Archives: Film

So Sheri Candler supplied us with a wealth of information, tips and tricks on Day 1 of the Chris Jones-organised marketing and distribution seminar and we all left with our heads ringing with Sheri’s “engage, engage, engage” message.

Little did we know Day 2 was going to bring on even more information to cram into our little heads as fast as we could assimilate it.

Jon Reiss, through the self-distribution of his feature-length documentary BOMB IT, has become a pioneer of the new model for indie filmmakers to get their film out there.  He’s collected his experiences and thoughts into his book, Think Outside the Box Office, and Sunday was spent going over some of his key concepts.  As for Sheri’s day, I’m not about to take you through it line-by-line, but rather highlight the salient points as they stood out to me.

The essence of what Jon was teaching throughout the day – in various different guises – was that self-distribution is both achievable and, potentially, profitable, but that the very best model to adopt is a kind of hybrid model between doing it all yourself and partnering with distributors to help you reach markets you may not be able to tackle on your own.

The biggest thing Jon stressed is something I mentioned in yesterday’s post: budgeting.  Not just having the money to do it, although that’s a key part of it, but also your time.  Getting your picture out there, especially if you’re doing all the work, is at least 12 months of full-time labour.  That’s a lot.  To help us think of it in a clearer way, Jon has introduced the concept of “The New 50/50” whereby you should be spending 50% of your resources on making the film and 50% on marketing and distribution.  And by “resources” we’re talking everything from cash budget to man-power.

There are bound to be arguments (and probably already have been) about a model that proposes that cash-strapped filmmakers should “wave goodbye” to half of their production budget, but that is fast become short-sighted in the extreme.  If independent filmmakers truly want our film to reach an audience and achieve our goals, it’s essential that we learn to embrace this sort of model.

For those who are still shifting uncomfortably at the thought of having to “market” your picture, Jon has another solution – the PMD.  Intended as a team member as vital as the producer, director or DP, the Producer of Marketing and Distribution is a new role who should be brought on board as early as humanly (and budgetarily) possible to start the audience outreach that is crucial for the successful marketing of the film – that early-stage engagement I spoke of yesterday.  Through pre-production, production and post, the PMD connects with and primes the audience so that they can leverage this support and transform it into sales of your movie – whether that be DVD through your own website or a sale to a distributor, the PMD takes care of it all, in close connection with the filmmaker.

It’s undoubtedly going to take time to build this kind of role enough in stature to convince indie filmmakers on a tight budget that it’s necessary, and for them to trust someone else with building this level of engagement, but I believe it’s crucial to the monetization of indie film.

It is also worth noting – and investigating – Jon’s ideas about the re-branding of a “Theatrical” release to his definition of “Live Event/Theatrical” – a concept that is defined as being any screening of a film in the way the filmmaker intended – ie, in controlled conditions with an audience.  That may be in a traditional cinema, or a church, community hall or anywhere you can project your movie in any capacity.

Key to this model for smaller indie pictures who can’t or won’t achieve the traditional theatrical run is making any screening an “event” by adding value beyond just that of the film.  That may be a Q&A with some of the team, it could include raffles, give-aways or similar.  But by embracing the short run and making the most of it, it’s possible for a filmmaker to earn more from a single screening in a town than a week-long run, as Jon himself can attest.

I could write a dozen essays on things we learned this weekend and I’m sure more of Jon and Sheri’s tips are going to be bubbling up and landing in my writings here over the next weeks and months, whether it’s specific to a project or in general discussion.  But I would encourage any filmmaker who wants to make a living from this to check out both Jon and Sheri’s blogs (jonreiss.com/blog and shericandler.com), as well – of course – as keeping up-to-date with what Chris is up to.  His courses are second to none and I have no doubt this one will end up repaying its costs many times over as we all apply these theories to our projects both current and future.

Thanks to all three of the marvellous trio for giving us such insight, help and knowledge.  Tomorrow, I’ll talk a little more about some of the visiting speakers over the weekend.  For now, you’re free to go make tea.

This weekend I headed down for Chris Jones’s 2-day course on the new models of distribution for independent film with Sheri Candler, indie film marketing guru, and Jon Reiss, pioneer of DIY distribution and author of the “new model” bible Think Outside the Box Office.

