J.T. O'Neal "Au Pair, Kansas" (aka "The Soccer Nanny")

What was your filmmaking background before setting out to make Au Pair, Kansas?

J.T.: I graduated with a degree in history of art from Kansas University, though did my junior year "abroad" at USC film school, but returned to Kansas to complete pre-med. Then I got an MD from Kansas, an MPH (masters of public health) from Harvard, then eventually an MFA (masters of fine arts) in screenwriting from UCLA in 2004.

Au Pair, Kansas was the last script I wrote while in grad school at UCLA (which, by the way, is an absolutely amazing place to learn about screenwriting. NYU's okay for directing, USC's okay for producing, but UCLA ROCKS for screenwriting.) I made 5 short films while living in LA (one cost less than $10, and played at about 25 festivals around the world.) Luckily I made the major mistakes on the shorts, so I didn't really screw anything up on the feature.

Where did the idea come from and what was your writing process?

J.T.: One of my scripts was a finalist in the screenplay competition at Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose, CA, and I attended the festival in 2004. The opening night feature, United, was about this funny Norwegian soccer player dreaming of turning pro. The star, Havard Lilleheie, was in attendance, and I met him at the opening night party, and invited him to lunch the next day.

He was such a great screen presence, I knew I had to do a project for him. So before the luncheon meeting, I tried to figure out how I could come up with an idea for Havard to star in a movie. How could I get a Norwegian soccer player to the US? Why not make him a male au pair, that teaches the kids soccer? Why a male au pair? Maybe the father died and the family needed a father figure. And that's what I pitched to him. He said something like "yah, sure you will write me a movie" and just smiled.

I returned to UCLA the next week, pitched this idea about a Norwegian soccer playing coming to a small town in Kansas to be a male au pair and help a recently widowed woman raise her two sons. The class (and teacher) just looked at me like what planet were you from. Ten weeks later I had the first draft. Then I moved back home to Kansas to make regionally-based movies, spent a week in Oslo rewriting with Havard, then rewrote again, then the script placed as a semi-finalist at the Austin Film Festival screenplay competition, and that got buzz enough to get some investors interested, and I shot the movie.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan for recouping your costs?

J.T.: I raised $200K from private investors. You never know who will invest in your movie. I was in this antique shop (knick knacks, not really antiques) in Lindsborg, Kansas, a great little Swedish town in central Kansas, and this elderly man overhead me talking about location scouting for a potential movie. I sent him a copy of the script. He loved it. Said he'd invest a small amount. Two years later he contacts me and says he really wants to see this movie made, and writes a check for $100K.

Within two weeks I found the rest of the money, and two months later we were shooting the movie in Lindsborg (and my Angel investor, Ron, had a supporting part in the movie.)

I have no idea if I'll get money back on the movie. At this point, I have an international distribution deal (TV and dvd), but the distributor has to sell about $125K before the company sees anything back. Probably won't see anything from international sales. I'm currently working on some domestic deals.

Theatrical was way too expensive. I had great interest for theatrical distribution in Germany (the acquisitions person for the top art cinema chain there loved Au Pair, Kansas, but deliverables, including dubbing and 35mm and high def prints, etc, would have been $100K. Not going to happen, and it didn't.) Who knew making the movie was the easiest part of the whole process. It took me three times as long to get the deliverables together for distribution than to actually shoot the movie (which we did in 18 days.)

What camera did you use and what did you love and hate about it?

J.T.: I used a Red One (it was hot shit back in Dec 2008.) I loved it. Amazing camera (even with the older chip.) I can't imagine how good the new smaller Reds are.

Why did the movie's title change and what was the thinking behind that?

J.T.: For international distribution I decided to change the title of the movie from Au Pair, Kansas to The Soccer Nanny. It's just too hard to translate a French term into other languages, and very few people understood what it meant. Even in the US, lots of people (well, from the Midwest at least) didn't know what an au pair was.

The Soccer Nanny just sounds fun (and it's actually a family movie). If the main character had been playing football or basketball (American football that is), the movie would not have been picked up for international distribution. It's much better marketing internationally, to have soccer in the title, than either Kansas or au pair.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

J.T.: The smartest thing I learned was to get the best actors you can. I was initially going to use all local talent in Kansas. Then a friend from London (great indie screenwriter and director Sean McConville), said it's too good of script, get it to a casting director in Hollywood, there are all sorts of great actresses over 40 who would love the part.

So I did, and got the script to a casting director he used on his move The Deadline, and the casting director (Cathy Henderson Martin, who is fantastic, by the way) liked the script and got it to Traci Lords' manager, who loved the script, and got it to Traci, who loved the script, and she signed on.

