Jacques_Thelemaque
0 calendar items
Joined: 2006-01-18 00:00
Last Online: NOV 12 2007 08:08PM
- Film: The Dogwalker
- Film: e g g
- Film: INFIDELITY (IN EQUAL PARTS)
- Film: Transaction
- Listing: 2006 Silver Lake Film Festival
- Film: TELL YOUR STORY
- Film: A DOG'S LIFE
- Film: WOMEN'S ROOM
- Film: RECOVERY ROOM
- Film: INDIE FILM CENTRAL
Jacques Thelemaque combines filmmaking with arts activism.
Soon after leaving USC film school in 1985, Jacques landed a three-picture script deal with Imagine Entertainment and embarked on a brief and creatively unfulfilling studio screenwriting career.
In 1993, Jacques co-founded (along with his wife, Diane Gaidry) FILMMAKERS ALLIANCE, and as President, has built the grassroots collective from a loose-knit group of eight filmmakers into an important independent filmmaking resource organization with hundreds of members. Through FA, Jacques has guided, or directly managed, the support of over 500 films.
In 2004, Thelemaque struck a deal with production financing entity Bigfoot Partners to produce 2-4 independent films per year in the $200,000 to $2 million range under the FA Productions banner. In 2005, he was named Chief Community Officer of the innovative filmmaking support and community site, WITHOUTABOX.COM.
His extensive writer-director filmography includes TRANSACTION (Sundance Film Festival, Clermont-Ferrand Intl. Short Film Festival - WINNER, Grand Prixe du Jury), INFIDELITY (IN EQUAL PARTS) (Sundance Festival, Los Angeles Film Festival), THE DOGWALKER (Los Angeles Film Festival, Hong Kong International Film Festival, Best First Feature - Cinequest Film Festival), EGG (Mill Valley Film Festival, Best Comedy Short - Cinequest Film Festival, Jury Award for Best Short - Methodfest) and LOVE WITHOUT SOCKS (AFI International Film Festival), as well as several other films that he wrote, directed and/or produced.
He has recently completed the script for RED WHITE AND BLUE as one of ten filmmakers selected for the feature-length omnibus project and is currently prepping a new feature film, RUST, to shoot in 2007.
Thelemaque also served on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Independent Film Festival (now Film Independent's Los Angeles Film Festival) and currently serves on the boards of the Silver Lake Film Festival and Santa Monica Film Festival.
Look for THE DOGWALKER coming out on DVD in December!
- My Friends
CarrieHunter
Friend Since: January 01, 2008
Last Online: 10:25 am, June 14, 2008
Memom9
Friend Since: May 04, 2007
Last Online: 5:25 am, May 12, 2007
-
kimberlee_harrison
Friend Since: May 01, 2007
Last Online: 12:36 am, May 01, 2007
mirrormovies
Friend Since: November 16, 2006
Last Online: 8:15 am, May 17, 2008
Film Production Blog "dogwalker"
GREAT REVIEWS FOR "THE DOGWALKER"!!
Aug 28, 2006 03:33PM
We got a bad one, too, from some stringer at the L.A. Times (he's entitled to his opinion, of course - but a thoughtless, and therefore useless, opinion is about all we got from the insensitive hack). But let's focus on the positives, shall we?
We got a bad one, too, from some stringer at the L.A. Times (he's entitled to his opinion, of course - but a thoughtless, and therefore useless, opinion is about all we got from the insensitive hack). But let's focus on the positives, shall we?
"The Dogwalker" Distribution Interview with Jacques and Diane - Part I
Aug 28, 2006 11:52AM
Jacques: What did you think we were going to do with the film prior to our current distribution efforts?
Diane: Before we made the film, I was certain that we would sell it for a gazillion dollars and live happily ever after. But that didn’t happen. We had some lame offers while we were doing the festival circuit and working with Stephen Beer, our erstwhile producer’s rep, and then we were going to do a dvd distribution with Cinema Libre before we realized that Philippe Diaz was a sociopath, so we pulled out of that deal. Ultimately, our options were limited, so we’re really grateful that we have this investment through FA Productions, and are able to essentially self-distribute with the support of our hand-picked, brilliant distribution team.
J: Yes, we always had strong feelings about independent film distribution as a whole, and felt that a lot of smaller films like ours were not treated well by the prevailing indie film distribution film paradigm. It seemed that the options for independent films were limited. Your film could get picked up by a distributor for no money, where they would take the rights across all media, and try to get it out in the world, usually in a half-assed kind of way, where they hoped it would make money through world sales and home video sales and the filmmaker usually saw nothing up front and nothing on the back end. And the other option was to self-distribute which is a LOT of work. And most filmmakers don’t have the resources to do that for themselves.
D: And the thing is, we hope to have other things in our lives at some point besides this goddamns film. But we’re grateful that we have an amazing team of people that we were able to hire with this fund from an investor.
J: Yeah, we were planning to go the traditional route because we didn’t see any other way. And then luckily we met this investor who we set up a deal with for our production company and who very much liked the film, and he provided the funds for us to get the film out into the world. So we were able to test our own theories about what we think works and doesn’t work in independent film distribution.
We’re consulting with Peter Broderick who is advising us on how we can roll our film out. And we’ve put together a team, Elizabeth Stanley, who used to work with the Directors Guild, Elizabeth’s former assistant at the DGA, Michelle Wells, who is co-managing this effort with Elizabeth, an amazing marketing person, Melissa Sweeney, and our friend, Jessica Williamson, who is doing a lot of the research and message board posting.
D: Once we got this awesome distribution team together, we started contacting bookers to help us get the film into theatres. Most of them never returned our calls or e-mails and the ones who did assured us that without name talent or a genre or an award from Sundance, we were wasting our time. But if we were to have the privilege of working with a booker we could plan on paying through the nose for that privilege.
Fortunately we learned about a new program set up by the Landmark Cinemas, called Truly Indie, which tries to help independent filmmakers get their work out into the world. It’s kind of a curated 4-wall deal where they give a special rate to filmmakers who’s films are selected to be a part of this effort. They also help their filmmakers get reduced advertising rates and offer some marketing and publicity support. We’re working with Truly Indie in San Francisco, Berkeley, Denver, Boulder, Chicago, and Minneapolis. And The Dogwalker was also booked at the Rafael in Marin, and the Laemmle’s Music Hall here in L.A. And we’re working with the Dipson theatre chain in Buffalo and 4-walling one of the screens at the Market Arcade downtown. We chose each of these cities because we have friends and supporters in each of them. Except Chicago, where we just felt intuitively that that was a good market for our film.
J: We’ve decided to take sort of a multi-pronged, grass roots approach to our marketing. We’ve built a web site that has some community aspects; blogging, chat rooms, links, various community building elements. And off-line we are also setting up partnerships with various non-profits that work with and for issues that are part of the film: animal rescue, cancer relief (our other lead actress, Pamela Gordon, died of cancer a couple of years ago), domestic violence, and women’s shelters and empowerment. We are setting up a program to donate a percentage of dvd sales to these non-profits who partner with us.
Diane: Before we made the film, I was certain that we would sell it for a gazillion dollars and live happily ever after. But that didn’t happen. We had some lame offers while we were doing the festival circuit and working with Stephen Beer, our erstwhile producer’s rep, and then we were going to do a dvd distribution with Cinema Libre before we realized that Philippe Diaz was a sociopath, so we pulled out of that deal. Ultimately, our options were limited, so we’re really grateful that we have this investment through FA Productions, and are able to essentially self-distribute with the support of our hand-picked, brilliant distribution team.
J: Yes, we always had strong feelings about independent film distribution as a whole, and felt that a lot of smaller films like ours were not treated well by the prevailing indie film distribution film paradigm. It seemed that the options for independent films were limited. Your film could get picked up by a distributor for no money, where they would take the rights across all media, and try to get it out in the world, usually in a half-assed kind of way, where they hoped it would make money through world sales and home video sales and the filmmaker usually saw nothing up front and nothing on the back end. And the other option was to self-distribute which is a LOT of work. And most filmmakers don’t have the resources to do that for themselves.
D: And the thing is, we hope to have other things in our lives at some point besides this goddamns film. But we’re grateful that we have an amazing team of people that we were able to hire with this fund from an investor.
J: Yeah, we were planning to go the traditional route because we didn’t see any other way. And then luckily we met this investor who we set up a deal with for our production company and who very much liked the film, and he provided the funds for us to get the film out into the world. So we were able to test our own theories about what we think works and doesn’t work in independent film distribution.
We’re consulting with Peter Broderick who is advising us on how we can roll our film out. And we’ve put together a team, Elizabeth Stanley, who used to work with the Directors Guild, Elizabeth’s former assistant at the DGA, Michelle Wells, who is co-managing this effort with Elizabeth, an amazing marketing person, Melissa Sweeney, and our friend, Jessica Williamson, who is doing a lot of the research and message board posting.
D: Once we got this awesome distribution team together, we started contacting bookers to help us get the film into theatres. Most of them never returned our calls or e-mails and the ones who did assured us that without name talent or a genre or an award from Sundance, we were wasting our time. But if we were to have the privilege of working with a booker we could plan on paying through the nose for that privilege.
Fortunately we learned about a new program set up by the Landmark Cinemas, called Truly Indie, which tries to help independent filmmakers get their work out into the world. It’s kind of a curated 4-wall deal where they give a special rate to filmmakers who’s films are selected to be a part of this effort. They also help their filmmakers get reduced advertising rates and offer some marketing and publicity support. We’re working with Truly Indie in San Francisco, Berkeley, Denver, Boulder, Chicago, and Minneapolis. And The Dogwalker was also booked at the Rafael in Marin, and the Laemmle’s Music Hall here in L.A. And we’re working with the Dipson theatre chain in Buffalo and 4-walling one of the screens at the Market Arcade downtown. We chose each of these cities because we have friends and supporters in each of them. Except Chicago, where we just felt intuitively that that was a good market for our film.
J: We’ve decided to take sort of a multi-pronged, grass roots approach to our marketing. We’ve built a web site that has some community aspects; blogging, chat rooms, links, various community building elements. And off-line we are also setting up partnerships with various non-profits that work with and for issues that are part of the film: animal rescue, cancer relief (our other lead actress, Pamela Gordon, died of cancer a couple of years ago), domestic violence, and women’s shelters and empowerment. We are setting up a program to donate a percentage of dvd sales to these non-profits who partner with us.
"The Dogwalker" Distribution Interview with Jacques and Diane - Part II
Aug 28, 2006 11:52AM
Part II of the interview
J: So we received the funding to do this distribution towards the end of last year.
D: And at first, Jacques and I thought we could handle a lot more than we actually could. Because we were completely delusional. We had no idea what this effort entailed. We really only had a very general idea of what we were getting ourselves into and didn’t even really know where to start. So we hired Elizabeth who really got the ball rolling.
J: I always tell filmmakers to budget for festivals and distribution. When you’re raising money for the film, raise money for distribution at the same time.
D: That is if your major investors aren’t Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, like ours were.
J: And if you get picked up and don’t need to spend that money, great!
D: We always knew that marketing was key, obviously, to any distribution effort, but again, we had no clue as to how much work this required. The amount of effort and energy and clarity and experience…Our campaign is almost all grass roots. We’re kind of almost pretending that traditional media doesn’t exist but still doing a little bit of print advertising and maybe some cable and progressive am radio ads. But we’re primarily focusing on partnerships and word of mouth.
J: So we asked ourselves, “Who is our target audience? Who does this film speak to and who would be receptive to what the film has to offer?” And then we created a strategy for how to reach that target audience and how to hopefully, eventually get people to organically work on behalf of the film.
D: And we’re still figuring that out.
J: Yeah, it’s an ongoing process. First we thought, who are the taste makers, who are the people who sit at the top of the pyramid and can spread the word to a lot of other people. So we started thinking about organizations for whom the issues the issues in the film might be relevant. And we came up with independent film organizations non-profits that deal with the issues that we mentioned above, in each area where the film is going to screen theatrically.
D: But sometimes it’s been difficult to get the non-profits to respond when we didn’t have a personal introduction, because organizations like these are understandably careful about who they partner with. We’re the same way with Filmmakers Alliance because it’s a reflection on the organization and it’s branding and things that one has to be conscious of, especially when running a non-profit.
And early on in our efforts, at the beginning of the year, we took the pathetic approach of trying to get high profile celebrity types to validate us and give us a supportive quote. And I’m sure that works for some people, but it’s just not in alignment with who we are or the spirit of this film. For the record, I was against this from the beginning, but went along with it thinking “what do I know?” But it ended up being a total waste of time and money.
J: So we wound up sending the screeners to people who work with organizations that had a relationship to the film and who we either knew personally or had a personal introduction to. And we got some responses there and actually got some great quotes that we’re putting up on the site. We’re also doing benefit screenings in two or maybe 3 of the markets that we’ll be in: Arts Fighting Cancer here in L.A., and a consortium of cancer relief and domestic violence relief organizations in Buffalo, including Why Me House, Crisis Services, The Morlock Foundation, and The Mathew Foster Foundation. And we’re still working on trying to possibly set up a benefit screening in Minneapolis. Also, in Minneapolis, the Walker Art Center has programmed an evening in which I will be talking about Filmmakers Alliance and collectivism and filmmaking and showing some FA short films and some clips from The Dogwalker.
D: This event was set up by this wonderful man, Robb Mitchell, who runs a film and video workshop there called Screenlabs, and who has been a guardian angel for The Dogwalker and introduced us to all kinds of helpful and supportive people in Minneapolis.
J: And we also have other levels of partnerships with non-profits in which hopefully they will promote the theatrical and dvd and we will donate a percentage of the dvd sales when the purchaser uses the code for that organization when buying the film.
Also, we had hoped to do more additional screenings at college campuses and micro-cinemas as a means of promoting awareness of the film, but that hasn’t panned out as well as we had hoped because we didn’t have a data base or a road map of who to contact and how that all works. And we gathered a bunch of information and lost it in a server crash and got luke warm responses if any, when we did make contact, so as we got closer to the release, we put that on the back burner and focused our attention on more pressing concerns.
D: We hope to be able to build out that database at some time, because we see it as the way that smaller films will be able to get seen in the future.
J: Also, a key component of our distribution plan is the services provided by a lifestyle marketing company, FLAG Marketing, run by Christi Crowe. FLAG (fight like a girl) has teams in cities across the country and in Canada as well, who put up posters and put out postcards, etc. at locations strategically selected by Christi and the publicity/marketing people for a given film. In our case, along with the usual cafes and stores, we will have our materials at pet supply stores, vets’ offices, dog parks, yoga studios, etc. in each of the markets where our film is playing theatrically.
D: Oh, and speaking of postcards and posters, hire your key art designer as early as possible.
J: The same goes for web designers. Get your web site up and working as early as possible. Our design is a little more complicated than some because we wanted to have a lot of community building components… So that’s where we’re at. This issue goes to print before we open in our first market, the three theatres in the Bay area, so we’ll let you know how the theatrical release goes and how the beginnings of our dvd distribution is going in the January issue.
J: So we received the funding to do this distribution towards the end of last year.
D: And at first, Jacques and I thought we could handle a lot more than we actually could. Because we were completely delusional. We had no idea what this effort entailed. We really only had a very general idea of what we were getting ourselves into and didn’t even really know where to start. So we hired Elizabeth who really got the ball rolling.