I could spent hours here – and thousands of words – going over everything we learned, but to be honest, you’d be better off buying the book.  Instead, I thought  I’d see what elements have really stuck in my brain and give a few notes.  This is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the weekend, but rather a toe-dipping to introduce any of you unfamiliar with these people’s work.

DAY 1 – Sheri Candler

Sheri Candler – indie film legend and marketing supremo – spent the first day introducing us to the “new” concepts of marketing.  I say “new” with inverted commas because actually, a lot of what Sheri was teaching us is fairly standard practice in the commercial and business worlds.  It’s just that not many filmmakers consider any of it at all and if they do, they approach it way too late.

What Sheri is preaching (and preaching really is the right kind of word for it) is audience identification and engagement.

IDENTIFICATION – it’s no good, as an indie filmmaker, making a horror movie and saying that you want to target horror fans.  There are far too many out there for you to successfully reach and you’ll end up throwing away money that you don’t have and won’t recoup.  Instead, you need to drill right down into you audience and find the core.  That may be, for instance, people who like independent horror movies featuring zombies.  If you can, it should be even narrower than that; the more precise you can get your target – or core – audience, the better you’ll be able to connect with them.

ENGAGEMENT – isn’t just sending out flyers and posting on internet forums.  To get a true following for your movie – a hardcore fanbase who will spread the word into wider circles – you need to full engage with them.  From the start.  That means finding out where they congregate (usually where online – forums, websites etc) and joining with them to start discussions about the subject – not just YOUR MOVIE.  This is a crucial soft-sell approach, without which it’s not real engagement, it’s just advertising.  At this level of movie making, advertising doesn’t really work – connecting with and befriending your audience is the key.

The biggest lesson I took out of day one is, without doubt, that the earlier you start the better.  You should be starting your audience “outreach” in pre-production or even as you’re finishing your script, but you should certainly do it before you reach post-production.  The kind of engagement you need to promote your small indie flick is too complex to take a stab at once you’re ready to release – you need to be building it from the beginning.

The other key element to this is budgeting – when you’re budgeting and fundraising for your film, make sure you include the marketing costs in there, too.  This isn’t simply advertisements (in fact, they may not feature at all), but you will need GREAT key art, a BRILLIANT website and also the TIME to engage your audience.  All of this costs – especially if you’re hiring a pro, which is something that’s really worth thinking about.  A professional can handle things for you while you focus on your movie and keep an over view of all the rest, because it will take up a lot of your time and your mental “bandwidth” to be doing both.

At the very least, you’ll need help in doing it.  You have help making the film (more than likely) so why not get help marketing the film?  As Jon would go on to tell us on Day 2, reinforced by Sheri herself, the ideal marketing, publicity and distribution spend is going to be 50% of your budget.  Allow for it.

Tomorrow, I’ll hit you with the key take-aways from Jon’s 2nd day session with us, which was packed with a ton of information and ended up running long without losing any of the filmmakers listening.  The whole weekend was exceptionally generous in the sharing of information and tips and none of the filmmakers there could thank Jon, Sheri and Chris enough for their help.

On Wednesday, I’ll also talk about some of the guest speakers we had visit over the course of the 2 days.  Right now, I think this is enough for one blog!

Thursday 1 April not only saw far too many people sucked in by (and irrationally annoyed by) Philip Bloom‘s masterful April Fool on Canon DSLRs, but also the launch of the month-long Twitter-based #scriptfrenzy.

In essence, the plan for Script Frenzy is to churn out 100 pages of an original screenplay in the 30 days of April.  But just how useful is it to hammer out a first draft in a frenzy?  I took some time to weigh up my own personal pros and cons:

PROs

We all like a deadline.  Actually, most writers hate deadlines, but it can’t be denied that setting one focuses the mind.  And by sharing that deadline with all the other “frenziers” out there, not to mention all of your other Twitter followers, you’re binding yourself into a loose contract to say you’ll at least have something on paper at the beginning of May.

Sometimes it’s good just to write.  Far too many writers – especially those just starting out who are struggling to find the time for wordsmithing alongside busy and demanding day-jobs – put off starting that new piece because there are “other things” in the way.  By forcing yourself to sit down and hammer out an average of just 4 pages a day for a 1st draft, you get those creative juices flowing.