Then with Traci attached, all sorts of other actors (including the amazing Spencer Daniels, who played the young Benjamin Button) signed on. I can not believe what experienced actors bring to their parts. I can still watch the movie and be surprised. Traci is one of the most professional actresses I've ever seen (I didn't realize how truly amazing she was until editing, when my editor and I discovered that she matched perfectly on all continuity issues, sipping tea, turning head, standing up, looking, etc. This is a true professional. I've spent a lot of time on regular Hollywood movies--my best friend, Peter James, is an A league Hollywood cinematographer, and I take my vacations and sit in his DP's chair on movies. The only actress I've seen that hit marks better than Traci was Kathy Bates. I can not express how professional and wonderful Traci was on set and in the movie.)

The dumbest thing I did was hire an immigration lawyer from NYC who said she knew how to get work visas through for actors. Nine months after I started, and one day before shooting was to start, I finally got the US to issue a work permit so Havard could come from Norway to star in the movie. We had to delay his first scene by a day, since he arrived later than planned. A few days before we were to start filming, I didn't know if I'd get my lead actor. It was a nightmare. I should have just used someone experienced in LA (but I was living in NY at the time.) It cost me more than twice as much for the work permit and fees than Havard got paid to act in the movie!

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you have taken to other projects?

 J.T.: I learned that I loved making a movie (writing and directing) and hated producing. They are totally different things. I'll never make another movie without an experienced producer to help. The best thing you can do as a director is find a great producer. It's over four year since shooting, and I'm still (today, in fact) working with the accountant to do taxes for 2012 so I can get statements to the investors. NIGHTMARE.

On the other hand, I probably shouldn't complain, as at least I got the movie made, and it has some type of distribution deal, and people have actually liked the movie. Oh, I forgot about that, I LOVE the movie (of course, I'm biased), and I had the pleasure of making the movie I wanted to make, how I wanted to make it.

Lastly, I paid for all cost overages (I call it UBO, United Bank of O'Neal), and I'll probably never see any of that money back (I could have bought two new Lexus cars, or five houses in Detroit). But I got it done.

I may never make another movie, but the proudest I've ever been was hearing that's a wrap called out and the cast and crew cheering. The main lesson I want to take to other projects: Don't use your own money to make your movie!
Au Pair Kansas Trailer from Splice Here on Vimeo.

Liam Brady on Seed&Spark

Give me you elevator speech for Seed&Spark.

LIAM: Seed&Spark is an audience-building platform for filmmakers to crowdfund and distribute their films. Audience members earn Sparks for supporting films in the Studio, and they use Sparks to watch them in the Cinema. Filmmakers crowdfund using a custom-made Wishlist, which is like a wedding registry for film productions.

Movie projects that crowdfund in our Studio take home more of the money they raise than on Seed&Spark than any other crowdfunding platform. No merchant account required. If a filmmaker chooses to release their finished film in our Cinema, they take home 80% of their streaming revenue. We call this model Fair Trade Filmmaking.

What makes your site different from other internet options for filmmakers?

LIAM: Right off the bat, filmmakers are excited to learn that on Seed&Spark that they'll walk away with around 95% of the money they raise if their campaign is successful. That's because we pass along credit card fees instead of requiring a merchant account, but also because we put a little button at customer checkout that says "Cover Filmmaker's Fee." It turns out that people love this button! Supporting a film through the Wishlist on Seed&Spark feels like shopping online. My theory is that online shoppers are so used to paying sales tax and shipping, so without those add-ons, voluntarily adding 5% as an extra benefit for the filmmaker feels natural.

The biggest difference about Seed&Spark is that it's dedicated to movies at all stages of the process. The Wishlist format on the crowdfunding side simulates a really cool shopping experience for supporters and movie audiences. Each supporter gets a unique and individual story about how exactly they’re helping to make your film. When it's time to start spreading the word and asking people to watch your movie, those supporters have a story they can tell to others. You want your supporters to feel that sense of ownership and pride. You want them out there talking about this movie they helped to make.

Also, it should be mentioned that supporters can loan you an item or items from your Wishlist. If you accept the loan, that supporter will be credited for the value of their support, and your little campaign speedometer will show the equivalent amount of progress toward the success of your campaign.

In building the site, the key for us was to give filmmakers a tool that would support them in making their film no matter what, and to provide them with opportunities to engage their future audiences as much as possible along the way.

What is the process for choosing projects to help seed?

LIAM: On the Studio side, we select for quality of content, ability to communicate a story, willingness to promote your project, and most importantly: passion. If you know how to tell a good story now about why you’re making your film, we figure you'll also do a good job when it comes time to tell the story in your actual film.

