the world is to reveal
yourself, to express
what you have to.
As an artist, I feel that
we must try many things
— but above all we must
dare to fail. You must be
willing to risk
everything to really
express it all.
— John Cassavetes
MATCH THE QUOTE WITH THE MOVIE AND THE YEAR!
1. We’ll always have Paris.
A. APOLLO 13
a. 1953
2. It’s alive! It’s alive!
B. BONNIE AND CLYDE
b. 1942
3. Oh, Jerry, don’t let’s ask for the moon.
We have the stars.
C. CASABLANCA
c. 1967
4. Plastics.
D. DIRTY HARRY
d. 1995
5. Shane. Shane. Come back!
E. FRANKENSTEIN
e. 1996
6. We rob banks.
F. JERRY MAGUIRE
f. 1971
7. Houston, we have a problem.
G. NOW, VOYAGER
g. 1967
8. Well, nobody’s perfect.
H. SHANE
h. 1942
9. You had me at “hello.”
I. SOME LIKE IT HOT
i. 1931
10. You’ve got to ask yourself one question:
‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?
J. THE GRADUATE
j. 1959
Key: 1.- C.- b.; 2. – E. – i.; 3. – G. – b. or h.; 4. – J. – c. or g.; 5. – H. – a.; 6. – B. – c. or g.; 7. – A. – d.; 8. – I. – j.; 9. – F. – e.; 10. – D. – f.
29
Shawn Nelson
On Directing
Actors
Suggestions from Shaw
by Shawn Nelson
When George Bernard Shaw said in
his amazing little pamphlet on directing,
The Art of Rehearsal, (available free for
the asking at Samuel French, Inc.) “only
geniuses can tell you exactly what is
wrong with a scene, though plenty can
tell you that there is something wrong
with it,” he was expressing a sentiment
widely held, both then and now. Still,
directors have to do their best to remedy
any writing and acting problems when
they arise, in both the rehearsal and
shooting situation. I thought we’d look
at a short list of things you can do for
yourself when you sense that a scene is
not rehearsing well - or worse, not
shooting well.
First, to avoid problems in the first
place, don’t be seduced by the lure of
‘romantic’ casting. The tendency is to
want to “see all of the character” in the
actor’s audition. ‘All of the character’
does not exist except at two points in the
universe: upon reading (or writing) the
final page of a script and in the viewer’s
mind at the end of your film. Be sure
that when you choose the sides for your
auditions, that you choose scenes that
show critical points of character revelation, and not scenes where the actor is
tempted to act ‘all that the character is.’
It will be of far greater importance for
you to see if the actor can pull off these
important moments than to see if he or
she is capable of adding them all up into
a ‘character.’
Next, remember that ‘character’ is not
something that walks and talks and sits
in a chair. Character is the process of the
revelation of traits and tendencies and
behaviors - as they are presented, one at
a time, and in the order that they are
designed to be revealed by the writing.
Another way to say it is: character is not
a grocery bag being filled with all manner of tasty and colorful items, character
is instead the process of removing from
the grocery bag all the previously unseen
tasty and colorful items, one at a time,
and in the right order. So it is in the
viewer’s mind that these impressions and
images are - just as in life - observed,
held, arranged, interpreted and evaluated;
and it is in the viewer’s mind then, that
the character is created. If you remember
just this one thing, the effect of your
direction will be enormously enhanced.
We do employ archetypes, of course, but
we’ll save that for another discussion.
Insofar as the drama, do not for any
reason - unsupported by the script allow your actor’s character portrayals to
be punishing, condescending, arrogant,
impatient, irritable, rude and humorless
or your viewer is going to be very confused. Audiences ask two questions in
such an instance: “Now why did she
behave that way?” and/or “Is she just
that way?” If the answer to those questions is not soon after discovered as a
plot or character
point, then you
will have
allowed ‘arbitrarily negative’
to confuse your
dramatic
through-line.
Your audience
will remain
expectant for a
‘pay-off’ that
never comes
Shawn Nelson
well into the
next scene - if
not for the rest of the film. You, the
director, may be thinking, “Gee I loved
that odd reading the actor did there, it’s
so darn unique.” Meanwhile, the viewer
is thinking “Gee, what the hell was that
all about. That must be really important!
I mustn’t forget that. More popcorn,
please.”
Renegade readings are not an art
form, except for the very rare exception
of the star actor who only does renegade
readings (see archetypes, caricatures and
comics). Mostly they are a nuisance, and
in the editing room can be a real headbanger. The conscious mind views a
film, but it is the subconscious mind that
is engaged in it - or not. What is unique
may be interesting, but it is the truth that
is engaging – and is always harder to
act.
Finally, if a scene is not working,
look to the physicality of the blocking
30
and the performance. You will find that
if everything is in order and the scene
still isn’t working, it is almost without
exception because something is wrong
with a specific physical dynamic. Are
the characters face-to-face, when one of
them should be preoccupied - reading
the paper or engaged in some manner of
business or independent activity? Is she
standing, but should be sitting? Is he
walking the right way to reflect the actual circumstances? Is he talking to someone, instead of with someone? Are you
thinking right now of the exceptions,
especially in comedy?
Ask yourself the following questions
each time you rehearse and block: Is the
character coming into the room to stay
or coming to leave? If camera finds the
character in a scene, is the character
there to stay in the scene or there to
leave the scene? Just going? Just coming? Just getting? Just giving? Staying for
good. Staying
for just a bit?