J: I always tell filmmakers to budget for festivals and distribution. When you’re raising money for the film, raise money for distribution at the same time.
D: That is if your major investors aren’t Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, like ours were.
J: And if you get picked up and don’t need to spend that money, great!
D: We always knew that marketing was key, obviously, to any distribution effort, but again, we had no clue as to how much work this required. The amount of effort and energy and clarity and experience…Our campaign is almost all grass roots. We’re kind of almost pretending that traditional media doesn’t exist but still doing a little bit of print advertising and maybe some cable and progressive am radio ads. But we’re primarily focusing on partnerships and word of mouth.
J: So we asked ourselves, “Who is our target audience? Who does this film speak to and who would be receptive to what the film has to offer?” And then we created a strategy for how to reach that target audience and how to hopefully, eventually get people to organically work on behalf of the film.
D: And we’re still figuring that out.
J: Yeah, it’s an ongoing process. First we thought, who are the taste makers, who are the people who sit at the top of the pyramid and can spread the word to a lot of other people. So we started thinking about organizations for whom the issues the issues in the film might be relevant. And we came up with independent film organizations non-profits that deal with the issues that we mentioned above, in each area where the film is going to screen theatrically.
D: But sometimes it’s been difficult to get the non-profits to respond when we didn’t have a personal introduction, because organizations like these are understandably careful about who they partner with. We’re the same way with Filmmakers Alliance because it’s a reflection on the organization and it’s branding and things that one has to be conscious of, especially when running a non-profit.
And early on in our efforts, at the beginning of the year, we took the pathetic approach of trying to get high profile celebrity types to validate us and give us a supportive quote. And I’m sure that works for some people, but it’s just not in alignment with who we are or the spirit of this film. For the record, I was against this from the beginning, but went along with it thinking “what do I know?” But it ended up being a total waste of time and money.
J: So we wound up sending the screeners to people who work with organizations that had a relationship to the film and who we either knew personally or had a personal introduction to. And we got some responses there and actually got some great quotes that we’re putting up on the site. We’re also doing benefit screenings in two or maybe 3 of the markets that we’ll be in: Arts Fighting Cancer here in L.A., and a consortium of cancer relief and domestic violence relief organizations in Buffalo, including Why Me House, Crisis Services, The Morlock Foundation, and The Mathew Foster Foundation. And we’re still working on trying to possibly set up a benefit screening in Minneapolis. Also, in Minneapolis, the Walker Art Center has programmed an evening in which I will be talking about Filmmakers Alliance and collectivism and filmmaking and showing some FA short films and some clips from The Dogwalker.
D: This event was set up by this wonderful man, Robb Mitchell, who runs a film and video workshop there called Screenlabs, and who has been a guardian angel for The Dogwalker and introduced us to all kinds of helpful and supportive people in Minneapolis.
J: And we also have other levels of partnerships with non-profits in which hopefully they will promote the theatrical and dvd and we will donate a percentage of the dvd sales when the purchaser uses the code for that organization when buying the film.
Also, we had hoped to do more additional screenings at college campuses and micro-cinemas as a means of promoting awareness of the film, but that hasn’t panned out as well as we had hoped because we didn’t have a data base or a road map of who to contact and how that all works. And we gathered a bunch of information and lost it in a server crash and got luke warm responses if any, when we did make contact, so as we got closer to the release, we put that on the back burner and focused our attention on more pressing concerns.
D: We hope to be able to build out that database at some time, because we see it as the way that smaller films will be able to get seen in the future.
J: Also, a key component of our distribution plan is the services provided by a lifestyle marketing company, FLAG Marketing, run by Christi Crowe. FLAG (fight like a girl) has teams in cities across the country and in Canada as well, who put up posters and put out postcards, etc. at locations strategically selected by Christi and the publicity/marketing people for a given film. In our case, along with the usual cafes and stores, we will have our materials at pet supply stores, vets’ offices, dog parks, yoga studios, etc. in each of the markets where our film is playing theatrically.
D: Oh, and speaking of postcards and posters, hire your key art designer as early as possible.
J: The same goes for web designers. Get your web site up and working as early as possible. Our design is a little more complicated than some because we wanted to have a lot of community building components… So that’s where we’re at. This issue goes to print before we open in our first market, the three theatres in the Bay area, so we’ll let you know how the theatrical release goes and how the beginnings of our dvd distribution is going in the January issue.
Film Maker's Blog
INDIE THOUGHT #1:
Jun 23, 2006 11:00AM
To have a life as a filmmaker, you must continue to make films. Being a filmmaker is a process, not a result. It demands constant education, experience and exposure.
TIP OF THE MONTH: Plan For Distribution Before You Shoot
Jun 23, 2006 10:58AM
When putting together a business plan for your independent feature, DO NOT skimp on a clear and concise distribution plan. This is the plan you will use if your film is not picked up by a distributor. It is necessary for investors to see how they will still recoup their money if your film doesn't end up in the center of a bidding war by distributors.
No fledgling business creates a business plan that doesn't include how the product gets to market, and since each film is like an entrepreneurial venture, you should not exclude it, either. It should include a description of the distribution team, marketing plan, distribution budget break-down, promotional partnerships, release strategy and schedule, projected revenues (based on similar film performances) and any other pertinent information. If intelligently put together, it will instill confidence in your investor that you know what to do with his/her money and provide you with a blueprint for getting your film out into the world.
No fledgling business creates a business plan that doesn't include how the product gets to market, and since each film is like an entrepreneurial venture, you should not exclude it, either. It should include a description of the distribution team, marketing plan, distribution budget break-down, promotional partnerships, release strategy and schedule, projected revenues (based on similar film performances) and any other pertinent information. If intelligently put together, it will instill confidence in your investor that you know what to do with his/her money and provide you with a blueprint for getting your film out into the world.
INDIE QUOTE #1:
Jun 23, 2006 10:50AM
"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
LA FILM FEST BLOG FOR LA TIMES
Jun 22, 2006 02:59AM
The following is my opening blog about the LA Film Fest for the LA Times check out the blogs and comments at http://latimesblogs.typepad.com/filmfest/
Hi All,
My name is Jacques Thelemaque and I've been asked to select a few films in the festival and blog about them to generate and maintain a discussion around them - hopefully building a community of film lovers who have the opportunity to freely share their thoughts/deas about the films, culture, art, life, etc. and the relationship they all have to each other.
Why have I been asked? There's probably several answers to that question, but I happen to be a filmmaker with a film in the festival ("Transaction"- Shorts Program 4). I also had a feature film in the festival in 2002 called "The Dogwalker", which is finally opening here in Los Angeles August 25th at the Laemmle Music Hall in Beverly Hills (http://www.thedogwalkerfilm.com). Both films were made through a large L.A.-based filmmaking collective I co-founded (with my wife, Diane Gaidry, who's in the the short and feature) called Filmmakers Alliance. I'm also Chief Community Officer of Withoutabox.com for which I write a monthly eblast and that hosts a film community site called Audience (http://audience.withoutabox.com)
But most of all, I am a passionate lover of film. Specifically, independent film. More specifically, independent film with a "voice". That is fresh, distinctive, personal, challenging, perhaps even visionary cinema that takes us places we can't go ourselves. That doesn't mean this kind of cinema can't be funny or silly. But it still needs to work on more than one level and in ways we haven't seen a thousand times before. I hope I can include these films in that description. I haven't seen them, yet. Like many of you, I will see them when the festival kicks-off.
I can't wait to see how others respond to these films and what they do for each of you. Look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible.
Best, J.
GRETCHEN
I chose this particular film because I wanted to see a truly independent film. Plain and simple. This film seems like a small, personal, character-driven work of passion. I always respond to characters who exist in the margins of any community, and am interested to see what social and psychological issues the filmmaker is exploring through that character. I also suspect it will have a darkly humorous undertone ala Todd Solodnz's "Welcome to the Dollhouse".
GRETCHEN Synposis
Gretchen has bigger problems than abysmal fashion sense: She’s 17, painfully awkward and stuck in the most unforgiving place on earth — high school. When her obsession with school bad boy Ricky gets out of hand, her mother sends her to an emotional treatment center to recover. She has to travel elsewhere, however, to truly begin to understand why she fixates on the wrong kind of guy. Starring Courtney Davis as the perpetually uncomfortable Gretchen, Steve Collins’ first feature is a humorously deadpan yet poignant reminder of how the smallest moments can lead to extreme adolescent drama.
Screening:
Fri, June 23 10pm, Landmark's Regent
Mon, Jun 26 7pm, Laemmle Sunset 5
OLD JOY
Frankly, I have been dying to see "Old Joy" since stumbling across a rave review of it on the internet. It seems like the kind of rich, authentic, complex and deeply human film which I am constantly seeking out. However, there is such a dearth of distinctive, quality films that a film having any semblence of anything new and inventive can get caught in the hype machine - rarely to its own benefit. But I'm betting "Old Joy" will prove equal to my expectations - existing on its own terms outside of any wild expectations or overheated praise.
OLD JOY Synposis
Two old friends — one settling down as an expectant father, the other leading a free-form existence — go for a weekend camping trip together. Amidst the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest, it becomes apparent that their lives are heading in different directions. Anchored by delicately understated performances by Will Oldham (known for his musical work as Bonnie "Prince" Billy and Palace) and Daniel London, Old Joy is a quiet, powerful look at the ways in which people change and time marches ever on.
Screening:
Friday, June 23, 5 pm Italian Cultural Institute
Sun, June 25, 7pm Landmark's Regent
DELIVER US FROM EVIL
I chose this particular film because I was raised and educated Catholic in my early years and am still grappling with its affect on me. I'm also deeply interested in the nature of structured belief systems - why and how we embrace them as well as the cost/benefit of them personally, sociologically and spiritually.
I'm not really interested in seeing another crime story or "Forensic Files" episode (although I do love that show for some twisted reason). I want to think about the larger context of the horrific behavior chronicled, so I'm hoping the film explores the larger issues around Father O'Grady's actions without demonizing any single thing or person. That's just me, though. I look forward to how others respond to the film and what issues emerge for each of you.
DELIVER US FROM EVIL Synopsis
Moving from one parish to another in Northern California during the 1970s, Father Oliver O’Grady quickly won each congregation’s trust and respect. Unbeknownst to them, O’Grady was a dangerously active pedophile that Church hierarchy, aware of his predilection, had harbored for over 30 years, allowing him to abuse countless children. Juxtaposing an extended, deeply unsettling interview with O’Grady himself with the tragic stories of his victims, filmmaker Amy Berg bravely exposes the deep corruption of the Catholic Church and the troubled mind of the man they sheltered.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 7pm, The Majestic Crest Theatre
Mon, June 26 4:15pm, Landmark's Regent
GRADUALLY
I chose this particular film because I am a big fan of much of the Iranian Cinema that makes it to our shores. The attention to detail, the measured pacing, the sense of culture and history, the understatement, the allegorical energy and many other factors are realized so beautifully in this cinema. Also, I spent my senior year of high school in Tehran at an American School when my family moved there with my father's company during the time of the Shah (I'm dating myself). I fell in love with that part of the world and am endlessly fascinated by its long and complex history/culture and its current clash with western modernism (and post-modernism). I think most Americans would benefit greatly from getting at least a bit of understanding of the life and people of that region - in all their beauty and complexity.
GRADUALLY Synopsis
Seyed Mahmoud is a welder hard at work on the Iranian railway when he learns that his wife has disappeared. Returning to Tehran, Mahmoud finds few people willing to help him locate her, while the rumor that she has run away and humiliated him provides unending neighborhood gossip. This provocative second feature from director Maziar Miri begins as a realistic domestic mystery, but as it challenges ingrained societal stigmas it ultimately speaks in the powerful — and hopeful — language of a modern-day myth.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 5pm, UCLA James Bridges Theater
Tues, June 27 7:15pm, Italian Cultural Institute
THE FOOT FIST WAY
I chose this particular film because I wanted to explore a range of cinematic possibilities, especially given that I gravitate to more "serious" films. What I love most about a comedy is its potential to simultaneously entertain and challenge. Humor allows for the best kind of commentary and thematic exploration - subtle and integrated. No BIG message to bang you over the head or numb you with preciousness.
THE FOOT FIST WAY Synopsis
Running his small-town dojo with an iron fist and a motor mouth, Mr. Simmons lives his life according to the tenets of Tae Kwon Do, “the greatest of all martial arts,” as he is constantly reminding his bewildered students. But when his blousy wife cheats on him, it hits harder than a roundhouse kick to the head. As the socially inept Mr. Simmons, Danny McBride gives a performance of near comic genius, standing tall even in his lowest moments as the missing link between Bruce Lee and Napoleon Dynamite.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 9:45pm, The Majestic Crest Theatre
Tues, June 27 4:30pm, Laemmle Sunset 5
Hi All,
My name is Jacques Thelemaque and I've been asked to select a few films in the festival and blog about them to generate and maintain a discussion around them - hopefully building a community of film lovers who have the opportunity to freely share their thoughts/deas about the films, culture, art, life, etc. and the relationship they all have to each other.
Why have I been asked? There's probably several answers to that question, but I happen to be a filmmaker with a film in the festival ("Transaction"- Shorts Program 4). I also had a feature film in the festival in 2002 called "The Dogwalker", which is finally opening here in Los Angeles August 25th at the Laemmle Music Hall in Beverly Hills (http://www.thedogwalkerfilm.com). Both films were made through a large L.A.-based filmmaking collective I co-founded (with my wife, Diane Gaidry, who's in the the short and feature) called Filmmakers Alliance. I'm also Chief Community Officer of Withoutabox.com for which I write a monthly eblast and that hosts a film community site called Audience (http://audience.withoutabox.com)
But most of all, I am a passionate lover of film. Specifically, independent film. More specifically, independent film with a "voice". That is fresh, distinctive, personal, challenging, perhaps even visionary cinema that takes us places we can't go ourselves. That doesn't mean this kind of cinema can't be funny or silly. But it still needs to work on more than one level and in ways we haven't seen a thousand times before. I hope I can include these films in that description. I haven't seen them, yet. Like many of you, I will see them when the festival kicks-off.
I can't wait to see how others respond to these films and what they do for each of you. Look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible.
Best, J.
GRETCHEN
I chose this particular film because I wanted to see a truly independent film. Plain and simple. This film seems like a small, personal, character-driven work of passion. I always respond to characters who exist in the margins of any community, and am interested to see what social and psychological issues the filmmaker is exploring through that character. I also suspect it will have a darkly humorous undertone ala Todd Solodnz's "Welcome to the Dollhouse".
GRETCHEN Synposis
Gretchen has bigger problems than abysmal fashion sense: She’s 17, painfully awkward and stuck in the most unforgiving place on earth — high school. When her obsession with school bad boy Ricky gets out of hand, her mother sends her to an emotional treatment center to recover. She has to travel elsewhere, however, to truly begin to understand why she fixates on the wrong kind of guy. Starring Courtney Davis as the perpetually uncomfortable Gretchen, Steve Collins’ first feature is a humorously deadpan yet poignant reminder of how the smallest moments can lead to extreme adolescent drama.