We also take a look at your team, your past work if you have any, and the proportion of the scale of the budget you’re trying to raise to your filmmaking experience and your current following (if you have any).

Successfully funded Studio projects are guaranteed the ability to release their finished film in the Cinema, so it's important to us that we're selective in our process.

Why would someone with a finished movie want to approach you?

LIAM: Our audience is growing every day, and right now there are 1000s of unused Sparks that our audience members have earned for supporting films and are eager to use. By the way, we still pay filmmakers a small sum for Sparks views.

There are so many great films out there, shorts and features, that have played at film festivals and even won awards but that are now sitting on filmmakers' shelves somewhere, or that got picked up for distribution but the distributor did nothing with the film or the terms are up and rights have returned to the filmmaker. We are making a home for those films and building an audience for them. We want to build a vast ecosystem of filmmakers and audiences, and even if you're an experienced filmmaker without a crowdfunding project at the moment, you can still be a part of it.

Also, since we’re still really new, right now is a great time to jump in with your film because you’re more likely to land on our homepage. Right now, when a new film comes out, we’re able to send a notice to our entire mailing list announcing it.

Is marketing entirely up to the filmmaker when it comes to bringing viewers to the site?

LIAM: I think we’ve done a really good job so far helping filmmakers spread the word, especially on social media but also through more traditional media outlets. Our earliest filmmakers were given access to our publicity resources, and really soon we’re going to be able to group films by genre or affinity group or what have you reach the audiences for those films more directly. But if by marketing you mean spending tons of money on advertising for individual films (sometimes even more money than it took to make the film!), then no, that’s not where we think anyone should be putting their resources.

We built Seed&Spark with a new model in mind. Films that begin in our Studio have the advantage of months and months during their crowdfunding and production phases to gather hundreds of dedicated followers. When it's time to release a film in the Cinema, there are so many untapped and virtually free ways that you can transform a core community of support into a paying audience in the 10,000s or more. And if you're a filmmaker with a new project in the Studio, it’s extremely beneficial for you to have a movie or two in the Cinema. Our recommendation metrics give top priority to projects and movies by the same filmmaker, so your efforts in fundraising will have the direct benefit of driving viewership toward your films in the Cinema, and vice versa.

I also want to mention that we’re planning some very exciting initiatives and partnerships that go even further beyond what I’ve already described to help filmmakers spread the word about their movie, but I can’t tell you anything about that yet. Standby!

Can you provide some background on the people behind Seed&Spark?

LIAM: All of us are filmmakers. We met on a location shoot two summers ago. Our CEO Emily Best was the producer of the film. I was the first AD. Our Chief Creative Officer Eve Cohen was the DP.

I'm a writer and director myself, and as a filmmaker who’s gained some experience in this brave new world of crowdfunding and building an audience from scratch, I wanted to help develop a platform that really works for the needs of my film and my team, but also for the community that inevitably emerges around every film project.

My short film Fog City was one of the pilot projects on the site, and my Wishlist campaign was the first to get the Greenlight in the Seed&Spark Studio. It's pretty cool getting to build something new and then be one of the first to actually test drive it. I’m using Seed&Spark as the single pipeline for Fog City, from beginning to end. And by “end” I mean the place where someone will actually pay a little something to watch my movie.

How do you see Seed&Spark growing in the future?

LIAM: Steadily and sure-handedly. We're meeting new filmmakers every day, many of whom who have already heard of us, and those who haven't always get the concept right away.

I'm really excited for when we start to have handfuls of Studio projects in the same geographic area working on their films at the same time. I think we're going to see filmmakers working together through the Wishlist and helping each other in ways that weren’t possible before.

I'm also extremely excited for the day when our Founding Filmmakers who launched the first crop of Studio projects with us begin to release their finished movies in the Cinema. Some of those projects have already wrapped shooting or are getting very close. It's so cool to follow their progress as they continue to post updates and grow a following for their film. Presumably some of these films will do a nice festival run first, but once they become available in the Seed&Spark Cinema, that's when we'll get to see what Seed&Spark can really do.

http://www.seedandspark.com/

The Future of Filmmaking from Seed&Spark on Vimeo.

Jared Moshe on "Dead Man's Burden"

What was your filmmaking background before setting out to make Dead Man's Burden?

JARED: I'd produced a number of independent films and documentaries including Corman's World, Silver Tongues, Beautiful Losers and Kurt Cobain About a Son. Dead Man's Burden is my first time behind the camera as a writer/director though. I had never really directed shorts or plays or anything else.

Where did the idea come from and what was the writing process like?