Passing
through? The
body dynamic
is both subtle
and profound to
the viewer,
replete with a
river of subconscious ramification. Try it for
yourself: enter a room just to deliver a
quick message, and then enter coming to
make an announcement. Very different
isn’t it? Developing an eye for the correct physical dynamic will not only
improve your blocking skills, but it will
leave clarity in your wake, and bring an
emotional focus to the exact position
that you desire it, and nowhere else.
Shaw says: “Your chief artistic activity will be to prevent the actors taking
their tone and speed from one another,
instead of from their own parts, and thus
destroying the continual variety and contrast which are the soul of liveliness in
comedy and truth in tragedy.”
Shaw is quite correct.
Good luck on your next shoot. And
the best to you always.
Shawn Nelson
Passion, Patience,
Patience, and
Patience:
Interview with
indie guru, Bob
Hawk
by Diane Gaidry
Robert Hawk, advisor to filmmakers and
film festivals, has his own business, ICI
(Independent Consultation for
Independents), and has been part of the
independent film scene for over twenty
years, starting as a researcher on the
Oscar-winning The Times of Harvey
Milk. Producer credits include the current
Ballets Russes,Trick, Chasing Amy, The
Slaughter Rule, as well as Clerks 2: The
Passion of the Clerks and Downtown
(both 2006). As consultant: Bee Season,
The Deep End, The Celluloid Closet, The
Laramie Project, Big Eden, Urbania and
hundreds more. www.filmhawk.com.
I finally caught up with Bob Hawk
right after the AFI Fest this past
November, after talking about doing this
interview with him for over a year now.
Bob is an institution and an inspiration
and I’m very happy to finally be able to
share our conversation with you, our
readers.
Diane Gaidry: Bob, I understand that
you started out in theatre. How did you
come to be involved with film and to
have the career that you have had?
Bob Hawk: When I was young, I
loved movies. I was a movie nut, but I
was a theatre nut too. So I started out as a
techie and worked my way up to stage
manager. And I went on tour and kept
winding up in San Francisco. And San
Francisco was a hotbed of independent
filmmaking, especially documentary and
experimental filmmaking. So I would
sometimes attend work-in-progress
screenings, just as a member of the public. And at the end of the screening they
would ask you for feedback. So I would
take the form home and write pages and
pages of feedback because I was used to
giving notes as a stage manager. And
filmmakers started telling one another
that they should invite me to their workin-progress screenings, saying that I gave
really good notes.
Then in the mid-seventies, I saw two
documentary films that had a profound
effect on me, “Word is Out,” made by a
collective of filmmakers in San Francisco
that included Rob Epstein, and “Harlan
County, USA,” Barbara Kopple’s documentary. And I started thinking about the
power of film and how it could change
people’s lives. And I had saved up
enough money from stage managing to
live for a year without working. So I
started getting involved in film. And then
when Rob Epstein started making “The
Times of Harvey Milk,” I was the print
media researcher and archivist. Then I
started volunteering with the Film Arts
Foundation and saw the need for an
ongoing film exhibition program. And in
1985, I founded the Film Arts Festival
and was the director of that for eight
years. In this capacity, I began attending
festivals around the world and was invited to be a part of the advisory selection
committee for the Sundance Film
Festival. I also assisted Lynda Hansen, of
the New York
Foundation for the
Arts, with their booth
for American independent filmmakers at
the Berlin Film
Festival. I occasionally
produce films, serve
on panels and juries at
festivals, and have had
my own consulting
business for over 10
years now.
Bob Hawk
DG: So, with
decades of experience
in the independent film world, how
would you describe the current state of
American independent film?
BH: Independent film means very
different things to different people. If
you want to get technical about it,
Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford, and
Douglas Fairbanks were making independent films when they formed United
Artists because they had artistic control.
To me, there have always been independent filmmakers and some of them
used to work within the studio system.
There’s everyone from Orson Welles to
Preston Sturges to Robert Altman. Billy
Wilder made some pretty damn independent films. For me, Cassavetes was
the beginning of feature independent
film as a phenomenon, as a genre. And I
31
think that Sundance caused a lot of other
independent film festivals to happen and
independent film to be seen as a commodity as well as an art.
Sundance has always had a place for
truly independent work and also shows
more mainstream films as well. There are
smaller festivals that show just independent work, but most of the general festivals show a broad cross section of different kinds of work and have to have a certain amount of more glitzy work in order
to attract the media and a broader audience. Then there are niche festivals: gay,
genre, ethnic, political, environmental,
you name it.
And every year there are a few films
that emerge that are really great that do
get distribution. And there are wonderful
films every year that don’t get distributed. I’m thinking of Rebecca Miller’s
film, “Angela,” before she made
“Personal Velocity.” She four walled it in
a handful of cities and now it’s out on
DVD, probably because of ”Personal
Velocity.” Then there are
independent films that
aren’t very good that get
acquired for millions of
dollars and tank at the
box office. And then
there are, once in a
while, studio films that
are really good and that
deserve to be a success.
And there will
always be filmmakers in
the trenches, doing
guerilla filmmaking.
And I think in some
ways, it’s the hardest for them to be recognized, although festivals can help – just
look at “Tarnation.” Without them, it
wouldn’t be nearly as interesting, but
independent film is nearly impossible to
define absolutely.
DG: Okay, there are different definitions depending on who is defining
“independent” film, but what makes your
heart beat faster? What excites you?
What do you look for? Because you see
so many films.
BH: To me it’s all about artistic control and not trying to replicate formulas.
There are some wonderful independent
films that are fairly conventional, but
these films work because the filmmaker
was in the driver’s seat and didn’t have
anyone dictating to them how to make
their film. And then there are some wildly original films that push the envelope.
