Advertisement
Crazy Like a Fox
InDigEnt's Gary Winick carries a torch for digital moviemakers
|
| InDigEnt founder Gary Winick directs Bebe Neuwirth in Tadpole. |
From the no-name independent masses to Hollywood's hottest auteurs, moviemakers of all stripes and budgets have been touting the benefits of shooting DV for several years now. But few have staked their careers on the digital revolution. In 1999, writer-director-producer Gary Winick became a pioneer of the digital medium when he partnered with John Sloss and IFC Entertainment to create InDigEnt (Independent Digital Network), a digital film "collective." As you may know, their idea was to create 10 $100,000 features with successful and experienced moviemakers, each of whom would share in the films' profits. Thus far, the project has attracted such moviemakers as Campbell Scott, Richard Linklater, Ethan Hawke, Rebecca Miller, Alan Taylor, Bruce Wagner, Rodrigo Garcia, Peter Hedges and even Winick himself (whose Tadpole was released earlier this year). With nine films in the "can" and a whole lot of territory yet to be uncovered, there's no turning back now for InDigEnt or Winick. From his base in New York City, Winick spoke with MM about the InDigEnt philosophy, the myths of DV and why Tadpole is his least favorite film.
Jennifer Wood (MM): Can you talk about how the idea for InDigEnt originated? What was the guiding philosophy behind the creation of this venture?
Gary Winick (GW): InDigEnt was inspired after I saw the Dogme film, The Celebration. And I also thought about how John Cassavetes worked in the '60s, with the 16mm cameras and the repertoire of actors and the small crews. I thought with this new medium that there was an opportunity here, because in New York there's this great theater and independent film community. My idea was to form a collective where everybody gets paid the same amount, but also owns a piece of the film. Creatively, I was interested in using these new tools for experienced filmmakers to tell stories they normally couldn't tell, or to tell stories in a different way because of these tools.
I went to John Sloss, my lawyer, and we became partners and we partnered with IFC. IFC was the perfect partner because they wanted to be a part of the DV movement. They're a big part of independent film, and they were the only company that was able to sort of take the risk on something new like this, and be able to work out the financial deal, which was to give everyone a piece of the film from dollar one. What they get for that is a presentation credit, they own a piece of the film (as we all do) and they get to show it on their station.
MM: What are the guidelines you set forth for your moviemakers?
GW: The guidelines are: budgets are fixed. So regardless of who's in the film or who's making the film or what type of story it is, it has to fit a certain budget. There have, of course, been films that I haven't been able to do, which I would have loved to have done. But I feel like the filmmakers wouldn't have been satisfied creatively to do the film at these budgets. Primarily, InDigEnt is interested in using the small cameras that fit in the palm of your hand. I feel like if you put it on your shoulder, then you should consider 16mm or 35mm and basically it's just a format choice. If you can put it in the palm of your hand, then it's a creative choice in terms of how you're going to make the film. Everyone knows we work with very small crews, so it's basically a department head and an assistant. Everyone owns a piece of the film, so they sort of are all working for the same amount of money, but all get something if the film does well.
MM: InDigEnt was created in 1999. When you look back on that day, what made it the "right" time to do it?
GW: For me, the right time was when The Celebration proved that these little cameras were of a quality and, creatively, a place where actors and filmmakers would see it as a tool. I knew that we had to do it when it was starting to happen, but of course my idea was that we were going to make these films for $100,000 and we were going to get all these great people in them. And no one had ever done that before. I knew the economics of making these movies-that everyone was going to be doing it because DV was democratic-but I kind of felt that I wanted to focus on the experienced filmmaker to see what they could do with the medium.
MM: What are some of the changes you've witnessed in the digital medium since InDigEnt's creation?
GW: The changes are mostly technical advances now. And with that, of course there's George Lucas and HD and all of that, which have helped FX-driven films and films which are suited for that medium. But for us, for the mini-DV Cam-and that's really what I'm interested in, the little cameras-basically, the change on the technical side is that every six months there's a new generation of cameras that makes the image quality better. But in terms of what we're seeing, I think the type of stories that are being told [are changing]. Stories like Chuck & Buck, Dancer in the Dark, Full Frontal and then our slate of films-films like Tape, Chelsea Walls and Women in Film. I kind of feel like, not only are we seeing more stories that we wouldn't have seen before, but people (meaning buyers and the marketplace) are sort of more in-line with DV films.
MM: The company was created with the purpose of creating 10 low-budget digital features, of which nine have been produced so far? Once you have reached this goal of 10 films, will InDigEnt continue?