JARED: The idea for Dead Man's Burden came from the 150th anniversary of the Civil War.  After the War, America manufactured the Western as a myth to reunite the North and the South by looking west for a fresh start. The result was we whitewashed over a lot of wounds and left them festering beneath the surface. I wanted to tell a story that explores those wounds.

The writing process was fast - the first draft was finished in a month. The reason it was fast was I sat down to write knowing I wanted to make the film by the end of the year come hell or high-water. So I seized on my experiences as a producer to create certain rules that would allow me to do period drama for a budget. Limited locations, cast, extras, etc. But as much as you can make rules, a script will take on a life of its own. 

As I wrote I came to realize that the choices I wanted the characters to make were not necessarily the choices they would make. In the end, what was supposed to be a story of reunification became a tragedy of ideology.

Why did you decide to tackle a western and what do you think were the pros and cons of that decision?

JARED: I love Westerns, and in stepping behind the camera for the first time there was no question in my mind on the genre. In this industry you better make what you love because you never know if you're going to get another chance. 

What I didn't realize was that making a western was living a western. We shot on location at the end of a two-mile dirt road that became a mud pit every time it rained. There was no cell phone reception, a limited amount of film, and I had to figure out how to be timely and efficient in directing actors in period costumes, who were riding horses, shooting guns and doing some of their own stunts. 

Thankfully I had an incredibly talented and dedicated cast and crew, and together we overcame everything that was thrown at us.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan for distribution and recouping your costs? 

JARED: When we set out to raise our budget my producer Veronica Nickel and I agreed on a strategy to keep the costs low, as the market for independent films is soft, and we wanted to give our investors the best chance of recoupment. At the same time we understood that there is a large market for westerns in the US, and it's an underserved market, so we knew we had a core audience we could reach. 

We did as much research as we could to get numbers on recently released westerns (both in theaters and on DVD) and used that to come up with what we thought was a reasonable budget level. With my background as a producer I had investors I worked with before, and Veronica and my other producers were able to put together the rest of the budget using private equity and the New Mexico tax incentives. 

Once the film was in the can we had a team working hard on outreach to the Western loving audiences so that when our sales agent Josh Braun brought the film to market at Los Angeles Film Festival we had information we could present about who would see this film and how to reach them.

What camera(s) did you use and what did you love and hate about it?

JARED: We used a single Panavision Platinum 2-perf 35mm camera with a Panaflex G2 as a backup. I loved that we were shooting film. In fact that was one of the most important decisions I made early on in the process. We were going to shoot 35mm no matter what.  As much as I think HD can create beautiful images, it lacks the ability to capture the depth and scope of landscapes, and in any good western the landscape is a character. 

In our case the endless of the landscape offered a sense of hope, a blank canvas where our characters could re-create their lives, but it was also a mote that kept Martha and Heck isolated away from the world. To have not captured it on film would have been to shoot ourselves in the foot from day one. Of course the downside of shooting on film is that you have to be incredibly frugal in your set ups, number of takes and how long you let the camera roll. I can't tell you how many times I wished I had extra film to get one more angle or additional b-roll. 

How did you and your DP, Robert Hauer, decide on (and execute) the look of the movie?

JARED: We really wanted a look that respects the rich history of the Western. First and foremost that meant shooting on 35mm film. We chose 2 perf 35mm because that created a natural widescreen look. Second it meant seizing on the tropes of the genre. Rob and I both indulged in watching numerous westerns: High Noon, Unforgiven, Once Upon a Time in the West, and most importantly The Searchers, as I wanted Dead Man's Burden to be a film that evoked John Ford. 

At the same time we needed to make the look work for the modern eye, and to that end Rob and I decided to embrace everything that was natural about our location; capturing the harshness of the light and the landscape which contrasted with the warm tones that were natural to the environment. 

How did the movie change in the editing and why did you feel the changes were important?

JARED: The biggest change in the edit involved the structure of the first act. In the script I really established Martha and her world before introducing Wade. In the finished film although we see Martha in the opening, Wade is the first character we really get to know. What this accomplished was to establish Martha and Wade as equally important to the story and not favor one over the other. 

The reason why this change was important is that I want my audience to come away identifying two very different points of view. The tragedy of Dead Man's Burden is that both Wade and Martha are very right and very wrong in their beliefs and the question that drives the film is: will they be able to see past their differences.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

JARED: The smartest thing I did during production was to put together a talented team of collaborators who I trusted to help me learn what I didn't know and enhance my vision for the film. Given that we were such a low budget production I knew we had limited time on set, so it was incredibly important to get my key cast and crew on board as early as possible. This allowed for everyone to discuss and share ideas before we got into the hurried and stressful on-set environment, and it allowed for my collaborators to take a sense of ownership in the film.