Screening:
Fri, June 23 10pm, Landmark's Regent
Mon, Jun 26 7pm, Laemmle Sunset 5
OLD JOY
Frankly, I have been dying to see "Old Joy" since stumbling across a rave review of it on the internet. It seems like the kind of rich, authentic, complex and deeply human film which I am constantly seeking out. However, there is such a dearth of distinctive, quality films that a film having any semblence of anything new and inventive can get caught in the hype machine - rarely to its own benefit. But I'm betting "Old Joy" will prove equal to my expectations - existing on its own terms outside of any wild expectations or overheated praise.
OLD JOY Synposis
Two old friends — one settling down as an expectant father, the other leading a free-form existence — go for a weekend camping trip together. Amidst the natural beauty of the Pacific Northwest, it becomes apparent that their lives are heading in different directions. Anchored by delicately understated performances by Will Oldham (known for his musical work as Bonnie "Prince" Billy and Palace) and Daniel London, Old Joy is a quiet, powerful look at the ways in which people change and time marches ever on.
Screening:
Friday, June 23, 5 pm Italian Cultural Institute
Sun, June 25, 7pm Landmark's Regent
DELIVER US FROM EVIL
I chose this particular film because I was raised and educated Catholic in my early years and am still grappling with its affect on me. I'm also deeply interested in the nature of structured belief systems - why and how we embrace them as well as the cost/benefit of them personally, sociologically and spiritually.
I'm not really interested in seeing another crime story or "Forensic Files" episode (although I do love that show for some twisted reason). I want to think about the larger context of the horrific behavior chronicled, so I'm hoping the film explores the larger issues around Father O'Grady's actions without demonizing any single thing or person. That's just me, though. I look forward to how others respond to the film and what issues emerge for each of you.
DELIVER US FROM EVIL Synopsis
Moving from one parish to another in Northern California during the 1970s, Father Oliver O’Grady quickly won each congregation’s trust and respect. Unbeknownst to them, O’Grady was a dangerously active pedophile that Church hierarchy, aware of his predilection, had harbored for over 30 years, allowing him to abuse countless children. Juxtaposing an extended, deeply unsettling interview with O’Grady himself with the tragic stories of his victims, filmmaker Amy Berg bravely exposes the deep corruption of the Catholic Church and the troubled mind of the man they sheltered.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 7pm, The Majestic Crest Theatre
Mon, June 26 4:15pm, Landmark's Regent
GRADUALLY
I chose this particular film because I am a big fan of much of the Iranian Cinema that makes it to our shores. The attention to detail, the measured pacing, the sense of culture and history, the understatement, the allegorical energy and many other factors are realized so beautifully in this cinema. Also, I spent my senior year of high school in Tehran at an American School when my family moved there with my father's company during the time of the Shah (I'm dating myself). I fell in love with that part of the world and am endlessly fascinated by its long and complex history/culture and its current clash with western modernism (and post-modernism). I think most Americans would benefit greatly from getting at least a bit of understanding of the life and people of that region - in all their beauty and complexity.
GRADUALLY Synopsis
Seyed Mahmoud is a welder hard at work on the Iranian railway when he learns that his wife has disappeared. Returning to Tehran, Mahmoud finds few people willing to help him locate her, while the rumor that she has run away and humiliated him provides unending neighborhood gossip. This provocative second feature from director Maziar Miri begins as a realistic domestic mystery, but as it challenges ingrained societal stigmas it ultimately speaks in the powerful — and hopeful — language of a modern-day myth.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 5pm, UCLA James Bridges Theater
Tues, June 27 7:15pm, Italian Cultural Institute
THE FOOT FIST WAY
I chose this particular film because I wanted to explore a range of cinematic possibilities, especially given that I gravitate to more "serious" films. What I love most about a comedy is its potential to simultaneously entertain and challenge. Humor allows for the best kind of commentary and thematic exploration - subtle and integrated. No BIG message to bang you over the head or numb you with preciousness.
THE FOOT FIST WAY Synopsis
Running his small-town dojo with an iron fist and a motor mouth, Mr. Simmons lives his life according to the tenets of Tae Kwon Do, “the greatest of all martial arts,” as he is constantly reminding his bewildered students. But when his blousy wife cheats on him, it hits harder than a roundhouse kick to the head. As the socially inept Mr. Simmons, Danny McBride gives a performance of near comic genius, standing tall even in his lowest moments as the missing link between Bruce Lee and Napoleon Dynamite.
Screenings:
Sat, June 24 9:45pm, The Majestic Crest Theatre
Tues, June 27 4:30pm, Laemmle Sunset 5
INDIE QUOTE #5:
Jun 22, 2006 02:54AM
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
TIP OF THE MONTH: Avoid The "Star" Trap
Jun 22, 2006 02:54AM
I don't know how many financing and distribution seminars I've sat in on where filmmakers were sold on the importance of putting a "name" or a "star" in a film to make it more attractive to potential buyers/audiences. The logic of this is, of course, obvious. Until you break it down. Like much of the information (and people) orbiting around the filmmaking universe, the "star" thing is a superficiality embraced by the starstruck, naive, desperate and/or lazy filmmaker that doesn't hold up to substantive thinking.
Let me clarify that I am not saying there aren't benefits to having recognizable actors in your film. There are indeed. Many people in and out of the industry, including festival programmers, are star-obsessed. They put name actors on a pedestal and reward the film accordingly. But do you really want to pander to the "cult of celebrity" mentality? Especially when you do a cool-headed cost/benefit analysis (in terms of time, money, AND energy) of doing the "star" trip.
Fact #1: Very few stars can meaningfully affect a film's bottom line. Any distribution executive will tell you truthfully that there are very few actors that will significantly impact a film's potential revenue despite the widely held contrary notion. The film needs to be the star. The film needs to work.
Fact #2: Stars are hard to get. You can spend months, even years, trying to get stars interested in your project no matter how good your script is. Even if you figure out how to make contact, you are often sent from agent to manager to lawyer to publicist to dogwalker back to agent, and so on - with each one taking months to respond.
Fact #3: Stars can be expensive pains-in-the-ass. Even if you can get them to work for free (or practically free), they are still used to a certain level of treatment and perks that can wind up costing the production considerable amounts of money. Or, they just can't/won't meet the demands of your production - costing you more time, which equals money. Also, stars can often wield their experience and status to run roughshod creatively over a fledgling director and, in fact, over a whole production. Of course, there are many exceptions to this fact - known actors who are respectful and generous with their time and creativity. But there are many more horror stories.
Fact #4: Stars can upset the tone of a film. I don't know how many times I've been thrown out of the authenticity of a film by the sudden appearance of a recognizable actor - bringing with them the baggage of what we know about them from other stuff. I don't want to be lost in a film just to be pulled out when Paris Hilton shows up for a mise-en-scene-chewing cameo.
And really, what is a "star"? Or a "name"? Does it really benefit your film to have a world famous socialite or minor regular from a popular T.V. show (which is what most emerging filmmakers are lucky to have access to) in your film unless their acting ability truly benefits the film creatively? Answer: No. Instead reframe the whole star thing in your head.
First, make your film the star. Think of the film as a whole as the marketing hook that will attract investors and audiences. Your distinctive ideas and creative energy will "sell" the film. If you look at the Sundance successes over the past several years, almost none had "name" actors. From "Chuck and Buck" to "Blair Witch Project" to "Napolean Dynamite." Think of some the great films in world cinema history - DiSica's "The Bicycle Thief", Resnais' "Hiroshima, Mon Amour" or Lynch's "Eraserhead." Now, name the "stars" in them. Good luck.
Second, think in terms of casting the actor that will bring the most CREATIVELY to your film. Yes, there are plenty of "name" actors whose work you love and would be great for your film. If you can get 'em (and they won't make you pull your hair out), go for it. But always make the film, and the process of making the film, your priority in terms of deciding which actor is appropriate to cast. There are plenty of brilliant/and or perfectly appropriate actors for your film who are not "stars" or "names". Have the courage to champion them. Take advantage of their accessibility and collaborative energy. Keep your film authentic. Use them to make your film great and you will then have your "star."
Let me clarify that I am not saying there aren't benefits to having recognizable actors in your film. There are indeed. Many people in and out of the industry, including festival programmers, are star-obsessed. They put name actors on a pedestal and reward the film accordingly. But do you really want to pander to the "cult of celebrity" mentality? Especially when you do a cool-headed cost/benefit analysis (in terms of time, money, AND energy) of doing the "star" trip.
Fact #1: Very few stars can meaningfully affect a film's bottom line. Any distribution executive will tell you truthfully that there are very few actors that will significantly impact a film's potential revenue despite the widely held contrary notion. The film needs to be the star. The film needs to work.
Fact #2: Stars are hard to get. You can spend months, even years, trying to get stars interested in your project no matter how good your script is. Even if you figure out how to make contact, you are often sent from agent to manager to lawyer to publicist to dogwalker back to agent, and so on - with each one taking months to respond.
Fact #3: Stars can be expensive pains-in-the-ass. Even if you can get them to work for free (or practically free), they are still used to a certain level of treatment and perks that can wind up costing the production considerable amounts of money. Or, they just can't/won't meet the demands of your production - costing you more time, which equals money. Also, stars can often wield their experience and status to run roughshod creatively over a fledgling director and, in fact, over a whole production. Of course, there are many exceptions to this fact - known actors who are respectful and generous with their time and creativity. But there are many more horror stories.
Fact #4: Stars can upset the tone of a film. I don't know how many times I've been thrown out of the authenticity of a film by the sudden appearance of a recognizable actor - bringing with them the baggage of what we know about them from other stuff. I don't want to be lost in a film just to be pulled out when Paris Hilton shows up for a mise-en-scene-chewing cameo.
And really, what is a "star"? Or a "name"? Does it really benefit your film to have a world famous socialite or minor regular from a popular T.V. show (which is what most emerging filmmakers are lucky to have access to) in your film unless their acting ability truly benefits the film creatively? Answer: No. Instead reframe the whole star thing in your head.
First, make your film the star. Think of the film as a whole as the marketing hook that will attract investors and audiences. Your distinctive ideas and creative energy will "sell" the film. If you look at the Sundance successes over the past several years, almost none had "name" actors. From "Chuck and Buck" to "Blair Witch Project" to "Napolean Dynamite." Think of some the great films in world cinema history - DiSica's "The Bicycle Thief", Resnais' "Hiroshima, Mon Amour" or Lynch's "Eraserhead." Now, name the "stars" in them. Good luck.
Second, think in terms of casting the actor that will bring the most CREATIVELY to your film. Yes, there are plenty of "name" actors whose work you love and would be great for your film. If you can get 'em (and they won't make you pull your hair out), go for it. But always make the film, and the process of making the film, your priority in terms of deciding which actor is appropriate to cast. There are plenty of brilliant/and or perfectly appropriate actors for your film who are not "stars" or "names". Have the courage to champion them. Take advantage of their accessibility and collaborative energy. Keep your film authentic. Use them to make your film great and you will then have your "star."
EXHIBITION BLAST: Exploding Cinema
Jun 22, 2006 02:51AM
Radically independent, the EXPLODING CINEMA is a London coalition of film/video makers committed to developing new modes of exhibition for underground media; including DIY screenings in all kinds of venues, low/no budget film tours, cable T.V. and the internet. The group is voluntary and totally democratic, anyone can contribute, anyone can join the group.
They hold regular OPEN SCREENINGS of film/video for makers who want a popular audience for their work, without censorship and with no preference as to the kind of work...drama, experimental, documentary, splatter, animation, true confessions, protest, pop promos, home videos, found footage...and more.
Part of their constitution states: "The ideas, projects and methods developed by the Exploding Cinema are copyright free...We oppose the elitism, academicism, industrialism and obscurity of the traditional 'Independent' film/video sector and welcome contributions from all film/video/performance practises from the popular to the experimental."
Gotta love that.
A GREAT model for a filmmaking/exhibition collective in your area! Check out their very cool site: http://www.explodingcinema.org/
They hold regular OPEN SCREENINGS of film/video for makers who want a popular audience for their work, without censorship and with no preference as to the kind of work...drama, experimental, documentary, splatter, animation, true confessions, protest, pop promos, home videos, found footage...and more.
Part of their constitution states: "The ideas, projects and methods developed by the Exploding Cinema are copyright free...We oppose the elitism, academicism, industrialism and obscurity of the traditional 'Independent' film/video sector and welcome contributions from all film/video/performance practises from the popular to the experimental."
Gotta love that.
A GREAT model for a filmmaking/exhibition collective in your area! Check out their very cool site: http://www.explodingcinema.org/
INDIE QUOTE #4:
Jun 22, 2006 02:49AM
Juxtaposing a person with an environment that is boundless, collating him with a countless number of people passing by close to him and far away, relating a person to the whole world, that is the meaning of cinema.
- Andrei Tarkovsky
TIP OF THE MONTH: Learning to Manage Feedback
Jun 22, 2006 02:49AM
As part of a formal filmmaking community (Filmmakers Alliance in Los Angeles), I cannot even conceive of making a film without the creative support I get from my family of fellow filmmakers. From script stage through editing, I use my community (many of whom are talented filmmakers) to reflect back to me a perspective on the work I've created so that I get a sense of how what I'm doing is being received by an audience. Granted, my filmmaking community probably views films with a slightly more specific and, perhaps, jaundiced eye than the general public, but the feedback is almost always littered with great ideas. And if I can get filmmakers lost in the film and not thinking about the filmmaking behind it, I know I've done what I want to do. Frankly, I find feedback the single most important creative tool in the development of my work.
But managing feedback is a skill, no, an art, that many filmmakers have difficulty mastering. Some get very defensive and protective about their work. A lot of filmmakers simply refuse to get feedback, preciously guarding their work from outside opinions and contributions. Yes, exposing your work to comment, especially at early stages, can create a sense of personal vulnerability. But the benefits are worth it. Besides, the work will take much harder hits once it is realized and out in the world.
Feedback can be both immensely valuable and incredibly destructive - all depending on how the filmmaker responds to and manages the feedback. Here are some tips/thoughts on how to handle feedback:
1. Prepare yourself for feedback. Make sure you are in the proper headspace to receive it. Sometimes that takes simple breathing, sometimes it means pre-visualizing worst-case scenarios. Whatever your technique, work to keep yourself open and non-defensive.
2. Know when the work is ready for feedback. First of all, you need to be ready. But the work should also be at a place where you can receive clear and meaningful feedback. That is, you've taken it as far down the road as you alone can. If you know there is more to do before showing it to others, then do it.
3. Resist immediately commenting on the feedback. Unless you need greater clarification, just take in the feedback. Sit with it and don't give in to knee-jerk reactions. Although feedback can feel personal, it is not. It is about the work. Do cut off or ignore any feedback that is indeed personal or abusive in any way, but otherwise flow with it and take the time to understand why your work is generating a particular reaction.
4. Don't be afraid to communicate and/or "guide" feedback. Often times it's best to just shut up and hear what others have to say, letting the work speak for itself. But if you have specific issues, concerns or questions, don't be afraid to direct people to those points. When necessary, let them know specifically what you are trying to address and/or accomplish. This can sometimes really pinpoint the feedback.
