|
No Sugardaddy Needed
Dear Folks:
I absolutely frothed over Peter Broderick's article on the digital/video revolution (issue #30-ed.). Finally, a mainstream film publication that recognizes the inevitable! Video is the gateway to realizing one's dreams of producing a film without a sugardaddy. I've preached the same sermon as a college instructor, but more importantly, have gotten national video store distribution, international sales, and strong reviews from, among others, The New York Times Press Syndicate, with projects ranging in budgets from $7,000 to $12,000, including post, sleeve design and printing, all by shooting video. And these are features shot on 3/4" video, with the most simplistic tbcbased "film look." And no, you don't have to do "adult" titles to pull this off.
Having line-produced shot-on 35 and 16 features, I see no advantage to the firsttime filmmaker to putting thousands of dollars into Kodak, Fuji, or a transfer house's pocket. Bottom line, film will not save a poorly written, performed, and lit script. And if the story, performances, lighting, coverage, editing, and sound are all there, it doesn't matter what it's shot on, it will find an audience. Keep preaching the gospel, Mr. Broderick!
8mm: Not a Snuffed Film
Dear Mr. Hollywood,
I am writing to you in reference to your very bad advice given to a Bryan in Boston in the latest issue of MovieMaker #32. You tell this person to dump his super 8 camera, shoot in mini dv and process through the film look, and then do the blow up to 16 mm filin.The problems with this advice are many. First, you cannot learn how to shoot film by shooting video. They are two completely different animals. If this person wants to be a filmmaker then super 8 film is the best means for him to learn on. The equipment is readily available and it is the least expensive film format to work in. The filmmaker must learn the process of filmmaking, from choosing the correct ASA film stock, exposing the film properly, dealing with labs about film processing, and the whole telecine process as well, etc., etc. None of this experience occurs with video.
Secondly, the film look process is good to get a different feel for video, similar to a different emulsion of film, but it does look as good as film or is evenly sufficient enough to pass as film. The cost of this process is very expensive as well, which defeats the process of shooting video because it's cheap.
The best advice should have been to shoot super 8 film, especially the PRO 8 color negative film stocks that are made from Kodak 35mm, and then transferred to digital beta on a Rank Cinetel, edited on Avid and then blow up the final cut to 16mm or 35mm film. This will produce far superior results than anything shot on mini dv. The resolution of super 8 film far exceeds any video resolution. And the individual will gain valuable experience in becoming part of the film industry.
The film industry does exactly this, shoots film and then edits tape. This is more so the case if the project is for video or television distribution.
We have worked with several studios and clients that have done this process. Eight Millimeter, Varsity Blues, Why Do Fools Fall in Love and Selena, to name a few 35mm theatrical releases, as well as many Oliver Stone movies. And Super 8 is a widely accepted format for music videos, television shows like Buddy Faro, VH-1 Behind the Music, and many independent feature films.
The next time someone asks your
advice you could enlighten them that if they want to be a filmmaker
they should shoot on film not video. If people cannot afford
16mm film then they should shoot super 8 film.
Dear Ms. Weston,
I just wanted to compliment you on your terrific article on script analysis for directors. I have to agree with you that getting the most out of the character arcs in a script should be extremely important to a director. Characters that remain in our memories have quirks, masks, and other nuances added to their "normal" behavior patterns. As you know, many directors these days are more worried about their shots or SFX than taking the time to work on characters and refining or rewriting the dialogue in the scene. I look forward to reading your book.
A Magazine Like Nachos
Dear Timothy and staff,
I just wanted to comment on how much I've enjoyed reading, and reading, and reading (it's packed!) your magazine. About two months ago I decided to jump into filmmaking and went out and bought several books and a few mags to jump-start my learning process.
I picked up MovieMaker because A) It looked great and B) There was an article on my favorite film of the season, Next Stop Wonderland. I have to say, of all of the movie mags I purchased, yours is unquestionably THE BEST. Why? Because it's overflowing with great articles. It reminds me of a time that I got nachos at a baseball game (Orioles/ Indians '97 League Finals Game Two, actually) and every time I looked to see how much I had left in the box, it was still full. I know that sounds silly, but it was wild; as if it were replenishing itself. I would eat a bunch and it would still be full, offer it to my buddies, still full. Definitely the most satisfying box of nachos I've ever had. Reading your mag, the same phenomena occurred. No matter how many articles I read, every time I picked it up I found more. There were so many gems inside. I read Brad Anderson's story twice-I love this movie-the hand-held approach was perfect and it's pure entertainment.
Bong Feature a Knockout
Dear David Davis:
I'm a new subscriber to MovieMaker. In fact, issue # 32, the very one that featured your incredible article," Comeback of the Boxing Movie" was the first issue I'd received. Coincidentally I'm on page 75 of the first draft of a fictional boxing movie featuring an African American lead. At first I was floored. Especially after I read that there are eight new boxing films in production! For a moment, suicide seemed like an appropriate reaction, or at the least a serious fall-down-passout-blackout binge. Then I read the piece. I found it both enlightening and encouraging. In fact, I'd been perusing the online film archives for something this genre-specific for months. I needed to know what films had been done on the topic and how they where received. Viola! Thanks, guys.
I've now mustered the courage and will proceed. I haven't yet decided if I'll test the `spec' market or just (gulp) go for it and get it in the can. Wish me luck. If you know of any producers or literary agents that are looking for ...naahhh.
Carney too Quick to Judge
Dear MovieMaker,
I agree with a lot of what Ray Carney said in his opening remarks at the Grand Illusion Theater, (see MM #13 & 14 or 27, or check out our website at www.moviemaker.com -ed.) and I applaud his insistence on the inescapable fact that art isn't easy. Quite right. But I am mystified by his endless restatement of something that most of us take for granted-namely that Hollywood is less interested in art than in money. Can there be anyone on earth who doesn't know this to be true? Is there anyone in Hollywood who wouldn't happily admit it publicly? Do we really need to be told this again and again? Carney thinks we do, presumably because films like The English Patient and Schindler's List are treated as high art by many high-profile critics. But I think that there's an important distinction to be made. Hollywood (or the business of world-wide entertainment, as Abel Ferrara calls it) may not be interested in art, but it occasionally produces it. I may agree with Ray Carney that The English Patient and Schindler's List are far from the summits of cinema, but I am appalled by his unbridled contempt for everything produced by Hollywood, and his unbridled excitement over anything that calls itself "independent," no matter how convincingly he makes the case that the term is essentially meaningless. He seems so convinced that he's right that he never backs up his pronouncements with arguments: Hitchcock and Tarantino are slick and meaningless, Charles Burnett and Su Friedrich are thoughtful and profound, and that's that.
As much as I agree with a great deal of what Carney says; as much as I share his passion for Cassavetes; as much as I admire his efforts to encourage artistic adventurousness in his students and readers, I would say that anyone who sees nothing but "empty stylistic virtuosity" in the complete works of Alfred Hitchcock, or who confidently refers to Citizen Kane as an early example of "postmodernism" (as Carney did in a television documentary) should take a rest from writing and speaking about cinema and re-examine his priorities.
Errors and Omissions
In issue, #31 the film Bellyfruit is said in our "Coming Attractions" column to have had its world premiere at the Women in Cinema Film Festival in Seattle. Actually the Seattle screening was a test screening with a work-in-progress version of the film, according to Producer Bonnie Dickerson. Also last issue, in the Artisan Films section of our "Winning the Distribution Game" feature, director Roman Palanski's name teas misspelled, as was screenwriter David Koepp's. And'David Veloz, not Koepp, was the director and screenwriter of Permanent Midnight. MovieMaker regrets these errors. MM