The dumbest thing I did was probably choose to step behind the camera for the first time ever -  I hadn't made shorts or directed plays or actors before this - and go make a period piece shot on location and on film, with horses, guns and stunts, and do it all in 18 days on a shoestring budget.

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you have taken to other projects?

JARED: What didn't I learn from making this film? I tend to believe you're always learning if you're willing to listen and after Dead Man's Burden I have a better understanding of how to embrace the realism of production design from Ruth De Jong; how light can enhance character thanks to Rob Hauer; how fabrics make a costume thanks to Courtney Hoffman; how a cut can twist a point of view thanks to Jeff Israel; and, well, the list goes on and on. 

Everything I've learned I hope will make me a better collaborator on the next film.

Nelson Cheng on "The Magic Life"

What was your filmmaking background before setting out to make The Magic Life?

NELSON: I had just produced my first web series (The Consultants) -- so my background was pretty light. However, after the rush and angst of learning everything that you do the first time you produce something, I realized that I both had a decent amount of film equipment (or knowledge of) and connections to cinematographers and other film professionals that my mind started expanding in terms of the types of projects I could do. A documentary seemed daunting but feasible.

Where did the idea come from and what was your process for determining the film's subjects? 

NELSON: At the time, I was a member of the Magic Castle -- it's sort of the home / clubhouse for magician's all around the world and as a consequence, I got to know a lot of magicians. A story I often heard was something along the lines of that these magicians would meet someone, and that person would inevitably ask what they did. They would say they're a magician and the person would say something like, "Oh that's fantastic! That's great!" Then there would be this pause and they would be asked, "So what is it you actually do?" The original conceit was a documentary looking at "the business side of being a magician" -- this profession that people couldn't even conceive of as being a profession. 

In terms of determining the film's subjects -- initially, I just started filming magicians. I would then ask those magicians if they knew anyone else I should talk to and one magician led to another until I reached Dale Salwak -- a significant character in the film who runs the Chavez Studio of Magic. At the time, one of his students was Yang Yang, one of the film's main subjects. He had a certain joie de vivre that I responded to and we filmed a lot of Yang Yang and originally built much of the film around him.

However, after sharing some early footage with a very important contributor -- Penelope Falk (who won the editing prize at Sundance for "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work") -- Penny just thought we needed more and asked who else I had / knew. The first two names I mentioned were Matthew Noah Falk (I described him as a 20-something living a block from the Magic Castle and performing for tips on Hollywood Boulevard) and Michael Friedland (I described him as an NYU MBA graduate, successful in business, and just moved to L.A. to pursue a career in magic.) She said, "Those two sound interesting. I would go film them." So we did.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan for recouping your costs? 

NELSON: This project was self-financed. It's never cheap making films, but certainly the production costs of a documentary can be kept quite manageable. For me, at least, it's post and then festival / marketing related expenses which proved to be the majority of expenses. Regarding a financial plan for recouping costs -- I think the strong likelihood is I won't recoup the costs. Statistically, there are just very few docs that recoup their costs. The sale prices and other revenue simply aren't high enough. That being said, and I'm certainly not alone among filmmakers who feel this way, but simply hearing from and interacting with people who respond to and with whom this film resonates with has made it all worthwhile.

What camera(s) did you use and what did you love and hate about it?

NELSON: We used a number of different cameras. We primarily shot on the HVX-200 but also used the AF-100, the 7D, and -- believe it or not -- there's some footage from the Flip HD. I was pretty stunned that the Flip HD could hold up when blown up to a theater-size screen. It's not ideal, but usable. Also, a lot of those shots we simply would not have gotten or would've had a lot of trouble getting if we didn't have such a small / convenient camera available.

The HVX-200 is a good camera -- it's a real workhorse. The main drawback for me is that it's not that good in low light conditions. Also, no interchangeable lenses and the offloading of footage is a little cumbersome. The AF-100 (at the time I had only rented the camera -- now I own one), I think, is better than the HVX in every way. Bigger chip size, very good in low light conditions, interchangeable lenses, shoots to CF, etc. It's really terrific -- if I did another doc, I would primarily use the AF-100.

The 7D (and 5D Mark II) are really difficult cameras to use for shooting docs. Much harder to manage because you'll want to record sound to something like the Zoom H4n and the camera has that automatic shutoff thing after 10 min, etc. It's just not designed for docs -- the workflow is quite messy.

The Flip HD -- I certainly can think of improvements. Would love even higher picture quality (terrible in low light conditions) and just an overall upgrade in terms of its audio which can be quite bad -- but it's hard to beat its portability. I usually had a couple of Flip cams lying around just to take something spur of the moment.