5. Consider the source. Feedback is, of course, very subjective. Some people may not respond well to your work because they are simply coming from a very different aesthetic perspective. That doesn't mean they don't have valuable feedback to offer, and may indeed toss out some great ideas, but you will have to filter through the over-all feedback based on your understanding of their own aesthetic agenda.
6. Feedback is just that, and not necessarily the solution. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. People may be stopped or bothered by something so they give you "solutions." But often, they are just bad ideas. You have to interpret the feedback/solutions and think about why they are stopped beyond what they tell you. Film is a visceral medium and you are looking for the gut-level reactions to the film, then trust your own gut in working out how to respond to them.
7. No one knows better than you. At the end of the day, you need to feel right about responding to feedback and not just roll over for it because it is coming from someone you respect or because you feel some kind of pressure to respond to it. You must, must challenge yourself and look hard at any feedback that you feel needs to be taken seriously, but in the end, you are the filmmaker and must live with your decisions - and learn from them, if necessary.
But managing feedback is a skill, no, an art, that many filmmakers have difficulty mastering. Some get very defensive and protective about their work. A lot of filmmakers simply refuse to get feedback, preciously guarding their work from outside opinions and contributions. Yes, exposing your work to comment, especially at early stages, can create a sense of personal vulnerability. But the benefits are worth it. Besides, the work will take much harder hits once it is realized and out in the world.
Feedback can be both immensely valuable and incredibly destructive - all depending on how the filmmaker responds to and manages the feedback. Here are some tips/thoughts on how to handle feedback:
1. Prepare yourself for feedback. Make sure you are in the proper headspace to receive it. Sometimes that takes simple breathing, sometimes it means pre-visualizing worst-case scenarios. Whatever your technique, work to keep yourself open and non-defensive.
2. Know when the work is ready for feedback. First of all, you need to be ready. But the work should also be at a place where you can receive clear and meaningful feedback. That is, you've taken it as far down the road as you alone can. If you know there is more to do before showing it to others, then do it.
3. Resist immediately commenting on the feedback. Unless you need greater clarification, just take in the feedback. Sit with it and don't give in to knee-jerk reactions. Although feedback can feel personal, it is not. It is about the work. Do cut off or ignore any feedback that is indeed personal or abusive in any way, but otherwise flow with it and take the time to understand why your work is generating a particular reaction.
4. Don't be afraid to communicate and/or "guide" feedback. Often times it's best to just shut up and hear what others have to say, letting the work speak for itself. But if you have specific issues, concerns or questions, don't be afraid to direct people to those points. When necessary, let them know specifically what you are trying to address and/or accomplish. This can sometimes really pinpoint the feedback.
5. Consider the source. Feedback is, of course, very subjective. Some people may not respond well to your work because they are simply coming from a very different aesthetic perspective. That doesn't mean they don't have valuable feedback to offer, and may indeed toss out some great ideas, but you will have to filter through the over-all feedback based on your understanding of their own aesthetic agenda.
6. Feedback is just that, and not necessarily the solution. Sometimes it is, but often it is not. People may be stopped or bothered by something so they give you "solutions." But often, they are just bad ideas. You have to interpret the feedback/solutions and think about why they are stopped beyond what they tell you. Film is a visceral medium and you are looking for the gut-level reactions to the film, then trust your own gut in working out how to respond to them.
7. No one knows better than you. At the end of the day, you need to feel right about responding to feedback and not just roll over for it because it is coming from someone you respect or because you feel some kind of pressure to respond to it. You must, must challenge yourself and look hard at any feedback that you feel needs to be taken seriously, but in the end, you are the filmmaker and must live with your decisions - and learn from them, if necessary.
FILM CONSULTANT BLAST: Thomas Ethan Harris
Jun 22, 2006 02:47AM
Thomas Ethan Harris is a man of passion, but his passion for cinema goes off the charts. Holding a Masters Degree in Critical Studies/Screenwriting from the University of Southern California, School of Cinema-Television, Thomas went on to serve as Director of Programming for the highly regarded Los Angeles Film Festival (formerly LAIFF) from its inception until 2001. In 1996, Thomas founded (with Margot Gerber) and programmed the American Cinematheque's critically acclaimed, on-going screening series, THE ALTERNATIVE SCREEN. Upon leaving LA Film Festival in late 2001, Thomas was selected as one of Variety's "TOP 10 Industry Professionals to Watch" in the American Independent film arena.
As a film consultant, Thomas has worked on many motion pictures, including THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, BIG EDEN, KISSING JESSICA STEIN, ADIOS MOMO, Disney's 2004 Oscar-nominated Salvador Dali/Walt Disney short DESTINO, TWO SOLDIERS, winner of the 2004 Academy Award for "Best Live Action Short Film" and RYAN, winner of the 2005 Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Film." He still serves as a jury member and guest programmer to countless film festivals, also serving as Director Of Programming of the Palm Springs International Festival of Short Films in 2003.
Since 2003, Mr. Harris has operated his own successful Los Angeles-based consulting business and works closely with a variety of film artists in all aspects of film production from writing/directing clients to film festival clients. Although Thomas has very strong ideas about what is and isn't working in current American cinema, above all else, he respects the voice of the filmmaker and works to bring his/her unique vision to the forefront of every project with which he chooses to be involved. His company was founded with the principle that moving beyond the confining nature of today's American Independent scene is necessity in order to create a new generation of film artists.
tethanharris@earthlink.net
As a film consultant, Thomas has worked on many motion pictures, including THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, BIG EDEN, KISSING JESSICA STEIN, ADIOS MOMO, Disney's 2004 Oscar-nominated Salvador Dali/Walt Disney short DESTINO, TWO SOLDIERS, winner of the 2004 Academy Award for "Best Live Action Short Film" and RYAN, winner of the 2005 Academy Award for "Best Animated Short Film." He still serves as a jury member and guest programmer to countless film festivals, also serving as Director Of Programming of the Palm Springs International Festival of Short Films in 2003.
Since 2003, Mr. Harris has operated his own successful Los Angeles-based consulting business and works closely with a variety of film artists in all aspects of film production from writing/directing clients to film festival clients. Although Thomas has very strong ideas about what is and isn't working in current American cinema, above all else, he respects the voice of the filmmaker and works to bring his/her unique vision to the forefront of every project with which he chooses to be involved. His company was founded with the principle that moving beyond the confining nature of today's American Independent scene is necessity in order to create a new generation of film artists.
tethanharris@earthlink.net
ORGANIZATION BLAST: AIVF - Needs Your Support
Jun 22, 2006 02:45AM
The Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers (AIVF) NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT! AIVF is a venerable indie film support org that has fallen on very difficult times, as have many non-profits. AIVF is a NY-based, long-time supporter of the more artful and socially meaningful edge of the indie universe (although that has changed somewhat). They also publish The Independent, once a meaningful resource for indies that, in my humble opinion, has taken a dip in quality as the organization itself struggles to stay alive and re-define its voice.
But it's clear that, as it says on their website, the Board and staff have been working hard and diligently to understand and resolve past, present and future issues. Also, there is simply not enough institutional and/or organizational support for artful and/or meaningful indie filmmaking and, as a community, we need to make sure that the few we have remain viable. In an IndieWire blog, filmmaker Jim McKay offers a very insightful and eloquent perspective on the AIVF's own contribution to their situation that is also a challenge for that organization to take a relevant position in today's rapidly evolving indie film landscape. Hopefully, they will get through this difficult time and confront that challenge. You can help make that happen.
http://www.aivf.org
But it's clear that, as it says on their website, the Board and staff have been working hard and diligently to understand and resolve past, present and future issues. Also, there is simply not enough institutional and/or organizational support for artful and/or meaningful indie filmmaking and, as a community, we need to make sure that the few we have remain viable. In an IndieWire blog, filmmaker Jim McKay offers a very insightful and eloquent perspective on the AIVF's own contribution to their situation that is also a challenge for that organization to take a relevant position in today's rapidly evolving indie film landscape. Hopefully, they will get through this difficult time and confront that challenge. You can help make that happen.
http://www.aivf.org
Enote from Jacques - FAILURE
Jun 22, 2006 02:44AM
Well, in response to my last Eblast, I got a rousing thumbs-up for my lengthy rants from the overwhelming majority of you, but I promise not to take advantage of the support. I'll try and make sure my Eblast commentaries take as long as they need to take - not one bit more or less. This month is easy. My suggestion to you can be summed up in a word - FAIL!
More precisely, give yourself permission to fail. As I've said in previous Enotes, the best way to create awareness for yourself as a filmmaker is by doing brilliantly distinctive work. And the best way to evolve to and exist in that space is to give yourself permission to fail. Like many of my comments, this plea to you may seem insultingly obvious. But I go to a lot of festivals and see a lot of films. Many are very professional, very competent, but very safe - been-there/done-that kinda work. While I often admire the production value in such films, there is nothing about them that allows me to remember one second of them (or the filmmakers who made them).
Those filmmakers need to embrace risk, and therefore, failure. They should, in fact, try to fail. Then there's no going wrong because if you fail to fail, you've succeeded. Make sense? Probably not, but you get the idea. Failure is part of life and especially inescapable in terms of invention - creative or otherwise. If you aren't failing, you aren't taking risks, and therefore not growing creatively. Also, the sense of creative freedom that giving yourself permission to fail gives you is immensely satisfying in and of itself.
And how do we come to a consensus definition of failure? We don't. One person's failure is another's stroke of genius. Creative failure is simply whatever isn't working for YOU after you've tried it out, which gives you the opportunity to learn from it, clean it up or try something new - perhaps something even more daring and exciting. There are so many of you filmmakers out there with jaw-dropping skill that once that skill is married to the original ideas that embracing failure will bring to you, your films will be, quite simply, AMAZING!
More precisely, give yourself permission to fail. As I've said in previous Enotes, the best way to create awareness for yourself as a filmmaker is by doing brilliantly distinctive work. And the best way to evolve to and exist in that space is to give yourself permission to fail. Like many of my comments, this plea to you may seem insultingly obvious. But I go to a lot of festivals and see a lot of films. Many are very professional, very competent, but very safe - been-there/done-that kinda work. While I often admire the production value in such films, there is nothing about them that allows me to remember one second of them (or the filmmakers who made them).
Those filmmakers need to embrace risk, and therefore, failure. They should, in fact, try to fail. Then there's no going wrong because if you fail to fail, you've succeeded. Make sense? Probably not, but you get the idea. Failure is part of life and especially inescapable in terms of invention - creative or otherwise. If you aren't failing, you aren't taking risks, and therefore not growing creatively. Also, the sense of creative freedom that giving yourself permission to fail gives you is immensely satisfying in and of itself.
And how do we come to a consensus definition of failure? We don't. One person's failure is another's stroke of genius. Creative failure is simply whatever isn't working for YOU after you've tried it out, which gives you the opportunity to learn from it, clean it up or try something new - perhaps something even more daring and exciting. There are so many of you filmmakers out there with jaw-dropping skill that once that skill is married to the original ideas that embracing failure will bring to you, your films will be, quite simply, AMAZING!
INDIE QUOTE #3
Jun 22, 2006 02:41AM
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
TIP OF THE MONTH: Feed Your Crew!
Jun 22, 2006 02:41AM
For me, this tip is a no-brainer. But I've recently run into so many second-time, third-time and even more-time filmmakers who still don't get it that I am compelled to make this my tip of the month. Feed your crew! Of course I mean don't just feed them. Feed them well! When making a low-budget film, there are a zillion budgetary concerns that necessitate the establishing of priorities to govern the way limited funds will be spent. Always put good, bountiful food at the top of those priorities. If you want a smooth, efficient shoot brimming with creative energy, you have to provide high-grade fuel for it. The way to the crew's collective heart is definitely through their collective stomachs.
Often meals are the only "payment" filmmakers can provide for cast and crew. Show them you value their worth and time. No matter when you begin your shooting day (or night), always begin by offering a nice starter spread (if not a full meal) that respects common meal preferences/restrictions. Then leave the crew, throughout the day, a truly nutritious and delicious craft service table that is not just stocked with junk food and sugar rush garbage. Fruits and vegetables should always be available, of course, but also nuts and grains. Vitamins are not bad to have there, either. It's great to have "treats," but try to make sure they have some nutritional value. Get creative and/or ethnic with hummus, kim chee , or some other kind of interesting, but inexpensive, appetizer. Keep sugar to a minimum as it has short term benefits that turn into long term problems.
Highlight the day with a solid, even gourmet, if possible, central meal that also respects meal preferences/restrictions and always offers vegetables and/or salads. Then, if shooting a long day, be sure to include a second meal that doesn't always have to be pizza or Subway sandwiches. Yes, you will go there for convenience and cost, but not all the time. Mix it up, always making second meal nutritious and delicious.
Unless you are making a film with family/friends who are filled with endless forgiveness for your various inconsiderations, you MUST budget for food even if that is the only line item you can afford. Keep in mind that the food you provide is the message you are sending to your crew about what you feel about them, and consequently, what you feel about your own film. Send the right message. Trust me, you will see the benefit in your crew's energy, attitude and quality of work. It will be worth every penny.
Often meals are the only "payment" filmmakers can provide for cast and crew. Show them you value their worth and time. No matter when you begin your shooting day (or night), always begin by offering a nice starter spread (if not a full meal) that respects common meal preferences/restrictions. Then leave the crew, throughout the day, a truly nutritious and delicious craft service table that is not just stocked with junk food and sugar rush garbage. Fruits and vegetables should always be available, of course, but also nuts and grains. Vitamins are not bad to have there, either. It's great to have "treats," but try to make sure they have some nutritional value. Get creative and/or ethnic with hummus, kim chee , or some other kind of interesting, but inexpensive, appetizer. Keep sugar to a minimum as it has short term benefits that turn into long term problems.
Highlight the day with a solid, even gourmet, if possible, central meal that also respects meal preferences/restrictions and always offers vegetables and/or salads. Then, if shooting a long day, be sure to include a second meal that doesn't always have to be pizza or Subway sandwiches. Yes, you will go there for convenience and cost, but not all the time. Mix it up, always making second meal nutritious and delicious.
Unless you are making a film with family/friends who are filled with endless forgiveness for your various inconsiderations, you MUST budget for food even if that is the only line item you can afford. Keep in mind that the food you provide is the message you are sending to your crew about what you feel about them, and consequently, what you feel about your own film. Send the right message. Trust me, you will see the benefit in your crew's energy, attitude and quality of work. It will be worth every penny.
INDIE QUOTE #2:
Jun 22, 2006 02:38AM
"Film is a very, very powerful medium. It can either confirm the idea that things are wonderful the way they are, or it can reinforce the conception that things can be changed." - Wim Wenders
TIP OF THE MONTH: Scaling Your Film
Jun 22, 2006 02:37AM
I don't know about you, but my imagination resists any and all attempts to be reigned in by the practical realities of getting a film made and out into the world. So it is difficult for me to consider "scaling" my film to the realities of my ability to make and market it. But scaling is a key idea in successfully realizing a film, especially if you are a first-time filmmaker. Scaling means taking your existing film project or creating a new one (if the existing one simply can't be modified without compromising it) and reworking it and the budget to fit the demands of an ACCESSIBLE budget and its REALISTIC ability to generate financial return. In other words, be encouraged to make an experimental documentary about paint drying in real-time, but scale the project to your ability to raise funds and to the film's need and/or ability to generate meaningful - or at least realistic - financial return.