But being independent is not a virtue in
and of itself. God bless everyone who
sets out to make a film because it’s hard
work, whether it’s a good film or a bad
film. But now with digital technology, I
see so many films that are just awful.
Some of these filmmakers have no skills
and no talent whatsoever. The new technology has allowed some wonderful
work to emerge, but it’s also created a
glut of garbage.
Some people make films because they
think it’s a cool thing. I can’t tell you
how many films I’ve seen that are still
trying to imitate “Clerks.” Almost all the
bad films that I see aren’t trying to push
the envelope. They’re trying to duplicate
the style or structure of earlier indie films
or conventional, mainstream movies. One
thing that I say every time I speak on a
panel or guest lecture is that if you don’t
HAVE to make a film, don’t. Passion is
so important.
All I ask when I watch a film is that I
experience something, whether it makes
me laugh my ass off or gets me all fired
up or it touches my heart. Every once in a
while, a film will open a door inside me
that has been closed for a long time. And
I’m grateful for that even if it’s painful.
But passion is just one of the four P’s
of filmmaking. The other three are:
patience, patience, and patience. This
always gets a big laugh when I’m lecturing, but I’m not being facetious. There are
three main stages of patience. The first is
at the script stage. Fully develop your
script. It’s not a race. Work on the script
until it’s ready to be shot. I recommend
readings, whether it’s in your living room
or in a small theatre. It helps so much to
hear your words read out loud by actors.
Through readings you see what is working and what needs to be further developed. The second stage of patience is
casting. Give yourself the time you need
to find the right actors. One lead performance that is weak can bring the whole film
down. And the third stage is when you are
editing. Do not rush an edit for any festival deadline. I tell filmmakers not to enter
a festival unless their film is at the fine
cut stage or they won’t have enough time
to finesse their cut and finish the film to
their complete satisfaction if they ARE
invited. Most problems in films exist
because the filmmakers rushed.
DG: In Filmmakers Alliance we
encourage filmmakers to workshop their
projects by doing readings and then actually shooting and exploring parts of their
films on video in order to crystallize and
clarify their ideas and vision for the film
before they actually spend the big bucks
with the full crew and all the fancy
equipment.
BH: People do this in theatre. In
union theatre, you usually have a minimum of six weeks of rehearsal. One of
the things that I loved about the work that
I did in theatre was that people were ruthlessly honest with one another. The really
smart filmmakers will surround themselves with people who will tell them not
always what they want to hear, but what
they need to hear.
Something else that I encourage filmmakers to do if at all possible when
they’re directing their first feature, is to
hire an experienced 1st AD, script supervisor, and DP. These are the key support
people for the director, and being surrounded by seasoned people will free the
filmmaker up on set. If they believe in
your project, and subject to availability,
these people will work for way less than
their usual fee. Also important is an experienced post-production supervisor. They
can bring major benefits and perks that
come with their connections.
DG: Right, and a filmmaker can
attract people at this level by fully developing their script and workshopping and
preparing long before they shoot. Being a
part of a community that can honestly
reflect back to the writer/director, being
willing to accept feedback, and being able
to learn and grow from this feedback will
help a writer/director to develop projects
that can attract a more experienced team.
BH: Yes.
DG: So what do you see as the future
of independent film?
BH: Well, continued uncontrolled
growth. But I don’t necessarily think that
there will be that many more good films
being made. I think that there will always
be filmmakers that push the envelope and
challenge their audiences. That won’t
change. The biggest change that we’re
going to see is in distribution and accessibility with streaming and all that kind of
stuff. And I see a day when we will no
longer be shooting or projecting on film. I
used to be a film purist, but I have seen
video footage and digital projection that
32
have blown my mind. And I worry a little
that with all of these new ways of having
access to good films, some art houses will
go under as a result. But I hope that doesn’t happen because nothing can compare
to seeing films projected on the big screen
and being a part of the collective experience of viewing films with a large audience. That’s one of the reasons that I love
film festivals so much. That is a palpable
experience that can’t be replicated.
2 Many K’s
Spending More Money vs.
Suspending Disbelief
by Michael Cioni
As a constant advocate for the integration of digital tools in filmmaking, I realize how critical it is that these tools make
the filmmaking process not only more
efficient, but more affordable. High definition digital tools for both acquisition
and telecine have been giving independent filmmakers specifically a major edge
in creating polished, cost effective films
that offer more creative liberties in crafting to artists than ever before.
As a digital intermediate (DI) supervisor, the most common question
regarding completion of a feature film
is the digital intermediate process. The
most popular DI workflow (commonly
referred to as 2K) is the re-scanning of
negative to 2048 (horizontal) data files,
which are color graded, cleaned and
scanned back to 35mm negative for
prints. However, the implementation of
the 2K DI workflow is often a very
costly process. But with this year’s
Sundance Film Festival showcasing
nearly 50% of its films digitally at sub2K resolution, are the 2K DI investments sticking out of the crowd?
In 1999 when HDCAM and
DVCProHD were initially being adapted into filmmaking, most filmmakers
were skeptical in changing their acquisition format from 35mm to Hi Def. More
often than not, the argument was that
HD lacked the color and contrast range
that 35mm filmmakers were accustomed
to. But rarely did anyone make the argument that the reason to shoot 35mm was
to obtain its resolution. So if the color
and contrast range of HD could closely
match that of film, as it does today, why
has resolution seemingly become the
new reason to avoid it?