How long did shooting take and did your vision for the movie change much during the shooting and editing process?

NELSON: We shot for about a year and a half. The vision changed quite a bit, frankly. I started off wanting to make something probably a lot more analytical -- investigating the business side of being a magician. Over time, it evolved into something -- for me at least, that was much more visceral -- following the stories of three fairly different individuals as they try and turn their passion into their career.

What was great about how it evolved was that it both gave a framework with which to look at the larger world of magic (talking to builders of magic, world champions of magic, famous magicians, etc.) but also asked questions along the lines of why some people make it and some don't -- how much of it is talent vs. attitude vs. perspective vs. support system, etc.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

NELSON: The two smartest things were getting more experienced people involved and to just start filming. Re: getting more experienced people involved. As an example, I met Seth Keal -- one of the producers on "Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work" -- after one of their Sundance screenings. I just loved that film and frankly, started randomly talking to him. He's a magician himself, became interested in the project, and offered to help. In addition to literally sharing all the details of what they shot "Joan" on (literally sending me links to the various pieces of equipment on B&H), he also introduced me to Penny Falk -- their editor.

As I mentioned earlier, Penny was instrumental in helping guide and shape the film from some of its earliest stages and introduced me to our wonderful editor, Erik Dugger, with whom she had previously co-edited a film. Penny felt that Erik's sensibility would both work well for this film and also that he and I would work well together -- and she was absolutely right.

The reason I also mention to just start filming was that I think it would been easy for me to sort of sit in stagnation -- especially because I didn't have any experience. So I could hang out for a long time paralyzed by fear of not knowing what I was doing, or that I was making a mistake, or even being afraid of what other people might say.

What was good about filming immediately was that one thing always led to another and, frankly, you start seeing problems and solving them -- especially when you get people involved. As a minor example, there's a scene in the film where one of our characters, Yang Yang, meets Lance Burton. I remember looking at the footage and just thinking it was a bit dark -- I mentioned this to Seth and he immediately told me, "Oh, buy an onboard light." That solved it. So sometimes it was small things and other times it was big things -- but by doing, we could get to fixing issues quickly rather than planning ourselves into oblivion.

The dumbest thing, and I'm not trying to be clever with this answer -- but it's the same two things, but on the flip side. I wish I got even more people involved. I'm certainly more secure and knowledgeable now in terms of what I know I can do and what I don't -- but at the time, everything was just such a mystery to me and I didn't always feel comfortable reaching out for help. Or even knowing who to go to.

I've thought about this in the context of when I was a product manager. When I worked as a PM, I liked to gather as much information as possible -- at times, I would literally read every customer service email for the products I worked on. The vast majority of information I came across was not actionable -- but some percentage was and all of it helped shape my view of the product.

So someone might have a thought on a particular sequence or music cue or even a magician that could strength a storyline -- all of it helps contribute to making an even stronger film and so I would've liked to have really pushed myself more in that aspect.

Re: filming right away -- I think it's always a fine balance between preparation and just doing it. I know people on the extremes -- those that plan so much they never do anything and those that do things too soon and could benefit from even a modicum of planning. I recently read an interview with David France, whose documentary, "How to Survive a Plague" is Oscar-nominated for Best Documentary this year. In it, he mentions that in preparation for making the doc (he was a first time filmmaker), he watched a documentary every day, for two years. What fantastic preparation. So that's a great lesson for me -- do but always push yourself in terms of how much you can prepare.

What has been the reaction to the movie by its subjects?

NELSON: I would say surprisingly good. Positive feedback from all of them and a number of subjects have appeared with us for various Q&As and the like. I only use the word surprisingly because being in a documentary is quite an intimate experience -- and we get to see many of our subjects in fairly substantive / private moments, so you never know how someone will react when they see it in that format.

I think one of the pieces of feedback that I've felt most proud of is when subjects or their friends say something along the lines of, "That's you." -- which I interpret as us having really captured the spirit and essence of who they are and those circumstances. 

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you have taken to other projects?

NELSON: I found making a film to be a fairly complete and fascinating process. I mentioned earlier that I used to work as a product manager -- as great and challenging of a job as that is, it's very different in the sense that there's a lot of visible and invisible institutional support / structure. That's something that was quite apparent when I started making this film -- there's no structure around you. Everything has to be built from the ground up -- from the nuts and bolts logistics to the network you invariably need.

I think the biggest thing I learned was that anything -- whether it's something completely brand new or a close variant of something you've previously done -- there's just a process and a way things are done or could be done. It's learning those things and just incrementally learning, getting better, and moving forward. Not to be paralyzed by the enormity of it all. There may be 1000 things you don't know at the start, but if you learn 3 of them every day -- you'll get there in a year. 