CONs

Thinking time. Former Doctor Who showrunner Russell T Davies talks about the majority of his writing time being time spent in “the Maybe” – that etheral neverland of thoughts, shapes and possibilities where stories solidify and conform in the brain before you actually sit down to hammer out the pages on Final Draft.  Similarly, Paul Schrader, writer of modern classics like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, has a Maybe that exists in his meticulous outlining and documenting of the entire story prior to the 1st draft.  How do you account for thinking time in a frenzied rush to hammer out your 100 pages? Do you need to have put that all in place before April 1st, or do you build that into your month-of-crazy?

Arbitrary page counts. Yes, a feature film script should come in somewhere around 100 pages, but – more importantly – a script needs to be the right length to tell the story, whether that be 75 pages or, God forbid, 150 pages.  100 is a good guideline, but is it an appropriate target?

Forcing the words out. All screenplays need a little time to digest as you go.  Undoubtedly, sometimes you do just need to sit down and hammer your way through a stumbling block, but other times you need to be free to step back and recognise when simply bashing the keys is wasted time until you’ve worked out why the scene isn’t working for you.

I don’t have anything against #scriptfrenzy and certainly not against those taking part. But I know that it’s not the way that I can sit and hammer out a first draft of anything. I need the time to consider it, the time to plan it and then to set myself a deadline that’s reachable at a daily page count that works for me, my working time and my goals for the script.

How about you? Are you a frenzier, a plodder or a somewhere-in-the-middle?

Since the back-end of last year, I’ve been working on a new screenplay for an ultra-low-budget film with just two characters and a powerful, emotional love story.

It’s now at that stage with which many writers will be familiar – the skeleton is there, the bones and muscles, but it still needs that little something to really form it into something special.

What I’m battling with now is the classic filmmaker’s dilemma of just how commercial do you make a script for a micro-budget indie? I know that the market for the film isn’t going to be vast, but I also know that a couple of simple – but major – tweaks could open it out to a wider and more passionate market. If nothing else I’m confident these changes would give it a much better chance on the festival circuit.

The trouble is, I don’t know how big a compromise this is. I’m not as familiar with the environment I’d be re-setting the film in and although I think the story would work just as well, am I betraying both my instincts and my original story in pushing for a bigger audience? Or am I doing the underlying story a disservice in sticking to my guns and potentially reducing the market for the finished film?

As it stands I’m torn between the two, hence this little cry for help. At what point does targeting a market becoming selling out?

A friend of mine posted a link to this video on their Twitter feed this morning and it highlights one of the most important lessons anyone can learn in life – whether it be filmmakers, entrepreneurs, sportsmen or cake-bakers:

The need to fail to succeed is one of the most overlooked elements of any career. Many a great man, woman or muppet has said that they have learned more from their failures than they have from their successes, mostly because failing forces you to sit down and work out what went wrong in order to be able to avoid making the same mistakes twice.

Being free to fail is invaluable to any artist when starting out, but if you want to increase your success rate quicker you will need to learn to fully analyse the things you do right and not just pick apart the things that go wrong.

By taking apart your successful endeavours with the same rigour as you study your errors, you can help yourself learn in a positive way. Don’t get me wrong, you will still fail – we all will – but learning analysis is the key to pushing yourself, your work and your career forward.

In the next couple of weeks I’m embarking upon a major new documentary project which will cover the next 12-24 months and possibly beyond, producing frequent web-videos along the way.

I’m looking for a bank of freelance preditors (producers/shooters/editors) that I can work with to produce fresh, interesting and powerful short documentary films for YouTube/Vimeo and the project’s website.  I can’t pay you anything at the moment, but I’ll cover all your expenses for the shoots.

Anyone who’s interested and lives in and around the south of England (particularly but not exclusively Bucks, Northants, Beds, Oxfordshire and London), please drop me a line here and send me a link to something you’ve done.

Experience isn’t key to this, it’s as much about the ride and the journey as anything else, but I do want to know that you can point a camera in the right places and/or cut a good short.

There’s been a mixed reaction to BAFTA’s decision to award the Best Film award to Kathryn Bigelow’s THE HURT LOCKER last night, with many expressing surprise that it won out over her ex-husband’s blue epic AVATAR.