GW: Basically, I came up with the number 10 because I felt like that would be enough of them to save some costs, but not too many. And also I could have them varied enough. But basically IFC wants to continue, and I feel that our model is working. I'm not interested in us changing in any way because of any of our success or what's happening with DV, because I feel like if we make the films in any other way, then we're just making another low-budget independent film-and DV just becomes a choice of stock.
MM: What do you think some of the biggest misconceptions are regarding DV productions?
GW: Obviously a lot of people think DV means that it's cheap, and obviously George Lucas is dispelling some of that myth. I also feel that people feel that if they're making a DV movie, they don't have to be prepared or disciplined. And I feel that for the narrative fiction film you have to be as prepared, if not more, than a 35mm film. Also, I think people think that you should just make a movie because you can, and I think that's not the right way to approach anything.
MM: What do you think is one of the least recognized benefits of the digital medium, something that people don't often talk about? We always hear that it's a much more intimate experience, but what are some of the lesser-known benefits of DV, in your opinion?
GW: The benefits are the obvious benefits, so besides the economics, the immediacy, the intimacy, the spontaneity, for me it's the ability to rework things. That's really where I feel it's making it more of an art form. As an artist, I can make it rework my "canvas," in other words, until I feel that it's right. That may be obvious, but to me it's very specific to DV.
MM: Of all the films InDigEnt has produced, with the exception of Tadpole, which I'm sure holds a special place, what has been your favorite?
GW: Tadpole is my least favorite! I'm never satisfied with my films and I just like to look ahead. I started InDigEnt because I wanted to see what experienced filmmakers would do with this medium, and the type of stories they would tell and how they would tell those stories. And I think that each one of them has pushed storytelling in a way: the way Richard Linklater, in Tape, chose to do a three-character, one-room piece, I think could only be done in DV and was extremely successful, but could have ultimately not been successful. It was really a bold experiment. I think what Bruce Wagner did in Women in Film, with three monologues. If you read that and then you see the film, you see really what he did with DV to visually enhance what those characters were saying.
I think what Ethan Hawke did with Chelsea Walls was tremendous use of DV; the poetic nature of that film, and how he was able to create that through DV. Rebecca Miller's film Personal Velocity I think is incredibly realized for DV. And Ten Tiny Love Stories was really an experiment that clearly only could be done in DV, as it was 10 monologues and [Rodrigo Garcia] very much wanted to deal with the performances and the words in 10 shots.
As far as Tadpole and Final, which are mine and Campbell Scott's, I feel like they're the most narrative, and probably could have been done in 35mm. But because they're so character-driven, Campbell and I were both able to utilize DV and probably do things and influence performances in a way that we couldn't do with 35mm. We just finished Alan Taylor's Kill the Poor, and I think it's a tremendous use of DV in how he played with form in that. And then there's Pieces of April, Peter Hedges' film, which is again very straight narrative, but really wonderfully told in DV because of the performances.
MM: What is the most important piece of advice you would give to moviemakers currently deciding whether to shoot on film or DV?
GW: I think you first always have to ask: Is this story suited for the DV medium? Is this the aesthetic that will enhance the dramatic or comedic story with the look of DV?. If you do decide to do it in DV, then I feel that you get a lot of the benefits, creatively, that I talked about earlier. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it in DV if it doesn't fit the aesthetic of it.
The contradiction of that is if you cannot make your film, because of the economics, and the only way to shoot it is in DV and you have to tell that story, then you should make it in DV. Regardless of what it looks like or how appropriate it is for the story, if it's engaging enough and the audience emotionally connects to those characters, it doesn't matter what it looks like.
For more information on Gary Winick and InDigEnt, visit: http://www.indigent.net
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
This story was sponsored by
Latest from the blog:
Jaman Launches “Movie Channel for the World”
Jaman.com announced the availability of instantly streamed, HD-quality movies—for free.
With nothing more than a simple click, cineastes can watch one of 100 ad-supported titles from the online distributor's collection of more than 3,000 films at no cost. Alternatively, those viewers who are less inclined to "pay" for the free films by watching the ads can pay just $1.99 to watch them commercial-dree. “By offering a free streaming media service along with our current rental and ownership download options, we are anticipating the future of digital cinema," says Jaman founder and CEO, Gaurav Dhillon. "With streaming, we provide our community with a quality viewing experience that is free and for our advertisers, we deliver a unique audience and premium and targeted placement opportunities.”
Posted 05.15.08 | News/Commentary | 1 comment
Other recent posts:
Posts people are talking about:
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