Lauralee Farrer on "Not That Funny"

What was your filmmaking background before setting out to make Not That Funny?

 LAURALEE: I started producing other peoples' films, and made my first personal, handmade documentaries Laundry and Tosca (www.laundryandtosca.com) and The Fair Trade (www.thefairtrademovie.com) less than a decade ago. With them I began to develop a style of storytelling that investigates the internal life of true stories. It intrigued me to go from there to making fiction by inserting narrative into documentary circumstances. I did that to a small degree with Not That Funny, and much more so now with my latest project Praying the Hours—with which I have much more creative license.

Not That Funny was a sort of commission I was hired to make, even though I did write, direct and in some ways help to produce it. It was a departure in some ways, but it was invaluable experience. I am influenced by Errol Morris, Terrence Malick, Kristof Kieslowski, Paul Thomas Anderson. Those will seem strange influences for a movie like Not That Funny, but it's all part of a long process of learning the craft and finding one's voice. I came to the process of directing later in my life, so I bring a lot of eclectic experiences with me.

Where did the idea come from and what was your process for working with your co-writer on the script?

LAURALEE: The movie stars Tony Hale as a romantic lead, and this unique project started as a desire to show Tony's considerable range as a charismatic actor. We are friends, and had been wanting to do a film for some time together. Then the executive producer of what became Not That Funny came to me with a low budget and a script that I didn't resonate with.

I woke up soon after remembering a story idea that a friend of mine (co writer Jonathan B. Foster) had—a story about a guy who tries to become funny to interest a woman he's taken with. The idea of casting the funniest man I know as a serious romantic lead who tries to become funny and fails—that seemed like a great idea, and producer Jack Hafer went for it. I will always be grateful to him for letting us make the film we wanted to make instead of the script he had put a considerable amount of development time and money into finding. That was a bold risk. We brought in hands-on producer Terence Berry and we were off.

As for the collaboration process, Jonathan lives in Seattle, and we flew him down to Los Angeles a couple of times, but mostly we wrote together through email and over the phone. I'd write at night after work and he would write in the morning before work. We'd pass the drafts off to each other like relay runners. We have a very long and dear friendship, so we knew we would work well together, even though, as the saying goes, I hate writing—I like having written. But our collaboration could not have been more ideal. He's a gifted writer and a dear friend. Plus we did not kill each other.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan for recouping your costs?

LAURALEE: This is the first film I have made that I am not financially responsible for, so I can't really answer that. As I say, the exec prod came to me with a set figure and the hopes that I could pull off a feature with it. We employed all the basic tenets of no-budget filmmaking, even though (in order to use Tony and most of our cast) we had to be a SAG signatory.

What camera did you use and what did you love and hate about it?

LAURALEE: We bought two Canon 5Ds and borrowed a 7D as well. It was when the 5D was newly out and I think we were one of the first features shot with it. It was a risk back then because very few people were using the 5D for a product that was intended to hold up on a theater-sized screen. We ended up with an amazing look given the cost-point of the camera—I've seen it on large theater complex screens and it looks amazing.

I started with the intention to have more than one camera and wanted the freedom of shooting in such a way that allowed everyone to keep their full-time jobs, so that meant having full access to the equipment. So, we purchased. Also, we scheduled over half the film with "micro-crews" in order to get authentic moments with a lot of ready-made production value by having a crew of 3-4 people (sometimes with a sound guy in a nearby van). In this case, the camera's low-profile SLR appearance allowed us to keep a relatively small footprint.

We were very happy with how the film looked in the end. Of course, there were challenges--it's a challenging camera to focus, it's not that mobile for hand-held, and it doesn't do very well with contrast, so we ended up with some blown out whites that we were unable to fix in post because there simply was no information there.

We owe a great debt of gratitude to our DP Brandon Lippard, our editor Matt Barber, and our colorist Greg King for what they did with the limited resources we had. They made an amazing looking film.

Did the movie change much in the editing process, and if so, how?

LAURALEE: As I say, our editor Matt Barber and our colorist Greg King were able to do wonders managing the great amount of footage we had and articulately cutting the film together, and then matching and enhancing that imagery. We all spent a lot of hours together, which was great because I came to love those guys very dearly. I was very lucky to work with this gifted team, and became very attached to them all, including Michelle Garuik who did miracles with the sound.

We shot and cut basically the film that we wrote, but I ought to acknowledge that we wrote the first draft alongside doing pre-production and wrote throughout shooting to accommodate shifting locations, cast hiccups, etc. I remember losing a location at the last minute and calling Jonathan at work in the middle of a company move to ask, "What will shift if we make Kevork an auto-repair guy instead of a shoe repair guy?" And he rewrote while we were driving to the new location.