With the amount of options available
and the variations in achievable quality
levels, DI houses need to outline all the
options for DI rather than just the top
and bottom. Much of the problem of
today’s DI market is there often is no
bottom. I believe that multiple DI
options can be explored for any film
without lowering the bar for quality,
Many of the films we’ve worked on not
which is essentially the most important
only will still go to 35mm for exhibition,
part of DI.
but also are virtually indistinguishable
After exploring 1080 (horizontal) DI from a 2K DI due to the ability of HD to
options, some clients ask: isn’t 2K betwork in 2K color and contrast space.
ter? I reply: 4K? Or 6K? Or 70mm?
The bottom line is there is a DI
The question shouldn’t be “what
workflow for every film. And with conlooks best?” but rather “what looks best stant testing, those DI processes are getfor my feature’s exhibition?” It’s easy
ting better every day. It is our job to crefor DI experts to sell 2K because it
ate the best possible look for any project
marks the most popular DI workflow
without lowering the bar for quality. At
for large-scale
Sundance
distribution of
2006, it’s safe
films that follow
to assume
the traditional
every film had
35mm print
its own very
model. (It also
unique price
looks awesome).
tag. It’s also
But the outlet for
safe to assume
the overwhelmsome films
ing majority of
paid a lot
today’s films is
more for a DI
far from tradithan others.
tional. If these
So does the
Michael Cioni
models do not
additional
Post Production Supervisor
involve projectspending of DI
ing film prints on
services pro55 foot screens, then 2K DI’s might be
duce a better movie experience overall?
an exaggeration for some projects.
The answer to that doesn’t lie in a budgFor example, if you took the same
et. It’s in the opinions of the moviegofootage from 70mm, 35mm, Super
ers. Because at the end of the day, I
16mm, HDCAM, VariCam and Digital
truly believe an engaging story outBetacam and professionally color gradweighs all the above anyway.
ed and dubbed them all down to a
DVD, how profound is the difference
Michael Cioni
between the best to the worst? Then, if
[email protected]
you projected the exact same test on an
www.plastercitypost.com
IMAX screen, how profound is the difference? Surely, the 70mm would stand Michael is the Director of Operations at
out a cut above the rest at the scale of
PlasterCITY Digital Post in Los
IMAX. This, in turn, is a significant
Angeles, California.
justification of your 70mm investment.
But acquisition of 70mm would be a
poor decision for DVD distribution in
Film is a very, very
that there is no way to see (and debatpowerful medium. It can
ably experience) what distinguishes
70mm from that of 35mm on a 525 line
either confirm the idea
NTSC screen. The way I see it, the formula is simply this: The smaller the
that things are wonderful
majority exhibition vehicle, the less resthe way they are,
olution is required for a project to look
optimal. Simply put, if you can’t see
or it can reinforce the
the difference, there’s surely no need to
conception that things
pay for it.
So what DI workflows are being
can be changed.
overlooked? At PlasterCITY Digital
Post, we have designed nearly a dozen
DI workflows that don’t require the
— Wim Wenders
added expense of re-scanning for 2K.
34
Cinema
Charlatans
by Cain Devore
I sit here contemplating the loss of our
own. The loss of Alex Kirkwood, who
was a constant champion of everyone’s
projects and showed up to help on most
of them. I really can’t remember a set
that I was on that Alex wasn’t already on
as well. And there were dozens upon
dozens of sets that I know that he was on,
that I never came anywhere near.
And I continue to dwell on the loss of
Caryn Shalita, whose indefatigable spirit
was always ready to lift my own by
either example or by the challenge of
simply keeping up with hers.
In the past 8 months, FA has lost two
stalwart knights of our cause, two go-to
souls who always followed us unto the
breech, often leading us deeper within
than we had expected to go.
They were both positive, both hopeful,
both dreamers in a cynical world and a
particularly cynical business. They wanted us all to succeed. They wanted every
filmmaker to have a chance to exercise
their vision on film. They wanted to do
whatever they could to help us.
Was it all selfless? No, of course not.
Alex wanted us all to show up for his
shoots, just as he had shown up for all of
ours. And Caryn was always hopeful that
she might get cast in another film, if
these filmmakers that she was helping
might recognize her talents as an actress.
Jacques did. Jacques gave her a shot
and it organically grew into an opportunity
for them and that film to go to Sundance. I
remember being blown away when I saw
what Jacques had intended to be nothing
more than a sketchbook, an exercise in
flexing the cinematic muscle. I remember
thinking how wonderful and rich Caryn’s
performance was. I remember saying to
Jacques after watching INFIDELITY in
his and Diane’s living room, “now that’s
going to get you into Sundance.” Jacques’
reaction? “Yeah, right.”
And I am so happy for Caryn that she
had that experience now. Because I know
how very much it meant to Caryn to be a
part of it, how proud she was to go to
Park City and know that she was an integral part of an artistic expression that had
become a small filmic phenomenon. She
savored that opportunity. It inspired her
all the more to create her own properties,
scripts and opportunities.
Alex was also a wonderful actor, who
was great in many small FA films as well
as in a scene in THE DOGWALKER that
made it to many screenings but ultimately
not to final cut. But he didn’t mind. He
wanted what was best for the film, the
filmmaker, and FA first. He always
looked at himself as a tool and function
of the whole. Much like he was as a
revered jet fighter pilot in Vietnam.
Alex said to me once, “Cain, I’m just
trying to do my job so that we can go
home. And hopefully at the end of the day,
when we get home, we will have made a
pretty good little film while we were at it.”
While we were at it. Yeah, while he
was flying Mach 2
over the
Cambodian coast,
Francis Ford
Coppola was in
film school.
Alex truly was
an indomitable
spirit. His films
weren’t always my
cup of tea. But he
was constantly
making, creating,
doing, asking, probing and developing.