I think THE HURT LOCKER is not only a deserved winner, but the right choice. Best Film (or Best Picture at the Oscars, or the Palm D’Or at Cannes) should go to the film that is the best all-round example of great filmmaking.  That means the best technically, the best script, the best collected performances, the best directed and the best realised.

While that doesn’t mean a film must have all the acting nominations sown up (like Silence of the Lambs), or indeed win Best Director or Cinematographer to justify a win, it does mean that AVATAR’s inherent failures within it’s screenplay – the hackneyed plotting and hugely unsubtle and over-zealous anti-Afghanistan rhetoric – should give pause when considering it the very best film of the year.

Does this mean AVATAR’s Oscar chances are doomed? Unlikely, given Oscar’s reluctance to pay any attention whatsoever to BAFTA’s whims, but it does at least make me proud to be British when we can recognise all-round brilliance in the face of mesmeric and revolutionary imagery.

Congratulations, also, to Kathryn Bigelow for becoming the first woman to collect the Best Director BAFTA and to British talent being celebrated so widely – Carey Mulligan, Colin Firth and Duncan Jones; we salute you!

This may well be ultimately premature as I defy anyone to go and see this film and come away with their head clear and their mind made up. I currently have two major thoughts banging around my head. Before I explain myself, though, a word of advice. If you are remotely interested in film at all – not this film, just film in general – you HAVE to see this film on a big screen. It simply will not have the same impact on your telly or – God forbid – downloaded to your computer. This is justification for shelling out your hard-earned on a trip to the flicks.

ONE
Amazing. Stunning. Awesome. Incomprehensibly beautiful. Art on an IMAX scale. THe most utterly visually amazing film you will have ever seen, guaranteed, bar none and no exceptions. When they say this film is a game-changer for the 3D world, a concept I didn’t really understand beforehand, “they” are absolutely right.

I’ve never seen photo-realism to this extent. I’ve never so greatly empathised with, nor felt an emotional connection with, any animated characters like this. I’ve never seen near-lifelike creations communicate with such raw emotion and depth.

There has never been a film with digital environments this flawless, with a fantastic world created in such a way that makes you wonder where on Earth it could be. But unlike Middle Earth, you can’t just pop to New Zealand and find the back drops – this is pure artistry from the best in the business. ILM and Weta, two of the CGI and physical effects supremos in the business, have created undoubtedly their best work from first frame to last in this film.

TWO
Style over substance. It pains me to say it, but this is the genuine article. A world so rich and nuanced, a planet so beautifully rendered, a people so carefully crafted and a script so atrociously hackneyed it makes you groan.

However, there is an argument to say that the last thing you want with a movie on this kind of grand scale is a complicated plot which bogs the whole thing down. I would, however, have liked some characters who weren’t straight out of “How To Write A Blockbuster Movie 101”. Giovanni Ribisi is a great, and hugely underrated, actor. But in this he’s given nothing but “conflicted corporate fat cat” to play with and it appears is boredom is only assuaged by marvelling at the brilliance of the effects which weren’t even there when he shot. As if he knew what’s out the window behind him was going to be more interesting than the stuff happening in front of it.

More than this, though, what disappointed me was James Cameron’s shoe-horning of a ridiculous, over-used and way-too-heavy Afghan metaphor into the whole thing. If he was any more overt about the message he was trying to get across, he’d have needed a banner with vast, IMAX-screen, 3D words all over it proclaiming “THIS IS ABOUT NOW, AFGHANISTAN AND WHAT WE’RE DOING TO OUR PLANET AND THEIR LIVES”. And disappoints me is that I know he’s a better filmmaker – and a better writer – than that. Hell, the rest of the film proves that, if nothing else.

I can’t let it lie on a down-note, though. This is undoubtedly the most remarkable film that has ever been made. It contains images, creatures, people and effects that you will never, ever have seen anywhere else. It has a level of beauty in both craftsmanship and sheer visual brilliance that has never been seen and I’d venture to so won’t be again for a good long while.