The fact is, most first films are financed by friends, family members and acquaintances. Hell, so are many second and third films. Budgets approaching a million dollars are pretty much prohibitive. Budgets approaching $25,000 are often prohibitive. But I see huge budgets all the time from first-time feature filmmakers. And they are usually budgets for films that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making that money back, or even a fraction of it, for their investors. Investors are not stupid. At least, not about money. They can see the disparity even if they are neophytes to filmmaking. This is not important at the back end if its your own money to lose or you are funded by grants, public TV or some other funding entity that demands no financial return - or can afford to lose it. But it is always important at the front end - in relation to your ability to raise the funds necessary to get a film made.
The key to successful scaling is not to look at it as a business/practical decision, but rather, to approach it as a creative problem. Both Tarkovsky and Kieslowski worked under oppressive regimes that censored their work - creating many interesting creative challenges for them that they overcame brilliantly. Many Iranian filmmakers do the same thing today. We did it here in America during the imposition of the Hays Code. Don't think of your creativity and imagination as being reigned in - think of it as being sharply focused. What you can create within defined financial/practical parameters can often be infinitely more compelling than what you can create given unlimited budget and scope. Have confidence that you can do brilliant work at any level. True creativity can be found for a lot less than most filmmakers dare to imagine. As expensive as filmmaking can be, great films are about ideas and imagination - not money. So embrace scaling as a creative opportunity that can realistically bring you to your goal of making, finishing and successfully selling your film.
The fact is, most first films are financed by friends, family members and acquaintances. Hell, so are many second and third films. Budgets approaching a million dollars are pretty much prohibitive. Budgets approaching $25,000 are often prohibitive. But I see huge budgets all the time from first-time feature filmmakers. And they are usually budgets for films that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making that money back, or even a fraction of it, for their investors. Investors are not stupid. At least, not about money. They can see the disparity even if they are neophytes to filmmaking. This is not important at the back end if its your own money to lose or you are funded by grants, public TV or some other funding entity that demands no financial return - or can afford to lose it. But it is always important at the front end - in relation to your ability to raise the funds necessary to get a film made.
The key to successful scaling is not to look at it as a business/practical decision, but rather, to approach it as a creative problem. Both Tarkovsky and Kieslowski worked under oppressive regimes that censored their work - creating many interesting creative challenges for them that they overcame brilliantly. Many Iranian filmmakers do the same thing today. We did it here in America during the imposition of the Hays Code. Don't think of your creativity and imagination as being reigned in - think of it as being sharply focused. What you can create within defined financial/practical parameters can often be infinitely more compelling than what you can create given unlimited budget and scope. Have confidence that you can do brilliant work at any level. True creativity can be found for a lot less than most filmmakers dare to imagine. As expensive as filmmaking can be, great films are about ideas and imagination - not money. So embrace scaling as a creative opportunity that can realistically bring you to your goal of making, finishing and successfully selling your film.
DISTRIBUTION BLAST: The Criterion Collection
Jun 22, 2006 02:28AM
Last month, I profiled a socially conscious distributor and this month I want to profile an aesthetically conscious one. The best thing I got out of film school was exposure to classic cinema and discussions/analyses of what made these films work. If you never went to film school and want to create that experience for yourself or you went to film school and want to recreate that experience, you need to get your hands on great films. I'm guessing many of you know of Criterion. But if you don't, checking them out is a must.
The Criterion Collection is a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films, dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. Criterion began with a mission to pull the treasures of world cinema out of the film vaults and put them in the hands of collectors. All of the films published under the Criterion banner represent cinema at its finest. In its seventeen years, although much about the film universe has changed, one thing has remained constant: Criterion's commitment to publishing the defining moments of cinema in the world's best digital editions.
Yes, Criterion DVD films/collections are expensive, which is often the slam against them. They almost never offer any meaningful discounts. But delivering their quality of cinema - both in content and presentation - is not cheap or easy. Their "brand" is also sometimes sold through discount internet outlets and often available on Ebay. Criterion films are meticulously curated, so you can trust that you will always have a rich, profound film experience that is bound to expand what you think you already know about film.
http://www.criterionco.com
The Criterion Collection is a continuing series of important classic and contemporary films, dedicated to gathering the greatest films from around the world and publishing them in editions that offer the highest technical quality and award-winning, original supplements. Criterion began with a mission to pull the treasures of world cinema out of the film vaults and put them in the hands of collectors. All of the films published under the Criterion banner represent cinema at its finest. In its seventeen years, although much about the film universe has changed, one thing has remained constant: Criterion's commitment to publishing the defining moments of cinema in the world's best digital editions.
Yes, Criterion DVD films/collections are expensive, which is often the slam against them. They almost never offer any meaningful discounts. But delivering their quality of cinema - both in content and presentation - is not cheap or easy. Their "brand" is also sometimes sold through discount internet outlets and often available on Ebay. Criterion films are meticulously curated, so you can trust that you will always have a rich, profound film experience that is bound to expand what you think you already know about film.
http://www.criterionco.com
Enote from Jacques - YOUR UNIQUE SELF IN FILM
Jun 22, 2006 02:27AM
Every month, I will start the Eblast with a few words of my own. Not in my official position as Chief Community Officer for Withoutabox nor as President of Filmmakers Alliance. But as a rank and file filmmaker and creative aspirant like the rest of you trying to build/maintain a life for myself as a filmmaker.
Who are you as a filmmaker? What makes you and/or your film different from the thousands of others out in the world? This month I want to make a brief, practical argument for the emergence of your unique selves in your films. Every year, thousands of films get made. Festival programmers, buyers, distributors and even audiences are flooded with them. Most of them, sadly, are not very good for many reasons. Often because over-eager filmmakers (count me among them) have not taken the time to learn their craft and explore the true potential of cinema - but that topic is for another Eblast. But even the solidly made ones often suffer from a lack of vision and originality, often times because filmmakers want to make something that is familiar to audiences and to those that can advance their careers. They want to prove that they can make a Hollywood film and thus deserve to join the ranks of big budget cigar chompers.
Big mistake. First of all, making films for purely careerist reasons more times than not will take you farther from that goal. People can sniff out your intention through the film and are turned off by it. Second, industry professionals are not looking for new talent to make the same films they are already capable of making. Why do they need you for that? They're already doing fine without adding you to the mix. Instead, they are looking for something fresh, new, distinctive - an aesthetic or perspective they haven't seen before. Will they continue to honor your vision once they've exploited your talent? In a very limited way, yes, because they can now hire you for ridiculous amounts of money to take their warmed-over, formulaic films and make them seem new to audiences. And then you have your big-time "career."
But a more important argument for exploring your unique selves cinematically can be found in how it serves you as a creative being. Assuming you are making films for reasons other than careerist or egotistical objectives, nothing serves the authentic creative being inside all of us better than expressing that authenticity in our work. Let's face it, filmmaking can be grueling and expensive. It demands so much of us on a practical/experiential level that our desire to make films often seems like some kind of insanity. Why do we do it? Hopefully not because we want to prove we are as mediocre as the filmmaker who came before us. Hopefully it is because we are using the medium of cinema to express what is truly authentic about us as filmmakers, as creative beings, as HUMAN beings. And, be sure, each of us has something unique and authentic to express just as sure as we have our own unique fingerprint or DNA.
At the end of the day, after we've cast our films out into the world and have suffered the slings and arrows of those who feel the need and/or obligation to judge them, we will always be left with the immense satisfaction that comes with authentic creative expression. The satisfaction that only comes from bringing forth what needs to be expressed from deep inside of us. The satisfaction that only comes from "opening" the world to an insight, perspective or even a joke that no one else can offer. The satisfaction that only only comes from making a film that, quite simply, no one else could make if they tried, infused with passion, honesty and authenticity - therefore having something unique to say that needs, or even, demands to be expressed in this world. If you haven't done it, try making a film like that just once and you will truly know why you became a filmmaker in the first place. You will then be crystal-clear about why you subject yourself to the insanity of filmmaking - and thank yourself for making that choice.
Who are you as a filmmaker? What makes you and/or your film different from the thousands of others out in the world? This month I want to make a brief, practical argument for the emergence of your unique selves in your films. Every year, thousands of films get made. Festival programmers, buyers, distributors and even audiences are flooded with them. Most of them, sadly, are not very good for many reasons. Often because over-eager filmmakers (count me among them) have not taken the time to learn their craft and explore the true potential of cinema - but that topic is for another Eblast. But even the solidly made ones often suffer from a lack of vision and originality, often times because filmmakers want to make something that is familiar to audiences and to those that can advance their careers. They want to prove that they can make a Hollywood film and thus deserve to join the ranks of big budget cigar chompers.
Big mistake. First of all, making films for purely careerist reasons more times than not will take you farther from that goal. People can sniff out your intention through the film and are turned off by it. Second, industry professionals are not looking for new talent to make the same films they are already capable of making. Why do they need you for that? They're already doing fine without adding you to the mix. Instead, they are looking for something fresh, new, distinctive - an aesthetic or perspective they haven't seen before. Will they continue to honor your vision once they've exploited your talent? In a very limited way, yes, because they can now hire you for ridiculous amounts of money to take their warmed-over, formulaic films and make them seem new to audiences. And then you have your big-time "career."
But a more important argument for exploring your unique selves cinematically can be found in how it serves you as a creative being. Assuming you are making films for reasons other than careerist or egotistical objectives, nothing serves the authentic creative being inside all of us better than expressing that authenticity in our work. Let's face it, filmmaking can be grueling and expensive. It demands so much of us on a practical/experiential level that our desire to make films often seems like some kind of insanity. Why do we do it? Hopefully not because we want to prove we are as mediocre as the filmmaker who came before us. Hopefully it is because we are using the medium of cinema to express what is truly authentic about us as filmmakers, as creative beings, as HUMAN beings. And, be sure, each of us has something unique and authentic to express just as sure as we have our own unique fingerprint or DNA.
At the end of the day, after we've cast our films out into the world and have suffered the slings and arrows of those who feel the need and/or obligation to judge them, we will always be left with the immense satisfaction that comes with authentic creative expression. The satisfaction that only comes from bringing forth what needs to be expressed from deep inside of us. The satisfaction that only comes from "opening" the world to an insight, perspective or even a joke that no one else can offer. The satisfaction that only only comes from making a film that, quite simply, no one else could make if they tried, infused with passion, honesty and authenticity - therefore having something unique to say that needs, or even, demands to be expressed in this world. If you haven't done it, try making a film like that just once and you will truly know why you became a filmmaker in the first place. You will then be crystal-clear about why you subject yourself to the insanity of filmmaking - and thank yourself for making that choice.
TIP OF THE MONTH: Music Rights
Jun 22, 2006 02:26AM
I know this will seem like a bonehead "duh!"-kinda tip for many of you, but after having been to back to back major international festivals, it is still amazing to me how many filmmakers get caught in the "music trap." They use music they love, even building their film around the music. Often, they simply use well-known music as a temp track and then become wedded to it. In the end, if they want their films to have any commercial exhibition, they have to go back and acquire those rights, almost always with disastrous results. They either must pay through the nose for those rights (after much hassle figuring out who the legal rights-holders are and trying to contact/negotiate with them), or as is more often the case, they simply cannot afford the song and must let it go -- necessitating another mixing session for new music.
Both hassles and costs can be avoided by thinking about the music up front. There are many great composers out there who can make your life very easy and add immensely to your project, as well as loads of royalty-free music. We profiled SmartSound in our last Eblast and they also offer amazing options. Finally, if you just have to have a popular song for aesthetic purposes, negotiate for it and budget it in advance of shooting -- before painting yourself into a corner.
Both hassles and costs can be avoided by thinking about the music up front. There are many great composers out there who can make your life very easy and add immensely to your project, as well as loads of royalty-free music. We profiled SmartSound in our last Eblast and they also offer amazing options. Finally, if you just have to have a popular song for aesthetic purposes, negotiate for it and budget it in advance of shooting -- before painting yourself into a corner.
ORGANIZATION BLAST: New Day Distribution Collective
Jun 22, 2006 02:25AM
In a world turning more and more to prepackaged, commercially produced programs, New Day Films offers independently produced films and videos that educate and inspire. Founded in 1971, New Day is a cooperative of independent producers who banded together to insure that their social issue films and videos reach their intended audiences. Being a co-op means that members share the costs, the work, the successes, and the hard times.
Unlike most other distributors, where someone in charge makes decisions for everyone, in New Day, the members are in charge. Most distributors only work hard for their best-selling titles. But in New Day, members do everything they can to make sure that all titles do as well as possible. Not every New Day film can be a best-seller, but all are important works on important topics. They deserve the personal attention it takes to ensure that they are seen and used as their producers intended. New Day has a strong commitment to promoting diversity within the membership and within the content of the media they distribute.
For more information or to receive an application form, contact:
East Coast: Pat Goudvis, 617-338-4969
West Coast: Heidi Schmidt Emberling, 650-347-5123
or E-Mail: curator@newday.com
www.newday.com
Unlike most other distributors, where someone in charge makes decisions for everyone, in New Day, the members are in charge. Most distributors only work hard for their best-selling titles. But in New Day, members do everything they can to make sure that all titles do as well as possible. Not every New Day film can be a best-seller, but all are important works on important topics. They deserve the personal attention it takes to ensure that they are seen and used as their producers intended. New Day has a strong commitment to promoting diversity within the membership and within the content of the media they distribute.
For more information or to receive an application form, contact:
East Coast: Pat Goudvis, 617-338-4969
West Coast: Heidi Schmidt Emberling, 650-347-5123
or E-Mail: curator@newday.com
www.newday.com
PRODUCTION BLAST: "Red White and Blue"
Jun 22, 2006 02:24AM
Filmmakers Alliance Executive Director Diane Gaidry (and my wife, I admit without irony) is co-producing, with Toni-Ann Parker, an ambitious omnibus project called "Red White and Blue." Inspired by Kristof Kieslowski's "The Decalogue," the film is composed of ten chapters each dealing with one of the rights in the American Bill of Rights in a day-to-day, humanistic and elliptical way. I am one of the 10 filmmakers involved in the project (I admit, again without irony), which was developed over the last 2 years through an innovative, mutually supportive approach conceived and guided by Diane. Other filmmakers include Tony Berrios, Hanelle Culpepper, Elyse Couvillion, Cain DeVore, Sean Hood, Rebecca Sonnenshine, Todd Walker, Deb Lemen and Gabriela Tollman.
The under $1 million film is scheduled for a late-2006 shoot in Los Angeles. If you are interested in lending support, please contact diane@filmmakersalliance.com.
The under $1 million film is scheduled for a late-2006 shoot in Los Angeles. If you are interested in lending support, please contact diane@filmmakersalliance.com.
DISTRIBUTION BLAST: Ironweed
Jun 22, 2006 02:22AM
Called "Netflix for the socially conscious," Ironweed Films is distributing meaningful, challenging work by using their own take on the Netflix internet rental model.
Ironweed was launched by Act Now Productions, which, since 1997, has been producing and distributing socially-conscious media out of the sunnier parts of San Francisco. Founded by Adam Werbach, who was elected national president of the Sierra Club when he was an unrepentantly idealistic 23 year old, Act Now produces media, helps non-profits communicate their missions, and distributes films -- which brings us to Ironweed.
