Advertisement
The Future of Moviemaking
An Editorial for MovieMaker
John Cassavetes and Orson Welles were both individuals who tried to function within the system and learned that they couldn't. It wasn't a choice with them, or with those of us who have followed in their footsteps. After my third film, Sitting Ducks, achieved a certain bit of success (which followed my being unable to get anyone to see my first two films, A Safe Place and Tracks), I was approached by the producer of one of the big commercial hits of the time to see if I would direct "two-thirds" of his next movie. The producer's hit was Animal House and his next movie was National Lampoon's Movie Madness (at least that was one of the titles). It was going to be a spoof of different movie genres and I would direct two out of three of them, one parodying the fear of Atomic proliferation (always good for a laugh), the other sending up police brutality (equally uproarious material, right?)
Well, I had started my career doing standup improvisational comedy with The Compass Players-an off-shoot of Second City-and The Uncommon Denominator off-Broadway, so wouldn't this be right up my alley? Sure, the scripts he sent over were beyond atrocious, with breast jokes vying with blind jokes for yuks from a discriminating audience. But I was assured I could change anything I wished and just have fun with it, so what was the issue? It paid well, I'd have a huge crew (outrageously large by my standards), I could cast wonderful people like some of the heroes of my childhood-Richard Widmark, for God's sake, and that wonderful little guy who played the "gunsell" and was slapped around by Bogart in The Maltese Falcon. (Elisha Cook, Jr. -ed.) So why was I hesitating?
I asked my friend and frequent lunch companion, Orson Welles, what he thought and he told me wearily: "Find out if you can do it, if you can work their way. If you can, it will save you years of heartache and frustration and your life will be infinitely simpler."
So I tried. I said yes. I signed on... I won't go into detail, but I think you can find the result in some old video bins (thank God it never made it into theaters). Nothing in it is recognizable as my work because someone took it away and "fixed it up."
As of this writing, I've written and directed 16 films (#15, Hollywood Dreams, is coming to theaters right now and #16, Irene In Time, is on my editing table) and I can tell you-win, lose or draw-I don't regret any of them. Love them or hate them, they are all my movies, frame for frame. The only filmic regret I have ever had was that horrible Movie Madness meshuggah.
But Orson was right. The time wasn't wasted because I learned my lesson and my lesson was this: I have to be independent. I don't have a choice. I admire many wonderful moviemakers who can make excellent movies within the studio system, but I can't be one of them any more than Orson or John could. So find out what you are and if you are one of us, welcome. You are the future of independent moviemaking!
With today's changing technologies, it is easier and much less expensive to get your film made than ever before; every single advance is on the independent moviemaker's side. No longer can studios and huge corporations stop you from getting your films made or, once made, to the public. There are now distribution companies of every size and shape; a small outfit like my own Rainbow Releasing Company not only distributes those of my films I don't want to make a deal with another distributor for, but the "Monty Python" films and a wonderful documentary Max Schell made about his sister, Maria, among others. When Robert De Niro produced a film called Mistress that he didn't want to go the usual route with, we distributed it for him.
There are hundreds of outfits like ours today where there were exactly none when I tried to get a deal for Tracks in the late 1970s. Once turned down by the six or seven majors (the one thing they wanted even less than to see a film about the impact of the Vietnam War on America was to see a film with Dennis Hopper starring in it-no matter how brilliantly), that was that.
Today's moviemakers can make a film for practically no money, thanks to the amazing changes in the technology, and can get it seen by simply sending it out through e-mail or posting it on YouTube, MySpace or whatever will pop up next. None of this existed when I started out and all of it contributes to the fact that this is the very best time in history to be an independent moviemaker! MM
Henry Jaglom directs Tanna Frederick in Hollywood Dreams (2007). Cinematographer Hanania Baer and Jaglom have collaborated on more than 10 projects.