This is a truly ground-breaking movie of epic proportions and will be a firm favourite of many people for many, many decades to come. It will, no doubt, be a favourite of mine, to. Because despite my misgivings, it’s one of the greatest filmic experiences anyone can ever have.

Once again, I reiterate from the start: do not wait for this movie to come to you: GO AND SEE IT IN THE CINEMA because you simply will not appreciate what this film is until you see it 20 feet high with your sexy 3D specs on. Enjoy. And let me know what you think.

Everything I’ve seen about Heath Ledger’s final film has told me two things: 1) It’s Heath Ledger’s final film (he died half-way through production, to be variously replaced throughout the film by Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel and Jude Law) and 2) It’s utterly rubbish.

From watching the film myself today, I’ve discovered three things:

1) It’s almost the ultimate Terry Gilliam movie, combining the tangible, off-kilter world of a only-slightly-stylised reality with the final-given-enough-money beauty of the CGI creating the heavily surrealist world beyond the mirror that take people inside their own minds. Where his previous films have failed for me has been the difficulty in realising this clash of the real and the fantastical, but Parnassus does it almost perfectly.

2) The three actors who came in to finish the film, playing 3 versions of Ledger’s Tony who appear through the mirror did a great job. Admittedly, knowing the story behind the film made me almost predisposed to look on them favourably: all three stepped in as friends of Ledger’s to offer their services, all three fitted the film in around their other filming commitments and all three donated their fees to Ledger’s young daughter. But all three of them also hit just the right balance of the surrealist elements of a shape-shifting lead character by keeping just the right amount of Ledger’s original performance while infusing it with a spirit and attitude of their own. It never feels like 3 people pretending to be Heath Ledger, which would have been dreadful.

3) I really, really, really liked it.

So I may well be the odd one out in all of this, but frankly, who cares? I unashamedly love this movie. I love all that it stands for, I love all that it means, I love all that it’s been through and I love the end product more than any other Gilliam film I’ve seen before.

As a side note, K’s come back up to Liverpool with me today and we saw Parnassus at FACT, an amazing Liverpool cinema and gallery space which impresses me more and more every time I go. Today’s screening was in a small-ish box room with the audience all seated on 2-person sofas; a brand new experience for me, but a great one. There should be a flickhouse like this in every city.

The one upside of Willows going into rehearsals this week of all weeks (LIPA reading week, that is) is that I was still around to witness this year’s first Masterclass with the legendary Jonathan Pryce of Evita, Pirates of the Caribbean and Miss Saigon fame.

Once again revealing quite how aged I am in relation to the rest of the students at LIPA (or at least the majority), I first saw Jonathan Pryce when he played Fagin in Sam Mendes’ revival of Oliver! in the West End way back in 1994 when most of my classmates were learning to walk.

Thanks to the Pirates series, he’s now famous throughout the student body at LIPA and, since he’s literally just up the road (about 500 yards from LIPA) doing The Caretaker at the Everyman at the moment, he stopped in to talk to us all today.

He may have been nervous or just unsure at the start, as he was somewhat bland and struggling to relate to the audience to begin with, but as time went on he warmed up and became more and more ebullient and amusing with all of his anecdotes. Among my favourites:

• He turned down the opportunity of taking over from Michael Crawford in the title role of the original production of Phantom of the Opera
• He gave first jobs to both Julie Walters and Bill Nighy, recalling of Nighy’s audition that he thought we was either an absolute genius or absolute rubbish. He maintains (jokingly) it’s the latter.
• When he and Nighy were reunited on the set of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, Nighy performed in a lycra body suit with motion-capture markers all over his body and face. The sight made it impossible to get through an emotional scene without laughing, prompting the writer to approach Pryce and ask if everything was OK with the scene.
• He never actually read the entire script for Pirates and frequently only knew what was going on by asking Jack Davenport while the shots were being set up.
• When performing in the ill-fated National Theatre production of My Fair Lady, he remarked to one audience “This is you first Eliza, but it’s my second today and third in two days. If anyone would like to apply to play Eliza in this production, please contact Stage Door after the show.”

It’s amazing to be studying what I love in a place I can’t get enough of and to have the added bonus of people like this coming in to talk to us. After almost 2 hours at it, I think the entire audience of actors, dancers, technicians and managers left the room utterly inspired and energised.

Who’s next?