If you ever get a chance to visit their office, you'll see shelves full of movies -- films that took talented filmmakers years to make, that have only been seen by a handful of people. If you don't live in New York or San Francisco or in a high elevation ski resort, you probably won't see these films in a theater. Ironweed brings them directly to the public. Definitely check them out.
Ironweed Films
660 York St., #102
San Francisco, CA 94110
866-456-WEED (9333)
Ironweed was launched by Act Now Productions, which, since 1997, has been producing and distributing socially-conscious media out of the sunnier parts of San Francisco. Founded by Adam Werbach, who was elected national president of the Sierra Club when he was an unrepentantly idealistic 23 year old, Act Now produces media, helps non-profits communicate their missions, and distributes films -- which brings us to Ironweed.
If you ever get a chance to visit their office, you'll see shelves full of movies -- films that took talented filmmakers years to make, that have only been seen by a handful of people. If you don't live in New York or San Francisco or in a high elevation ski resort, you probably won't see these films in a theater. Ironweed brings them directly to the public. Definitely check them out.
Ironweed Films
660 York St., #102
San Francisco, CA 94110
866-456-WEED (9333)
PRODUCTION BLAST: Midnight Movie
Jun 22, 2006 02:21AM
FA Productions (a for-profit division of Filmmakers Alliance) has begun gearing up for its inaugural feature "Midnight Movie," scripted by long-time FA member Sean Hood. The smart, clever horror script traps us in a haunted theater, where a group of young midnight movie enthusiasts find themselves more involved in the film than they ever could have wished.
The under $1 million film is scheduled for a mid-2006 shoot in Los Angeles. If you are interested in lending support, please contact liam@filmmakersalliance.com.
The under $1 million film is scheduled for a mid-2006 shoot in Los Angeles. If you are interested in lending support, please contact liam@filmmakersalliance.com.
Collectively Speaking #4 - “Why We’re All Sick Of Crappy Movies...."
Jun 22, 2006 01:52AM
"....And What We’re Finally Going To Do About It!”
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 article 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 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. But 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 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 afore-mentioned 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 article 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 “creative 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 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, it will be produced by the filmmakers whose work is being read and will cost those filmmakers nothing (unlike the past 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 world-class 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. And 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.
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 article 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 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. But 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 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 afore-mentioned 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 article 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 “creative 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 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, it will be produced by the filmmakers whose work is being read and will cost those filmmakers nothing (unlike the past 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 world-class 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. And 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.
Collectively Speaking #3 - Film, Politics, and The Art of Garbage
Jun 22, 2006 01:49AM
In August, we held our annual screening at the Directors Guild on Sunset. It is always an overwhelming event, both to produce and experience. And every year I am plagued by the same anxieties about it. Will there be enough sponsorship dollars? Will there be enough restaurant and liquor sponsors? Will there be a producer? Will there be volunteers? Will the films be any good? Will anybody show up?
And of course, every year (for seven years running) it all turns out fantastically, with 700-900 people watching movies, eating, drinking, talking films and truly feeling a sense of community and celebration in the fabulous DGA Theater Complex. The venue and perks associated with the Directors Guild's sponsorship have always been a constant, one of the few things I never get anxious about. That has been largely due to one person, and she’s one of the primary reasons why this year was rather special. It was our last with former DGA Ambassador to Independent Filmmakers (not her official title), Elizabeth Stanley.
She has been a smart, passionate, loving and fun-loving advocate of independent film and filmmakers both within and without the DGA for over seven years. She built our relationship with them, just as she has connected and supported hundreds of other emerging and independent festivals, organizations and filmmakers. She has moved on to other, at the very least equally, rewarding endeavors, and we will miss her immensely. However, she will still be working in our world -- producing and managing independent filmmakers -- and we look forward to forging a new professional relationship while strengthening the personal one already in place.
But the event was special for other reasons, too. Our new investment partners in FA Productions were on hand to see what we do and feel the energy around it in an up close and personal kinda way. They were duly impressed. As I am, year in and year out. I'm impressed that all the people and things that cause me anxiety fall so beautifully into place. I'm impressed by the talent in our collective and how that talent never fails to deliver compelling, challenging and/or entertaining, world-class work. I'm impressed that the collective still thrives. Hell, I'm impressed that it ever worked in the first place.
But there is always something that happens during the event that inspires me in a way beyond the routine awe of it all. A film, or piece of a film. The work of one or many of the volunteers. A speech, or perhaps a simple comment. Something always grabs me and stays with me for a long time afterward. This year it was indeed another speech. Or, should I say, speeches. Those given by Laura Dern and Alexander Payne, the presenter and recipient of our most recent Vision Award.
Now, as anybody who knows me can tell you, it is rare for me to single out anybody with even a fifteen-seconds-of-fame halo around them. I don't generally respond to things said by famous people. I don't think those people live in the same world as me and the people I love, and therefore often find what they have to say naïve, irrelevant or just plain annoying. They are human, like me, and have opinions and a point of view like anybody else. Unfortunately, their fame makes the media and red state hillbillies think that those opinions and points of view are somehow more important than those of working stiffs like us. Usually, that is very, very far from the truth.
But both Laura Dern and Alexander Payne expressed some important, inspiring ideas at the event, and did so with humor and passion (she with brevity and he with sprawling charm). I hope the filmmakers in attendance will consider their ideas very deeply and allow them to work their way into the future films they choose to make. The primary concept is that these are politically charged times in which our voices as creative people stand for something -- whether we intend them to or not. And although this idea has always been true, the political drama of the moment (the event was pre-election, so the intensity was quite high) allows us to embrace it more viscerally.
Everything that comes (or doesn't come) out of our mouths, our art, and our being is a comment. It is a stance. It is a point of view. Filmmakers who think they are just "entertaining" and not "saying" anything are either hiding from or ignoring the fact that they are indeed "saying" something very personal about themselves and their beliefs. It may not be in the actual content of the film -- although it often is. It may simply be the message you, the filmmaker, are conveying by choosing to a make this or that film and, therefore, sharing with your audience the myths, energies, perspectives and ideas embodied in that film.
If I as an independent filmmaker (not a studio hire) choose to make a "Porky's 12" or "Halloween 37," I may not be saying everything about myself, but I am definitely saying something. Even if I am just a studio hire, I am communicating a little something about myself to the world if I’m willing to put my name on those films for a paycheck. And what you are communicating may not necessarily be a bad thing, depending on the perspective of those receiving the message. I don't want to get into what is a "bad" or "good" message, stance, or point of view. If I knew good from bad, I'd be a Republican (and probably actually have some money). No, I'm more than content simply urging filmmakers and creatives of all stripes to accept the basic notion that we are indeed communicating something about ourselves in what we create, no matter how simple, silly, fun, entertaining, or seemingly trivial the thing we create happens to be.
Once we embrace this notion, we will not only have a lot more clarity about what we want to put out into the world, but a deeper sensitivity to what we have been, and will be, putting out into the world in the near future -- and during these highly-charged times. Hopefully, this sensitivity will also contribute to a better understanding of HOW we put things out into the world. The idea is not to judge these things, but to make sure they are the deepest, clearest, most-satisfying creative representation of you, the filmmaker. Only then can you create true art -- and that doesn't have to be as heavy as it sounds. There is an art to humor and entertainment that also demands this self-awareness.
The bottom line is that if you create, you are political. You are taking a stance, a position, a point of view. Embrace that fact and create with your eyes open. If you're going to make "garbage" (and one man's garbage is another man's banquet), then do it with full awareness. Do it as the deepest expression of the garbage in your soul. Then, it is no longer just garbage. It is the art of garbage. And then even if no other single individual is willing to dig through it, you'll know what it means to you. You'll know why you are making films and how being a filmmaker contributes to being human. And who knows? Once you grasp the true impact of your creative voice, you may quickly learn how to make that voice sing for you. Then, it is no longer the art of garbage. It is simply art.
And of course, every year (for seven years running) it all turns out fantastically, with 700-900 people watching movies, eating, drinking, talking films and truly feeling a sense of community and celebration in the fabulous DGA Theater Complex. The venue and perks associated with the Directors Guild's sponsorship have always been a constant, one of the few things I never get anxious about. That has been largely due to one person, and she’s one of the primary reasons why this year was rather special. It was our last with former DGA Ambassador to Independent Filmmakers (not her official title), Elizabeth Stanley.
She has been a smart, passionate, loving and fun-loving advocate of independent film and filmmakers both within and without the DGA for over seven years. She built our relationship with them, just as she has connected and supported hundreds of other emerging and independent festivals, organizations and filmmakers. She has moved on to other, at the very least equally, rewarding endeavors, and we will miss her immensely. However, she will still be working in our world -- producing and managing independent filmmakers -- and we look forward to forging a new professional relationship while strengthening the personal one already in place.
But the event was special for other reasons, too. Our new investment partners in FA Productions were on hand to see what we do and feel the energy around it in an up close and personal kinda way. They were duly impressed. As I am, year in and year out. I'm impressed that all the people and things that cause me anxiety fall so beautifully into place. I'm impressed by the talent in our collective and how that talent never fails to deliver compelling, challenging and/or entertaining, world-class work. I'm impressed that the collective still thrives. Hell, I'm impressed that it ever worked in the first place.
But there is always something that happens during the event that inspires me in a way beyond the routine awe of it all. A film, or piece of a film. The work of one or many of the volunteers. A speech, or perhaps a simple comment. Something always grabs me and stays with me for a long time afterward. This year it was indeed another speech. Or, should I say, speeches. Those given by Laura Dern and Alexander Payne, the presenter and recipient of our most recent Vision Award.
Now, as anybody who knows me can tell you, it is rare for me to single out anybody with even a fifteen-seconds-of-fame halo around them. I don't generally respond to things said by famous people. I don't think those people live in the same world as me and the people I love, and therefore often find what they have to say naïve, irrelevant or just plain annoying. They are human, like me, and have opinions and a point of view like anybody else. Unfortunately, their fame makes the media and red state hillbillies think that those opinions and points of view are somehow more important than those of working stiffs like us. Usually, that is very, very far from the truth.
But both Laura Dern and Alexander Payne expressed some important, inspiring ideas at the event, and did so with humor and passion (she with brevity and he with sprawling charm). I hope the filmmakers in attendance will consider their ideas very deeply and allow them to work their way into the future films they choose to make. The primary concept is that these are politically charged times in which our voices as creative people stand for something -- whether we intend them to or not. And although this idea has always been true, the political drama of the moment (the event was pre-election, so the intensity was quite high) allows us to embrace it more viscerally.
Everything that comes (or doesn't come) out of our mouths, our art, and our being is a comment. It is a stance. It is a point of view. Filmmakers who think they are just "entertaining" and not "saying" anything are either hiding from or ignoring the fact that they are indeed "saying" something very personal about themselves and their beliefs. It may not be in the actual content of the film -- although it often is. It may simply be the message you, the filmmaker, are conveying by choosing to a make this or that film and, therefore, sharing with your audience the myths, energies, perspectives and ideas embodied in that film.
If I as an independent filmmaker (not a studio hire) choose to make a "Porky's 12" or "Halloween 37," I may not be saying everything about myself, but I am definitely saying something. Even if I am just a studio hire, I am communicating a little something about myself to the world if I’m willing to put my name on those films for a paycheck. And what you are communicating may not necessarily be a bad thing, depending on the perspective of those receiving the message. I don't want to get into what is a "bad" or "good" message, stance, or point of view. If I knew good from bad, I'd be a Republican (and probably actually have some money). No, I'm more than content simply urging filmmakers and creatives of all stripes to accept the basic notion that we are indeed communicating something about ourselves in what we create, no matter how simple, silly, fun, entertaining, or seemingly trivial the thing we create happens to be.
Once we embrace this notion, we will not only have a lot more clarity about what we want to put out into the world, but a deeper sensitivity to what we have been, and will be, putting out into the world in the near future -- and during these highly-charged times. Hopefully, this sensitivity will also contribute to a better understanding of HOW we put things out into the world. The idea is not to judge these things, but to make sure they are the deepest, clearest, most-satisfying creative representation of you, the filmmaker. Only then can you create true art -- and that doesn't have to be as heavy as it sounds. There is an art to humor and entertainment that also demands this self-awareness.
The bottom line is that if you create, you are political. You are taking a stance, a position, a point of view. Embrace that fact and create with your eyes open. If you're going to make "garbage" (and one man's garbage is another man's banquet), then do it with full awareness. Do it as the deepest expression of the garbage in your soul. Then, it is no longer just garbage. It is the art of garbage. And then even if no other single individual is willing to dig through it, you'll know what it means to you. You'll know why you are making films and how being a filmmaker contributes to being human. And who knows? Once you grasp the true impact of your creative voice, you may quickly learn how to make that voice sing for you. Then, it is no longer the art of garbage. It is simply art.
Collectively Speaking #5 - Filmmaking - It's All About YOU!
Jun 22, 2006 01:47AM
You've seen it before. The tension in the face and the urgency in the voice. The obvious, sometimes offensive, air of self-importance. The world revolves around their film or (more often than not) their desire to make a film. They become moody, and can occasionally even explode into stormy hysterics. They speak in terse, denigrating phrases based on a persistent sense of persecution and even betrayal. "You are trying to fuck over my film" is the ever-present refrain crouching behind the eyes and lurking somewhere just beneath the surface of every comment. Even when they "lighten up", you get the feeling that they are not completely with you - or anyone - because they know their film is larger and more important than any relationship in their life and certainly more important than the moment they are willing to share with you.
These are the clear signs and symptoms of a pervasive illness that overtakes even the most likeable of human beings when they embark on the making of a film - although the symptoms sometimes manifest in more subtle, and even more insidious, ways. Diane Gaidry calls it "Filmmaker Boy" or "Filmmaker Girl" Syndrome. Ultimately, it is colossal ego overwhelming what can be otherwise sane and pleasant people. This massive intrusion of ego in the process of making a film is somewhat endemic to filmmaking as a whole and why so many films are so very bad. It is also why a few films are so good. The relationship between ego and filmmaking is inseparable and extremely complicated with few filmmakers truly understanding when that ego works in service of their filmmaking and when it begins to devastate a film's true potential...and their potential lives as filmmakers.
First of all, I believe that much, if not all, creative expression is ego-based. Whether you are painting, throwing pots, or designing museums, you are operating under the assumption that it is important for you to bring something inside of you into the world, putting resources and sometimes people in service of this assumption. It is not enough to simply have a creative vision or thought. You are driven to externalize it as an expression of your distinctive vision, your talent and/or perhaps even your identity. You convince yourself that the world benefits from, or maybe even needs, what you are creating. But, really, you do it because your ego compels you to do it. The rest is just gravy.
However, we filmmakers take this employment of ego to the next level and beyond. The sheer amount of money, work and human involvement necessary to make a film often demands a very robust, if not fully unchained, ego just to get started. And once the lights, camera and action are under way, nearly every step of the process invites the ego to feed on itself and grow to monstrous proportions. And when the film is done, however it turns out, we expect people to watch it. Not just two or three, but hundreds and, preferably, thousands - even millions. We can never have enough people seeing and appreciating our work. And, when our egos are fully in charge, we can never get enough people appreciating US (through our films, of course)!