Right up until a few months before he
died, Alex was still giving me updates on
a project that I had been cast in for about
4 years. I never got to play that part, but
the project was definitely not dead as
long as Alex was attached and looking
for that elusive last location.
So, what’s the best thing that we the
still living can do to celebrate Caryn and
Alex’s lives? We can keep making films.
We can dig a little deeper and challenge
ourselves as artists. We can volunteer to
help out on a few more FA films this
year. We can do more sketchbooks that
are cast with FA talent, so that if they do
happen to get into Sundance, we take
more of our own with us, making the
experience and the opportunity more
inclusive in an often exclusive art form.
And as we as an organization grow
into a year in which we are confronted
with our own mortality for really the first
time, we must take time to recognize and
appreciate one another for just being here
36
at all. For belonging. For showing up.
For being witnesses to our shared journey, and participants even when we subjectively and objectively fail.
Even...when we die.
Thanks Alex. Thanks Caryn. The rain
tastes sweeter now that you’re up there.
After losing my father this past year,
this Cinema Charlatan is all too keenly
aware that death is an abstract that tugs
deep and hard on the very core of our
emotional and psychological selves when
it strikes close to home.
So, rather than hide from this tragedy,
I thought that I should address it, though
I cannot easily embrace it.
I can address it by following Caryn’s
husband Richard’s example of embracing
it, by focusing on her life, and in turn,
embracing her and my father.
I can do so by
illuminating, as
cinema captures
light, some of the
storied gems culled
from my father’s
life and constant
work as an artist
and musician.
My dad, Darrell
Gene DeVore,
a.k.a. Dr. Um
(Universal Music),
a.k.a. Mr. Sound Magic, a.k.a. The
Ancient One, was a jazz musician, a
painter, a designer of modern hieroglyphics, a maker of primitive instruments, a
philosopher, a composer whose palette
was literally any sound found in space,
and he was one of the original CHARLATANS, the quintessential 60’s San
Francisco scene folk rock band that preceded the DEAD and the AIRPLANE.
These CHARLATANS were post
modern cowboys who made hippie Wild
West dress a brief chic international phenomenon and country rock as honest and
stoned out as anyone had ever heard it.
But dad refused to wear the 1870’s
banker coat and tie, with a straw hat and
a Derringer pistol in his vest pocket.
Even then he was treading his own very
personal path in his music and times.
On their infamous second album
cover, entitled simply THE CHARLATANS, all the other band members are
standing there wearing vintage cowboy
chic, and dad is standing there wearing a
long, classic modern trench coat and a
leather cabbie hat.
Dad, who would later pioneer how to
tune a rubber band on the fly with his
seminal Wind Wands and Spirit Catchers.
Dad, who would play two
self made nose-flutes
from...yes...both nostrils at
once. Dad, who would
craft the most dynamic
tonal Rain Sticks, who
played flutes made out of
plastic film containers, who
would grow his own
gourds for multi-timbral
hand drums, and who was
literally, constantly making
and composing and improvising music.
Because he believed
that the music spirit was universal and
could counter-balance the war, the greed
and the degradation of modern man and
his destructive appetites.
Dad was the original Charlatan, the
original inspiration for this column and
who I want to be like as a filmmaker. And
I am not. Not yet. For I rarely do my
sketchbooks, I rarely make a film, I rarely
flex my cinematic muscle in the way that
dad flexed his art and music muscles
every single waking day, with almost
every breath that he took.
His magic was ultimately very practical. His magic was not
elusive. His magic was
available to us all.
And his most infamous quote has everything to do with all of us
getting present with ourselves and who we really
are, right now, as artists.
“Dig, son. Find out
where you’re AT, and be
THERE on time.”
He would step away
to take a hit off a joint
or drink some Yuban
coffee, and then continue:
“Too many people are trying too hard
to be ELSWHERE. If they would just be
HERE...NOW...they would have a better
chance of getting THERE...WHEN.”
And though he lived that truth
throughout his journey, and though he
was not afraid of death, he was scared at
the end, because he simply was not ready
37
to go two days before his 66th birthday.
With one last tear, he stopped making
music in his bones and with his own
breath, which had finally given up the
rhythm of his life. But the music lives on.
The circus of instruments that he had
made hung all around him. Carried and
played by allies and loved ones, other
instruments came home to visit and play
homage to their father in song. His music
helps us, the living, carry on.
Death is a strange and scary place that
frightens even the most liberated artist.
It’s a place that we try to capture on film,
but often in the abstract or cliché. It’s a
place that we cannot avoid, no matter how
hard we may try to never even think about
it. And it’s a place that haunts us, each and
every one of us, at some time in our lives.
In our lives. In our... In... Incomplete.
Our stories are incomplete. We must
complete them. We must take up arms
with cameras and honor those that have
gone before us by being creative and
doing what they loved to help us
do...continue to make films. And in so
doing, perhaps, tell their stories, too.
7 Steps To A
Decent Script
by David Andrew Lloyd
Structure sucks.
Formula films are ruining Hollywood.
Screw Syd Field.
These are some of the nasty things I
overhear writers saying at Starbucks.
Maybe it’s the caffeine. Maybe it’s their
personal frustrations. Or maybe these
opinions are true.
In general, I agree. Most movies suck
– but don’t blame the structure, blame
the writer.
Some of these so-called scribes adopt
a paint-by-numbers technique that totally lacks character and subtext. Structure
is merely a guideline, not an absolute.
Garry Marshall has called it a clothesline to hang your jokes. If your story
lacks heart, your script will lack soul.