Although Henry Jaglom's moviemaking career began in the cutting room, when he helped edit dennis Hopper's Easy Rider, his roots are firmly planted in acting (he trained with lee Strasberg at the Actors Studio). Since directing his first film, A Safe Place, in 1971, Jaglom has become one of cinema's most important independent voices, writing, directing and often starring in 16 features-and distributing many of them through his own rainbow releasing Company. As Jaglom's latest film, Hollywood Dreams, is hitting theaters, he is putting the final touches on Irene in Time. Jaglom was profiled in MM #6 (may 1994) and #14 (August 1995) and in the May 2007 edition of the "Hands-on-Pages" on MovieMaker.com.
SHARE THIS STORY |
TAGS |
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Reddit
YahooAdvertisement
COMMENTS | POST A COMMENT 
- Comment by incaltaminte de protectie on 5/19/08 at 4:05 am
Safety can be limited in relation to some guarantee or a standard of insurance to the quality and unharmful function of an object or organization.
- Comment by Joseph on 7/23/08 at 12:55 am
Great information and very useful too. Thanks for posting.
http://www.visionomics.com/.- Comment by testking 642-973 on 10/23/09 at 11:18 pm
The digital revolution in moviemaking is well under way. New digital tools-from cameras to editing software-are changing not only how movies are made but also which movies are made and who makes them. The technology is in place. The already impressive quality of reasonably priced digital video cameras will continue to improve, as will the power of desktop editing tools. The major hurdle that remains is a traditional distribution system that is unable to handle the new wave of digital moviemaking. So far the digital revolution has had the greatest impact on the independent production sector. Operating without the infrastructure and inertia of the major Hollywood studios, independent producers have the flexibility to quickly embrace new opportunities and are highly motivated to find ways to reduce production costs. Movie Maker’s roots are in the era of mini-DV camcorders, when connecting the camcorder to a computer with a firewire cable got you the easiest capture process and the best digital video quality. But over the years public preference shifted to tapeless hard drive, DVD, and flash card camcorders, along with the video options of digital cameras and phones. Adapting to that shift, testking SY0-201 Microsoft moved the future of Movie Maker into the camp of the Windows Live Suite. It can handle a much broader variety of source files, has a minimal number of editing features, and more hooks into online host services. The few users who are heavily into editing videos, or those such as myself with mini-DV camcorders and tapes, will miss the familiar interface and features, and need to adapt. There are many other software apps in my video-editing toolbox to fill in for the features being dropped. Microsoft released a public beta of Windows Live Movie Maker in mid-September 2008, and an updated beta version in December. The latest beta is a free download for any and all. Unlike other Windows Live apps, this one runs only on Vista systems. If you run Vista and want to follow along, here’s the download link testking 1z0-007 It doesn’t replace or conflict with Movie Maker 6 or the optional v2.6, the other versions in Vista. I have it on two computers, a low-end Toshiba laptop running Vista Home Basic, and a higher end desktop HP with Vista Ultimate.
In their zest to streamline Movie Maker, Microsoft has gone pretty far. Many users are upset about this version only having a storyboard view of a project, dropping entirely the option to work in a timeline view. I can roll with most changes.- Comment by Albern on 5/25/10 at 1:47 am
Nice concerning as better as clarifying position.Gives Thanks for providing for us.I show your article with my delight.
San Diego Room Addition Cost- Comment by Spray Foam Insulation on 9/21/10 at 3:52 pm
Thank yo u for a nice article.
- Comment by grant for women on 10/02/10 at 10:05 pm
Very interesting.
- Comment by new york sightseeing on 10/15/10 at 2:13 pm
Pretty nice website.
- Comment by firmalar on 11/25/10 at 6:05 am
You are the future of independent moviemaking!
- Comment by Leotards on 12/13/11 at 12:45 pm
The few users who are heavily into editing videos, or those such as myself with mini-DV camcorders and tapes, will miss the familiar interface and features, and need to adapt. There are many other software apps in my video-editing toolbox to fill in for the features being dropped. Micros
This story was published in the Future of Moviemaking 2007 MovieMaker Magazine. The headline was:
The Future of Moviemaking / An Editorial for MovieMaker
Order this issue | Subscribe to MM
posted 02.10.12
posted 02.8.12
posted 02.7.12
posted 02.1.12
SITE DELIVERY OPTIONS