When I offer this hypothesis to filmmakers, or any creative people, they are often immediately offended. Ego, understandably has a bad rap. But the fact is, ego is an essential part of who we are as human beings and to deny our own ego is, frankly, ludicrous. By not embracing our egos openly we sometimes actually allow it to run subversively unchecked. When people talk of someone being "ego-less", they are really talking about someone who's ego is in balance with other aspects of who they are. The ego is in harmony with who they are in totality. However, it is often tough to find this balance and harmony in filmmakers. Why? because they, ironically, aren't selfish enough.
Yes, I said selfish. More selfishness, less ego. People often confuse selfishness with ego. But by my definition, to be selfish is to be self-devoted. Totally devoted and in service to the total self. The ego is only part of the self. The ego carries you to a certain place, but then it severely begins to limit you (and can even destroy you) - creatively and in all other ways. At some point in the creative process, you need to politely thank the ego and put it back on the shelf. Or the barracks. The ego is like a warrior, destroying all barriers to creation, but once that war is over can prove damaging to the next phase of creativity. The self, on the other hand, is everything that we are, some of which is completely mysterious to us and far outside of our ego selves. And those mysterious places are where many a great film is made.
The ego self is not your true, authentic self - simply a piece of that authentic self. To make a film that is authentic, honest and distinctive, you must move beyond it. You must bravely plumb the mysteries of your inner psyche like a determined miner searching a deep tunnel for a vein of gold. Don't just scratch the surface. Don't let your ego limit your film's potential so that you are making it for all the wrong reasons - to "please" people, to improve your self-image, to get rich, to get sex, to enhance your status or reputation, to get sex (oh, I said that twice). Believe me, if you make great films, you'll get all of that stuff, anyway. But think of the ego as an earthbound motivator for satisfying your earthbound needs. Film, on the other hand, transcends the earth realm. Even the most mudane film is ethereal, transporting us to the dream/fantasy realm through visual story-telling and/or poetry while really only existing on a thin strip of film or tape that, when projected in a dark room, nonetheless feels like a full universe to us. That is indeed a kind of alchemy of which the ego alone can never take full advantage.
But I will go a step further - this is Filmmakers Alliance, after all - and ask that you don't let the ego limit what you can contribute to the entire filmmaking community and, therefore, your own filmmaking life. Yes, create. Move past the ego to create an amazing film. But also, move past the ego to create an amazing life as a filmmaker. Don't get tied down by your own specific filmmaking needs. Reach out to support your larger filmmaking community wherever and whatever it is. I'll set aside the karmic considerations and state without equivocation, on the most practical level, what you give, you'll receive back exponentially. Go work on a film, in any capacity, for a filmmaker you want to support. Go pay money to see the kinds of films you want to exist in the universe. Even promote them, if you can. Or even set up your own screenings. Contribute to or work for organizations that are truly supporting the filmmaking community. Other shoots will teach you, other ideas will inspire you, other people will connect you. And all of this together - and more - will feed your filmmaking life far beyond what your ego can feed it. Again, it's about being selfish. Your community is part of your total self. It is a reflection of who you are and the garden that will sustain your life as a filmmaker. Plant seeds there because what you give to it, you are giving to yourself.
These are the clear signs and symptoms of a pervasive illness that overtakes even the most likeable of human beings when they embark on the making of a film - although the symptoms sometimes manifest in more subtle, and even more insidious, ways. Diane Gaidry calls it "Filmmaker Boy" or "Filmmaker Girl" Syndrome. Ultimately, it is colossal ego overwhelming what can be otherwise sane and pleasant people. This massive intrusion of ego in the process of making a film is somewhat endemic to filmmaking as a whole and why so many films are so very bad. It is also why a few films are so good. The relationship between ego and filmmaking is inseparable and extremely complicated with few filmmakers truly understanding when that ego works in service of their filmmaking and when it begins to devastate a film's true potential...and their potential lives as filmmakers.
First of all, I believe that much, if not all, creative expression is ego-based. Whether you are painting, throwing pots, or designing museums, you are operating under the assumption that it is important for you to bring something inside of you into the world, putting resources and sometimes people in service of this assumption. It is not enough to simply have a creative vision or thought. You are driven to externalize it as an expression of your distinctive vision, your talent and/or perhaps even your identity. You convince yourself that the world benefits from, or maybe even needs, what you are creating. But, really, you do it because your ego compels you to do it. The rest is just gravy.
However, we filmmakers take this employment of ego to the next level and beyond. The sheer amount of money, work and human involvement necessary to make a film often demands a very robust, if not fully unchained, ego just to get started. And once the lights, camera and action are under way, nearly every step of the process invites the ego to feed on itself and grow to monstrous proportions. And when the film is done, however it turns out, we expect people to watch it. Not just two or three, but hundreds and, preferably, thousands - even millions. We can never have enough people seeing and appreciating our work. And, when our egos are fully in charge, we can never get enough people appreciating US (through our films, of course)!
When I offer this hypothesis to filmmakers, or any creative people, they are often immediately offended. Ego, understandably has a bad rap. But the fact is, ego is an essential part of who we are as human beings and to deny our own ego is, frankly, ludicrous. By not embracing our egos openly we sometimes actually allow it to run subversively unchecked. When people talk of someone being "ego-less", they are really talking about someone who's ego is in balance with other aspects of who they are. The ego is in harmony with who they are in totality. However, it is often tough to find this balance and harmony in filmmakers. Why? because they, ironically, aren't selfish enough.
Yes, I said selfish. More selfishness, less ego. People often confuse selfishness with ego. But by my definition, to be selfish is to be self-devoted. Totally devoted and in service to the total self. The ego is only part of the self. The ego carries you to a certain place, but then it severely begins to limit you (and can even destroy you) - creatively and in all other ways. At some point in the creative process, you need to politely thank the ego and put it back on the shelf. Or the barracks. The ego is like a warrior, destroying all barriers to creation, but once that war is over can prove damaging to the next phase of creativity. The self, on the other hand, is everything that we are, some of which is completely mysterious to us and far outside of our ego selves. And those mysterious places are where many a great film is made.
The ego self is not your true, authentic self - simply a piece of that authentic self. To make a film that is authentic, honest and distinctive, you must move beyond it. You must bravely plumb the mysteries of your inner psyche like a determined miner searching a deep tunnel for a vein of gold. Don't just scratch the surface. Don't let your ego limit your film's potential so that you are making it for all the wrong reasons - to "please" people, to improve your self-image, to get rich, to get sex, to enhance your status or reputation, to get sex (oh, I said that twice). Believe me, if you make great films, you'll get all of that stuff, anyway. But think of the ego as an earthbound motivator for satisfying your earthbound needs. Film, on the other hand, transcends the earth realm. Even the most mudane film is ethereal, transporting us to the dream/fantasy realm through visual story-telling and/or poetry while really only existing on a thin strip of film or tape that, when projected in a dark room, nonetheless feels like a full universe to us. That is indeed a kind of alchemy of which the ego alone can never take full advantage.
But I will go a step further - this is Filmmakers Alliance, after all - and ask that you don't let the ego limit what you can contribute to the entire filmmaking community and, therefore, your own filmmaking life. Yes, create. Move past the ego to create an amazing film. But also, move past the ego to create an amazing life as a filmmaker. Don't get tied down by your own specific filmmaking needs. Reach out to support your larger filmmaking community wherever and whatever it is. I'll set aside the karmic considerations and state without equivocation, on the most practical level, what you give, you'll receive back exponentially. Go work on a film, in any capacity, for a filmmaker you want to support. Go pay money to see the kinds of films you want to exist in the universe. Even promote them, if you can. Or even set up your own screenings. Contribute to or work for organizations that are truly supporting the filmmaking community. Other shoots will teach you, other ideas will inspire you, other people will connect you. And all of this together - and more - will feed your filmmaking life far beyond what your ego can feed it. Again, it's about being selfish. Your community is part of your total self. It is a reflection of who you are and the garden that will sustain your life as a filmmaker. Plant seeds there because what you give to it, you are giving to yourself.
Collectively Speaking #1
Jun 22, 2006 01:46AM
It’s been a good year since the last FA at DGA issue of this magazine. And although it might seem like I say this every year, FA experienced particularly good fortune this year. We started the calendar year by placing 4 projects at the Sundance Film Festival – which, despite grumblings about what Sundance has become, is still the most prestigious independent film festival in the country. Two projects were ones supported by FA a bit after the fact of production and two were totally homegrown. My film, INFIDELITY (IN EQUAL PARTS), was just a sketchbook.
And things have been heating up both before and after Sundance. We moved from the beloved Armory NW in Pasadena (thank you, The Armory Center for the Arts) to a great, funky old building (circa 1914) in downtown Los Angeles without missing a beat. We launched the first titles of our new DVD distribution arm under the banner of the Filmmakers Alliance Collection in partnership with Cinema Libre, and will expand our DVD distribution in the coming year. We have launched an educational component under director Jeffrey Seckendorf called The Filmmakers Alliance Training Project. We began a new monthly screening series at TOI on Vine that is a huge success and established yet another Writers Group. Our membership has grown exponentially yet again over the past year. But we are less concerned with quantity of members than we are with quality, committed filmmakers who understand what we are about. So we are excited to welcome talented festival veterans like Gina Levy (FOO-FOO DUST), Tom Putnam (TOM HITS HIS HEAD), Jon Reiss (BETTER LIVING THROUGH CIRCUITRY), Stephanie Bennett (SOMEBODY) and many others.
And, of course, the biggest news is that FA has secured a production fund that will be managed through our for-profit subsidiary, FA Productions, in partnership with Bigfoot Partners and Bigfoot Entertainment. The deal includes operational funds, development funds and production funds for 2-4 films per year in the 200k to 3m dollar range. The initial focus will be on genre films with an eventual shift to more truly independently-spirited niche films and films of distinct personal vision. We have begun examining potential projects and have given the greenlight to our first production, MIDNIGHT MOVIE, created by FA’s own Sean Hood. So far, all of our dealings with the representatives of Bigfoot have been fantastic and we are deeply appreciative to be embarking on this enterprise with people who understand our vision and respect our accomplishments. It doesn’t hurt that they also know how to translate all of our creative assets into financial success.
But what does all of this good news mean? It can mean a lot of things, but frankly, will mean nothing if we don’t continue to make amazing films. This good fortune means FA must assume even greater responsibility to nourish, educate, support and inspire filmmakers to explore the full measure of their creative potential. However, it is the members’ responsibility to embark on that exploration – to define and execute their filmic vision. When I refer to quality members, I am talking about a particular kind of member that is best-suited to the structure and goals of Filmmakers Alliance. Although we don’t discriminate, and FA’s doors are open to all, there is indeed a proto-typical member – one who possesses the perfect blend of creative ambition and communal spirit (preferably with a healthy disdain for safe, conservative filmmaking). I am pleased to say that I can point my finger at several long-time members, who, along with the exciting new members, will raise the creative and/or support bar for all the rest of the members. It is our goal to bring together as many of these talented and committed independent filmmakers as possible and make obvious that, despite the long shadow of the big studio mainstream, Los Angeles hosts one of the world’s most vibrant and exciting independent filmmaking communities.
Nonetheless, things were not just gin and juice the past year. Membership production over-all was down. Even with the burst in membership, we made almost a third fewer shorts and features through FA as were produced at this same time last year. And participation was tepid even among those filmmakers who support the creation of, but do not themselves create films. There were still too many support programs at FA languishing due to poor membership participation. There are too many creative resources unused and too little energy given to developing projects. Too many filmmakers still rush into production without proper preparation – both on a practical and creative level.
And one can’t help but notice the consequence of these facts in much of the work that emerges from the membership and that was on display during the screening of submissions for the FA event at the Directors Guild. However, before I comment further, it’s important to acknowledge and congratulate these filmmakers for actually making films and having the courage and resourcefulness to take that step forward in building a life for themselves as filmmakers. And, ultimately, I feel a strong program was put together that truly reflects the quality of filmmaking in FA.
As expected, there were films among those submitted that were god-awful. However, the most frustrating were the dozens that were“almost, but not quite” what they might have been. This would not in itself have been upsetting as there are many reasons why a film turns out the way it does – principle among them is the simple fact that filmmaking talent is an ever-evolving thing and we are catching a lot of filmmakers in their creative infancy. But the fact is that many of the filmmakers who submitted these “almost” films, never set foot in a writers’ group or discussion forum. They never did a sketchbook and perhaps never even screened the film for other FA members to get feedback before locking their cuts. Over-all, the consequence of under-utilizing the creative tools in FA was more than evident in these films.
Many filmmakers will counter that they don’t get enough support from the management at FA. And often that is true. FA is not set-up as a managed support organization. It is a facilitated peer support organization. We don’t wipe your nose for you, but we happily provide the tissue – if you’re willing to take it out of our hands. It is a place for pro-active filmmakers to access the support they need and utilize it. I am forced to hearken back to what we used to say ad nauseum to filmmakers when we were in our infancy – “You get out of FA what you put into it”. FA is a big toolbox, if you will, with the most precious and valuable tools in the box being the other members. More than ever we need filmmakers to use these tools. Because what we’ve constructed – all of us together - is a beautiful cycle of interdependency. The success of individual filmmakers within FA contributes to the success of FA as a whole, which then contributes back to the success of individual filmmakers and so on, and so on.
I know I can sound a bit schizophrenic at times, simultaneously praising and challenging our accomplishments, but as we grow, so must our goals and expectations for the organization and what we, as members, do within it. In no way do I want to diminish all the good news, and in fact want to take a moment to shout out “HUZZAH!”, to all of us who have contributed to making it all happen. It has been, in many ways, a truly stunning year in terms of us moving forward with so many of the things we had hoped to do sometime in the future. However, we must keep all of this in proper perspective and not lose sight of the fact that we are on a long journey that, in many ways, is just beginning. All of us in the FA family have been blessed with an incredible opportunity – just as we have been blessing ourselves with our own incredible opportunities throughout the years. Never forget that we created this fund for ourselves. Through work and dedication and commitment to creative achievement we attracted it and manifested it. And now, let’s make the most of it. Let’s make the most of the one gift that truly was given to us - our ability to imagine and create.
And things have been heating up both before and after Sundance. We moved from the beloved Armory NW in Pasadena (thank you, The Armory Center for the Arts) to a great, funky old building (circa 1914) in downtown Los Angeles without missing a beat. We launched the first titles of our new DVD distribution arm under the banner of the Filmmakers Alliance Collection in partnership with Cinema Libre, and will expand our DVD distribution in the coming year. We have launched an educational component under director Jeffrey Seckendorf called The Filmmakers Alliance Training Project. We began a new monthly screening series at TOI on Vine that is a huge success and established yet another Writers Group. Our membership has grown exponentially yet again over the past year. But we are less concerned with quantity of members than we are with quality, committed filmmakers who understand what we are about. So we are excited to welcome talented festival veterans like Gina Levy (FOO-FOO DUST), Tom Putnam (TOM HITS HIS HEAD), Jon Reiss (BETTER LIVING THROUGH CIRCUITRY), Stephanie Bennett (SOMEBODY) and many others.