Sure, good art breaks the rules, but
the true masters know which rules to
break. Hamlet is extremely well structured, and Oscar Wilde hits you with as
many plot twists as a good horror film
(and you thought you’d never see that
comparison).
If your story lacks
heart, your script
will lack soul.
Think of writing a script like cooking a meal. Learn the recipe – then
spice up the story however the hell you
damn well please. You can even take
out the main ingredient, but you better
be able to tell your guests why you did.
Eggplant instead of pasta still makes an
interesting lasagna, but liver instead of
ground beef would make me sick.
By following the guidelines outlined
below, you will accomplish two (2)
important goals:
a You will give your story focus, which
will make it easier to write a cohesive
script.
b Investors will grasp your concept better. Andy Warhol’s Sleep (bless his
little heart) was certainly innovative –
but who wants to watch a person
comatose for several hours unless
they’re watching the Presidential
Debates?
1. Opening Tone
What the hell is your story about? If
it’s a suspense film, make me squirm.
If it’s a horror film, kill somebody –
before an angry
movie-goer gets
upset and kills you.
If it’s a comedy,
make me laugh, but
make sure it sets up
the tone of the story.
In Liar, Liar, Jim
Carrey starts off by
lying. That’s his job.
He will do anything
to win a lawsuit. This
sets the stage. It also
establishes his character as a liar. I apologize for using a
mainstream movie
as an example,
but, since it makes
fun of lawyers, I’m
sure everyone will forgive me (especially anyone related to a lawyer).
2. The Clue
Early in the first act (about page 10),
something happens that tips off the
audience. Some writers will beat you
over the head with this information. A
true artist may make it so subtle that
even they have a hard time recognizing
it themselves. In Liar, Liar, Carrey
promises his son he’ll make it to his
birthday party. (The way the writer
reveals that event is somewhere
between paint-by-numbers and art. You
decide which way it leans.)
3. What Are They Watching?
In a good film, you don’t even notice
the break (transition) at the end of Act
I (unless you’re looking at your watch
like all the other writers at the
Laemmle theaters). This is where the
fun begins. Some writers give you a
merry-go-round. Others might drop
you from a 10-story building and call
it art. I like to think of Act II as a
roller coaster.
38
This is the point where we truly
understand the character’s journey.
What do they want by the end of this
movie? In Liar, Liar, Carrey started
telling the truth – a very bad habit in
his profession. So his goal is simple.
He must stop telling the truth, or his
career is over. Imagine the fun you can
have with that scenario.
Or, instead of
imagining the fun,
rent the movie.
Forget about your
prejudices toward
Jim Carrey. There
are a lot of people
out there who hate
Michael Moore, but
love Roger & Me.
Calm down.
Calm down. I know
Michael’s mocumentary didn’t follow a strict structure
– and I do not
preach a strict structure – but Michael
did know when to
shake us out of our seats
with a good whammy (as
Syd Field might say). Who
could forget the juxtaposition between
the public relations whore telling the
camera how wonderful everything is
going to be for the unemployed
autoworkers, followed by Michael giving us a slam cut to someone getting
evicted. No structure? You bet your ass
he followed some sort of formula.
The act break is usually around page
thirty. If you put it at page ninety, then
you’ll have a really short second and
third act, won’t you? If Act I is much
less than thirty pages, you probably
didn’t set up your characters very well
– and that’s the key to most great films
(but it’s also a topic for another article).
4. I’m Pissed (And I’m Not Going to
Take It Anymore)
At the midpoint, the main character
starts to change. Something triggers
them, and they take action. In this
stage, the purists say the character
becomes a fighter. In the beginning of
Act II, the main character may have
wanted something, but now they’re
willing to fight for it.
DISCLAIMER: Some members of FA
are not huge fans of Jim Carrey, nor
does the organization necessarily
endorse Liar, Liar (or any movie making fun of lawyers or other defenseless
animals), but the author selected this
film because it was easier to illustrate
his points (and, frankly, he liked it himself). Again, the author does not preach
strict structure. He merely wants to
make writers aware of certain fundamentals, so he doesn’t get bored himself
whenever he goes to the theater. The
popcorn’s bad enough, at least the
movie should be decent.
In Liar, Liar, Carrey realizes his son
made a birthday wish that forces him to
tell the truth. He makes a stand and
tries to force himself to lie, but fails.
“The pen is blue…the pen is blue,” he
says, trying to say a blue pen is red. A
simple task for most people.
5. Oh, My God (The Crisis)
Act III is when the dam breaks. The
monster gets into your house. Your girlfriend leaves. Your team is on the verge
of losing. The police force takes your
badge. In other words, you’re screwed.
For Carrey, his family decides to
move. Carrey is now a changed man.
He has learned to live with the fact that
he can’t lie, but what’s the point? His
son will be living hundreds of miles
away. Crap!
7. The Happy Ending
Fortunately, this is Hollywood, so everything works out. Carrey gets his family
back. The getaway car makes it to the
crest of a hill, so it can coast down to
safety. While you free-fall to Earth, your
friend flies out of nowhere and shares
their parachute. The end. Isn’t that sweet?
In an Indie film, though, you can screw
them over one more time – just for the
sport of it. In a horror movie, the villain
sticks their hand out through the grave, as
we fade to black. In a good satire (the
intelligent comedy), we may get a hint that
the hero will have to go through the same
crap…again…and again…and again…
What You Just Learned
This information alone will not make
you a great screenwriter, but it will help
you write a decent script, which is better
than 90% of the garbage in theaters
today. It will also give you something to
think about and offer you a benchmark
to judge your own material.