And, of course, the biggest news is that FA has secured a production fund that will be managed through our for-profit subsidiary, FA Productions, in partnership with Bigfoot Partners and Bigfoot Entertainment. The deal includes operational funds, development funds and production funds for 2-4 films per year in the 200k to 3m dollar range. The initial focus will be on genre films with an eventual shift to more truly independently-spirited niche films and films of distinct personal vision. We have begun examining potential projects and have given the greenlight to our first production, MIDNIGHT MOVIE, created by FA’s own Sean Hood. So far, all of our dealings with the representatives of Bigfoot have been fantastic and we are deeply appreciative to be embarking on this enterprise with people who understand our vision and respect our accomplishments. It doesn’t hurt that they also know how to translate all of our creative assets into financial success.
But what does all of this good news mean? It can mean a lot of things, but frankly, will mean nothing if we don’t continue to make amazing films. This good fortune means FA must assume even greater responsibility to nourish, educate, support and inspire filmmakers to explore the full measure of their creative potential. However, it is the members’ responsibility to embark on that exploration – to define and execute their filmic vision. When I refer to quality members, I am talking about a particular kind of member that is best-suited to the structure and goals of Filmmakers Alliance. Although we don’t discriminate, and FA’s doors are open to all, there is indeed a proto-typical member – one who possesses the perfect blend of creative ambition and communal spirit (preferably with a healthy disdain for safe, conservative filmmaking). I am pleased to say that I can point my finger at several long-time members, who, along with the exciting new members, will raise the creative and/or support bar for all the rest of the members. It is our goal to bring together as many of these talented and committed independent filmmakers as possible and make obvious that, despite the long shadow of the big studio mainstream, Los Angeles hosts one of the world’s most vibrant and exciting independent filmmaking communities.
Nonetheless, things were not just gin and juice the past year. Membership production over-all was down. Even with the burst in membership, we made almost a third fewer shorts and features through FA as were produced at this same time last year. And participation was tepid even among those filmmakers who support the creation of, but do not themselves create films. There were still too many support programs at FA languishing due to poor membership participation. There are too many creative resources unused and too little energy given to developing projects. Too many filmmakers still rush into production without proper preparation – both on a practical and creative level.
And one can’t help but notice the consequence of these facts in much of the work that emerges from the membership and that was on display during the screening of submissions for the FA event at the Directors Guild. However, before I comment further, it’s important to acknowledge and congratulate these filmmakers for actually making films and having the courage and resourcefulness to take that step forward in building a life for themselves as filmmakers. And, ultimately, I feel a strong program was put together that truly reflects the quality of filmmaking in FA.
As expected, there were films among those submitted that were god-awful. However, the most frustrating were the dozens that were“almost, but not quite” what they might have been. This would not in itself have been upsetting as there are many reasons why a film turns out the way it does – principle among them is the simple fact that filmmaking talent is an ever-evolving thing and we are catching a lot of filmmakers in their creative infancy. But the fact is that many of the filmmakers who submitted these “almost” films, never set foot in a writers’ group or discussion forum. They never did a sketchbook and perhaps never even screened the film for other FA members to get feedback before locking their cuts. Over-all, the consequence of under-utilizing the creative tools in FA was more than evident in these films.
Many filmmakers will counter that they don’t get enough support from the management at FA. And often that is true. FA is not set-up as a managed support organization. It is a facilitated peer support organization. We don’t wipe your nose for you, but we happily provide the tissue – if you’re willing to take it out of our hands. It is a place for pro-active filmmakers to access the support they need and utilize it. I am forced to hearken back to what we used to say ad nauseum to filmmakers when we were in our infancy – “You get out of FA what you put into it”. FA is a big toolbox, if you will, with the most precious and valuable tools in the box being the other members. More than ever we need filmmakers to use these tools. Because what we’ve constructed – all of us together - is a beautiful cycle of interdependency. The success of individual filmmakers within FA contributes to the success of FA as a whole, which then contributes back to the success of individual filmmakers and so on, and so on.
I know I can sound a bit schizophrenic at times, simultaneously praising and challenging our accomplishments, but as we grow, so must our goals and expectations for the organization and what we, as members, do within it. In no way do I want to diminish all the good news, and in fact want to take a moment to shout out “HUZZAH!”, to all of us who have contributed to making it all happen. It has been, in many ways, a truly stunning year in terms of us moving forward with so many of the things we had hoped to do sometime in the future. However, we must keep all of this in proper perspective and not lose sight of the fact that we are on a long journey that, in many ways, is just beginning. All of us in the FA family have been blessed with an incredible opportunity – just as we have been blessing ourselves with our own incredible opportunities throughout the years. Never forget that we created this fund for ourselves. Through work and dedication and commitment to creative achievement we attracted it and manifested it. And now, let’s make the most of it. Let’s make the most of the one gift that truly was given to us - our ability to imagine and create.
Collectively Speaking #2 - I Am, Therefore I Film
Jun 22, 2006 01:44AM
I was flipping through an old FA magazine the other day and it had a bunch of "FA-isms" in little blocks of space at the end of random articles. Bumper sticker axioms like, "Good Is The Enemy Of Great – Don’t Settle For it!”. “Do Not Respect Mediocrity. Especially Mine.” “Risk Failure! “ "Be A True Filmmaker, A True Creative Being. Not A Merchant. Make Films From Your Soul.” And lastly, “Support Films And Filmmakers You Believe In. In Giving To Them, You Give To Yourself”. I wondered why we only did that just the one time. In fact, I wondered why we didn't repeat those same phrases issue after issue, over and over again until they were seared into our brains and became our autopilot approach to filmmaking, creativity and life.
I see a lot of members of the company who are struggling to create a life for themselves as filmmakers and fumbling to point themselves in the direction that will allow them to do what they love doing and still pay the rent. But in reading our corny little "FA-isms", it became clear to me that the problem for most filmmakers is not in what they are doing. It is in what they are thinking.
Whether they admit it or not, the goal for a lot of filmmakers - in and out of L.A. - is financial success. Oh, maybe not Spielbergian success, perhaps, but, at least, Jaglomian. And most won't actually say financial success. They will simply say they want a "career" in filmmaking. Which is a couched way of saying they want their filmmaking to earn them some cold, hard cash. No shame in that. If I had the choice between making films to pay my bills and, say, mixing plastic compounds or generating financial statements or digging around in someone's nasty mouth (all well-paid careers, mind you) it's a no-brainer to make films even if I'm barely making enough to scrape by.
It's not the desire to earn an income from filmmaking that is the issue, it is the core beliefs that are fed by that desire. It's the out-of-balance emotional investment in that career goal versus the possibility of its achievement. Lest I risk harshing anyone's mellow or taking a lawnmover to their field of dreams, let me state, without equivocation, that I believe ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, can have a life as a filmmaker. A career is something else.
So, let's define exactly what we are talking about when we say a career as a filmmaker. We are talking about paid gigs. Lots of them. One after another. Benefits would be nice, but at the very least, we are talking about being able to live on income as a filmmaker. But what do we mean when we say "filmmaker"? There are hundreds and thousands of jobs in the "entertainment industry". There are less of them in the film industry. There are even less of them in the truly creative positions and - in proportion to supply versus demand - almost none as a "director". You have as good a chance of winning the lottery as directing a feature film (doc or narrative) for hire no matter how talented you are. But wait! You say you are willing to fudge a bit on this strict definition of a filmmaker? What about commercials? Can't discount the quality filmmaking in most commercials, can we? Same can be said for industrials. But what about being a filmmaker who's work only shows on t.v.? Many t.v. shows are still shot on film, aren't they? Or at least digitally, which feature filmmakers shoot on, too. Therefore, why can't we include reality t.v.? How about a segment of Animal Planet? The interstitials for the Food Network? The possibilities of a career as a filmmaker are endless. So, it seems.
Even allowing for flexibility of definition there are still thousands of times more people for the directing job - no matter what it is - than there are actual paid gigs. This is not to be negative or cynical, just realistic. In fact, I encourage filmmakers to look this fact straight in the eye and then spit in it. Ignore the odds, but do it with full awareness. Ignore them not because you still believe you can beat them, but because you simply don’t care. Withdraw your emotional energy from some ill-conceived result of making films and invest it in the very process of making films. To do that, however, it is absolutely imperative to differentiate between a life as a filmmaker and a career as a filmmaker. You can have a life as a filmmaker whether or not it is also a career, but you cannot have a career as a filmmaker if you can't make it your life. That means, simply, that you cannot plan on a career as a filmmaker. It just happens (or not) when you plan on a life as a filmmaker. And although you think you've seen other people plan and create their careers, all you've seen are the odds at work when the dice are thrown enough times. The funny thing is, although opportunities are random, they are less so when you are prepared for them. And you can only prepare yourself and exploit those opportunities when you’ve committed to a filmmaking life. It is a factual irony that your best chance of having a career as a filmmaker is to give up trying (and caring) and focus on building a life as a filmmaker.
So, what does it mean to build a “life” as a filmmaker? To answer that we must first go back and define “filmmaker” again in a new context. We have to go beyond the objective (and elastic) definition of a filmmaker and define it in more subjective and personal terms, deciding for ourselves alone what it means to be a "filmmaker". And there are no wrong answers. Just the one that is right for you. So, holding that answer in mind, let’s take a look at a few more little FA-isms that directly address the way we need to structure our thinking to structure a life as a filmmaker. They hold true no matter what kind of filmmaker you are. Learn them. Live them.
• Filmmakers make films. Period. Doesn’t matter what kind of films. Doesn’t matter how much money they cost. Creativity is very cheap and realizing that creativity can come pretty cheaply, too, these days. Are you a fundraiser or a filmmaker? Get busy, dammit!
I see a lot of members of the company who are struggling to create a life for themselves as filmmakers and fumbling to point themselves in the direction that will allow them to do what they love doing and still pay the rent. But in reading our corny little "FA-isms", it became clear to me that the problem for most filmmakers is not in what they are doing. It is in what they are thinking.
Whether they admit it or not, the goal for a lot of filmmakers - in and out of L.A. - is financial success. Oh, maybe not Spielbergian success, perhaps, but, at least, Jaglomian. And most won't actually say financial success. They will simply say they want a "career" in filmmaking. Which is a couched way of saying they want their filmmaking to earn them some cold, hard cash. No shame in that. If I had the choice between making films to pay my bills and, say, mixing plastic compounds or generating financial statements or digging around in someone's nasty mouth (all well-paid careers, mind you) it's a no-brainer to make films even if I'm barely making enough to scrape by.
It's not the desire to earn an income from filmmaking that is the issue, it is the core beliefs that are fed by that desire. It's the out-of-balance emotional investment in that career goal versus the possibility of its achievement. Lest I risk harshing anyone's mellow or taking a lawnmover to their field of dreams, let me state, without equivocation, that I believe ANYONE, and I do mean ANYONE, can have a life as a filmmaker. A career is something else.
So, let's define exactly what we are talking about when we say a career as a filmmaker. We are talking about paid gigs. Lots of them. One after another. Benefits would be nice, but at the very least, we are talking about being able to live on income as a filmmaker. But what do we mean when we say "filmmaker"? There are hundreds and thousands of jobs in the "entertainment industry". There are less of them in the film industry. There are even less of them in the truly creative positions and - in proportion to supply versus demand - almost none as a "director". You have as good a chance of winning the lottery as directing a feature film (doc or narrative) for hire no matter how talented you are. But wait! You say you are willing to fudge a bit on this strict definition of a filmmaker? What about commercials? Can't discount the quality filmmaking in most commercials, can we? Same can be said for industrials. But what about being a filmmaker who's work only shows on t.v.? Many t.v. shows are still shot on film, aren't they? Or at least digitally, which feature filmmakers shoot on, too. Therefore, why can't we include reality t.v.? How about a segment of Animal Planet? The interstitials for the Food Network? The possibilities of a career as a filmmaker are endless. So, it seems.
Even allowing for flexibility of definition there are still thousands of times more people for the directing job - no matter what it is - than there are actual paid gigs. This is not to be negative or cynical, just realistic. In fact, I encourage filmmakers to look this fact straight in the eye and then spit in it. Ignore the odds, but do it with full awareness. Ignore them not because you still believe you can beat them, but because you simply don’t care. Withdraw your emotional energy from some ill-conceived result of making films and invest it in the very process of making films. To do that, however, it is absolutely imperative to differentiate between a life as a filmmaker and a career as a filmmaker. You can have a life as a filmmaker whether or not it is also a career, but you cannot have a career as a filmmaker if you can't make it your life. That means, simply, that you cannot plan on a career as a filmmaker. It just happens (or not) when you plan on a life as a filmmaker. And although you think you've seen other people plan and create their careers, all you've seen are the odds at work when the dice are thrown enough times. The funny thing is, although opportunities are random, they are less so when you are prepared for them. And you can only prepare yourself and exploit those opportunities when you’ve committed to a filmmaking life. It is a factual irony that your best chance of having a career as a filmmaker is to give up trying (and caring) and focus on building a life as a filmmaker.
So, what does it mean to build a “life” as a filmmaker? To answer that we must first go back and define “filmmaker” again in a new context. We have to go beyond the objective (and elastic) definition of a filmmaker and define it in more subjective and personal terms, deciding for ourselves alone what it means to be a "filmmaker". And there are no wrong answers. Just the one that is right for you. So, holding that answer in mind, let’s take a look at a few more little FA-isms that directly address the way we need to structure our thinking to structure a life as a filmmaker. They hold true no matter what kind of filmmaker you are. Learn them. Live them.
• Filmmakers make films. Period. Doesn’t matter what kind of films. Doesn’t matter how much money they cost. Creativity is very cheap and realizing that creativity can come pretty cheaply, too, these days. Are you a fundraiser or a filmmaker? Get busy, dammit!
DOGWALKER OPENING THEATRICALLY IN U.S.!
Jun 21, 2006 04:57PM
WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT!!!
Look for THE DOGWALKER in the following cities/theaters on the following dates:
AUGUST 11 - San Francisco, CA - OPERA PLAZA THEATER
Berkley, CA - SHATTUCK THEATER
San Rafael, CA - RAFAEL THEATER
AUGUST 25 - Los Angeles, CA - LAEMMLE'S MUSIC HALL
SEPTEMBER 8 - Boulder - CROSSROADS
Denver, CO - CHEZ ARTIST
SEPTEMBER 15 - Buffalo, NY - MARKET ARCADE
SEPTEMBER 22 - Minneapolis, MN - LAGOON
SEPTEMBER 29 - Chicago, IL - CENTURY
WE DEEPLY APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT!!!
Look for THE DOGWALKER in the following cities/theaters on the following dates:
AUGUST 11 - San Francisco, CA - OPERA PLAZA THEATER
Berkley, CA - SHATTUCK THEATER
San Rafael, CA - RAFAEL THEATER
AUGUST 25 - Los Angeles, CA - LAEMMLE'S MUSIC HALL
SEPTEMBER 8 - Boulder - CROSSROADS
Denver, CO - CHEZ ARTIST
SEPTEMBER 15 - Buffalo, NY - MARKET ARCADE
SEPTEMBER 22 - Minneapolis, MN - LAGOON
SEPTEMBER 29 - Chicago, IL - CENTURY