If your screenplay is missing something, maybe you’re just missing a good
plot point. On the other hand, maybe
you’re missing heart, soul, subtext,
character, rhythm, substance or even
decent dialogue – but those are all topics for future articles.
The getaway car
runs out of gas.
6. Holy $#&%! (A Bigger Crisis)
The hero applies everything they have
learned throughout the script. They will
now do anything to achieve their goal.
They hear the theme music from Rocky
(metaphorically speaking) and charge
blindly into the abyss. They save the
girl (metaphorically speaking) and
they’re almost in the clear – when
everything suddenly gets worse. The
getaway car runs out of gas. Their parachute doesn’t open. Or maybe that girl
they saved is actually a guy. Now
they’re really screwed. Holy $#&%!
39
“Even if you’re
on the right track,
you’ll get run over
if you just
stand there.”
— Will Rogers
I never said this article would help you
write a great script. The titled promised a
decent script. With a little sweat, a ton or
two of intense scrutiny, and another 17
re-writes, you might be able to sell it.
Now get off your lazy ass – and start
writing!
THE END –
David Andrew Lloyd is a Scorpio,
Homosapien, St. Louis Cardinal Fan and
an Award-winning writer who has sold or
optioned several screenplays, including a
recent deal at Fox/Searchlight. He is also
the creative guru/founder of The Asylum
(FA’s Comedy Writers Workshop).
2005 has been a year unlike any I can
remember in a very long time. There
were exhilarating highs and extremely
painful lows and practically everything
in-between. There seemed to be no end
of upheaval, drama, activity and accomplishment. There were profound events
happening in the lives of practically
everyone we knew – the effects of those
events still washing over us and living
with us in one way or another for, perhaps, the rest of our lives.
As we bid farewell to 2005, we also
bid heartbreaking farewells to people
whose amazing lives have touched us
deeply and whose energies will remain
with us forever. Alexander Kirkwood
(aka Arthur Sklar to longtime friends
and family members) led a life many of
us can only dream of. Drawn to danger
(Vietnam reconnaissance pilot, firefighting pilot) he was fearless about doing
everything in life he wanted to do, eventually fully embracing his expansive creative energy. His quirky, easygoing
demeanor masked his previous life and
the seriousness with which he pursued
his passions. And a particular passion
for filmmaking led him to Filmmakers
Alliance, where he was not only creatively prolific, but supportively prolific.
He gave so much to the other filmmakers, and so much embodied the participatory and attitudinal model of
Filmmakers Alliance, that we created the
Alexander Kirkwood Memorial Spirit of
FA award in his honor.
Caryn Shalita was equally devoted to
FA and equally passionate about everything in life to which she gave herself.
She was so many things to so many people simply because she cared about so
much. She was an actress, artist, animal
activist, political activist, wife, partner
and friend. Her passing was a shock to
us all because of the vibrancy of her
being and the inconceivable untimeliness of its physical end. She built FA’s
first website with her husband Rich, and
true to form, continued long after to
connect people to each other and tirelessly support causes and people with
whom she herself connected. Talented,
smart, open, loving and never short of
something to say, she was, as much as
anything else, just plain fun.
They will both be deeply missed but
live in our hearts forever.
Finally, this dramatic year closed
with one last tragic/profound passing.
Longtime friend, producer and Festival
Director Ron Gilbert attended FA’s
Annual Holiday Party with his son,
Adam. At the party, Adam collapsed for
reasons unknown – his fall causing
severe head trauma from which he tragically did not recover. All of those who
knew Adam and/or witnessed the accident are understandably devastated. It is
yet another profound reminder of the
preciousness and fragility of our brief
time on this earth, not one second of
which can be taken for granted. It is also
a reminder that those we love must
never stop being valued and appreciated
for they can be swept away from us in
an instant. Our heart goes out to Ron
40
and his family, who have borne this
tragedy with as much strength and grace
as anyone could possibly imagine. It is
clear that Adam was deeply loved.
Although his life was painfully short, we
are consoled by knowing that it was
immensely blessed, just as those around
Adam were blessed to have had him in
their lives.
Although we are deeply saddened
and humbled by these devastating losses, there is a rebirth of sorts for those of
us left behind - an opportunity to appreciate our own fragile lives and to recognize the gifts we were given by having
been touched by these amazing souls.
And to know, or rather, feel that there is
also a responsibility to those souls that
demands we live our lives with passion,
authenticity and a commitment to being
the best of ourselves. It was a year like
no other, as is every year, every
moment, every person. Each is precious
and unique, and to all we will one day
bid farewell. Hold that knowledge with
you now in deep gratitude for all that
you have, all that you are able to do, and
all those you know and love.
FA Project Updates
These Days
Format: 24P feature film
Cast: Gavin Bellour, Jade Dornfeld,
Edward Henwood, Karen Dyer, Dal
Wolf, Deena Epstein, Joe Reitman,
Billy Aaron Brown and Beth Grant
Director: Chad McQuay
Writer: Chad McQuay
Producer: Chad McQuay, Dal Wolf,
Dorothy Stamp, Leah Estes
Contact Email: [email protected]
URL: www.thesedaysthemovie.com
Project Update: Shot over summer
2005, These Days, an ensemble piece
set in Los Angeles during the war in
Iraq, is currently in post-production.
Boppin’ at the Glue Factory
Format: 1:85
Cast: Henry Dittman, Conrad
Roberts, Mews Small, Rance
Howard
Director: Jeff Orgill
Writer: Jeff Orgill, Brian O’Malley,
Hector Maldonado
Producer: Christo Dimassis, Roger
Mayer, Brian O’Malley, Jeff Orgill
Contact Email: [email protected]
Contact #: (323) 806-2537
URL: www.brooklynreptyle.com
Project Update: Currently in postproduction
Shrink Rap (feature film)
Format: 16:9
Cast: Linden Ashby, Eddie Daniels,
Kyle T. Heffner, Cain DeVore (FA
member), Adam Weiner, Priscilla
Barnes, Richard Kind, Celeste
Yarnall
Director: Doug Cox
Writer: Doug Cox
Producer: Shaun Simons, Kyle T.
Heffner, Doug Cox
Contact Email: [email protected]
Contact #: (818) 955-8633
URL:
www.ShrinkRapTheMovie.com
Project Update: Shrink Rap will be
released on DVD/video in February
2006 by Indican Pictures. Available
at Blockbuster, Amazon, Net Flix
Broken
Format: 35mm
Cast: Jose Yenque, Felix ‘Ryghin’
Pimentel, Gene Borkan, Ruben
Bansie-Snellman, Doralicia and Paul
Renteria
Director: David Wendelman
Writer: David Wendelman
Producer: David Wendelman
Additional Producers: Bobby Leigh
and Michael Bentt
Contact Email:
[email protected]
Contact #: (323) 953-4733
URL: www.brokenthefilm.com
Project Update: BROKEN completed post in August 2005 and is currently being submitted to film festivals for a 2006 launch.
Some rainy winter Sunday when there’s a little boredom, you should carry a gun.
Not to shoot yourself, but to know exactly that you’re always making a choice.
— Lina Wertmuller
41
FA Member Updates
David Andrew Lloyd
Title: Comedy Writer/Brain Surgeon
Company: Giant Ego Entertainment
Contact #: (818) 761-7469
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.weknowfunny.com
Update Description:
Lloyd recently inked a film deal with
Fox/Searchlight. He also appeared in
The Gender Bowl as himself. He’s a
Scorpio, St. Louis Cardinal fan and
still extremely sexy.
Laurence Barbera
Title:President/Producer/Director/Writer
Company: Walking FilmWorks, Inc,
WAMclips.com, & TextDesk.com
Contact #: (310) 546-2822
Email:[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
URL: www.WAMclips.com,
www.TextDesk.com
Doug Cox
Title:Writer/Director/Producer
Company: White Squirrel Pictures
Contact #: (818) 955-8633
Email: [email protected]
URL:
www.ShrinkRapTheMovie.com
Update Description: Shrink Rap, a
feature film, will be released on
DVD/Video by Indican Pictures in
January 2006
Eric Jon Kurland
Title: Filmmaker, etc.
Company: Workprint Films/Digital
Sockmonkey/Hollywood
MOBileMOVies
Contact #: (818)623-9577
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.workprint.com
www.hand-o-rama.com www.hollywoodmobmov.org
Update Description:
I’ve recently founded the Hollywood
chapter of MobMov Mobile Drive-in
Movies. This is a microcinema guerilla drive-in movement that started in
2005. My car is equipped to be a projection booth on wheels, for outdoor
screenings - an actual drive-in that
drives in! I’m scheduling these
screenings at least monthly to showcase both popular movies, and films
that might not get exposure otherwise.
Sort of a moveable monthly film fest.
You can go to my website at
www.hollywoodmobmov.org and join
the mailing list. Also on my plate, I
am offering my services in authoring
and duplicating DVDs for short runs
(under 300) to independent filmmakers at very affordable rates. Email or
call for quotes. Lastly, I have a number of film/video projects starting up.
I have assembled a mini-DV camera
rig for shooting stereoscopic 3-D
video, and have been developing a
feature project to utilize this process.
Production on “The Werewolf and My
Pitbull” will begin in Summer 2006. I
am also planning a new puppet film,
in the style of my previous “The Ends
of the Alphabet”, to serve as the pilot
for a “Hand-O-Rama” TV series.
Lisa Moncure
Title: Writer/Director
Company: Breathing Furniture Films
Contact #: (323) 223-8231
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.wetlandsonline.com
Update Description:
Moncure has made several awardwinning short films. Her 30 minute
film, DROUGHT, screened in the
2000 Cannes Film Festival and was
sold to the Independent Film Channel.
She is currently in production with
her new film project, FLYFISHING
IN AMERICA, starring Cameron Dye
and with Mickey Cottrell, Brian
Brophy and Jim McManus, among
others. If you wish to support
Moncure’s filmmaking endeavors or
purchase a DVD of DROUGHT,
please visit her online erotic toy store
www.wetlandsonline.com. Support
Art! Buy a Vibe!
If you wish to know more about Lisa
Moncure and/or Breathing Furniture
Films give us a Google.
Jeff Orgill
Title:Writer/Director/Producer
Company: Brooklyn Reptyle Films
Contact #: (323) 806-2537
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.brooklynreptyle.com
Update Description: Currently in
post-production on my debut feature
film, BOPPIN’ AT THE GLUE FACTORY.
Pi Ware & Susan Kraker
Title: Writer/Directors
Contact #: (818) 244-4446
Email: [email protected]
URL:
www.solitudethemovie.com,
www.theactmovie.com
Update Description:
Pi Ware and Susan Kraker are a husband-and-wife writing/directing team.
Their debut feature, Solitude, was
released in theaters in 2005 and
comes to DVD in February 2006, distributed by Indican Pictures. Their latest short film, The Act, played dozens
of festivals, including Sundance,
Cannes and AFI FEST, and will be
seen on PBS and The Sundance
Channel in 2006. They are currently
in development on two new feature
length projects.
www.canondv.com