And it should be said that the film matured in the editing process because of the music, as always. Our composer David Hlebo's soundtrack was augmented by some very talented local bands who are also friends—Evan Way, the Parson Red Heads, Lauren and Matt Meares, Jeana and Mikey Master, to name a few. The music has been a big hit with festival audiences, and we were privileged to have that kind of talent so generously loaned to us.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

LAURALEE: The smartest thing we did during production was to make the loving treatment of people our first priority. We have a code of honor that we call the Kinema Commonwealth, articulated by our First AD Matt Webb and editor Matt Barber, which calls for three things: the respectful treatment of the story, the creative artists involved (and by that I mean all the filmmaking community) and the community within which the film is shot.

We had a reputation for creating a supportive environment, and Tony was a hero as the leading man setting the tone, he was always encouraging and in a great mood. Similarly, he claims it is the best shooting environment he's ever been in. One of my favorite memories is from after we wrapped: one of the grips texted to say "I started a new show today and the director did not hug ANY OF US!"

We had great food hand-prepared by our Associate Producer Ron Allchin and his team (including his wife Dolores). The night that we wrapped one of the featured actors, he put his head on my shoulder and cried, saying he'd never in his life been treated so well by a film crew. I know the film industry has a reputation for eating its young, but from my perspective that's intolerable. Life is too short to treat people unkindly.

The dumbest thing we did was anything that failed at keeping that respect for people our first priority. I am not saying we always succeeded. But when we didn't, it was our biggest mistake.

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you have taken to other projects?

LAURALEE: Not That Funny was a terrific experience for me, even though it was a departure from the style of film that I normally make. My creative partner at Burning Heart Productions Tamara Johnston McMahon and I made two sober, thoughtful documentaries before it and now we are working on a very ambitious project called Praying the Hours (www.prayingthehours.com) which is also much less light-hearted than Not That Funny.

But this film taught us a lot about the challenges of making a film that is sweet, humorous, charming. We wanted very much for it not to be a film that was broad humor, but one that left people feeling good and also thinking about what it means to truly love. We have had a great reception from audiences—we've won the audience award several times in festivals.

I am very proud of this little film, and what we were able to do with the resources we had available to us.

Michael Olmos and Youssef Delara on "Filly Brown"

What was your filmmaking background before setting out to make Filly Brown?

MICHAEL: Film school. Production work. I did a microbudget feature for Dark Horse Entertainment called Splinter. I directed a segment in the feature, Bedrooms.

Where did the idea come from and what was the writing process like?

YOUSSEF: I found myself at the Green Cottage one night, a small cave-like venue with bleachers and a weather-beaten stage in West Hollywood, CA. An annex to Fairfax High-school hidden away behind the bustle of the city, It’s a place where street poets, rappers and dreamers come to spit verse. After my first show I was hooked.

The poets held an uncanny power over us, taking us on a journey. We laughed and cringed as they dealt out word after word. I was intrigued by the idea of how words informed the world, how that night they drew me and the entire audience into the mind of the artist.

I left that night with the idea of telling a story about a person who uses a lie to create her world. When the basis of one’s word is built on lies it is unable to cause change or move people. I think that’s why we gravitate to music that is honest, sometimes vulgar even, because the truth is a magnet. I wanted to tell a story about a person’s journey to discovering herself through their music.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan for distribution and recouping your costs?

YOUSSEF: I remember the exact moment I got the news that we were financed and the deep sense of relief that took over me. I get a ton of anxiety during the financing portion of a film, when key cast members agree to do the picture but you don't have all the money.

There is only a small window where the cast, especially one's as talented and busy as the ones we had, would be available. You have to strike while the iron is hot and many independent films don't come together for this reason.

Bottom line, my brother and Producer on Filly Brown, Amir Delara, found us an angel investor who financed the picture. We were mindful to keep the overall cost to a reasonable figure based on the type and genre of picture but it was definitely one person who believed in the story and the commercial potential of it.

We set out to tell a story that needed to be told. We felt 2nd and especially 3rd generation Latinos would be drawn too this story, but we never imagined that it would be selected by Sundance and then distributed at the scale that it is. We never imagined we'd find distributors bold enough to take a film like this to its audience, which typically has been very difficult to draw.

People have preexisting notions of how a "Latino" film or "Hip Hop Urban" film should look and sound like and they carry those notions around with them. Fighting through that and all the media that audiences are bombarded with from bigger studio releases to present a challenge to an indie film. Our plan was to release the film independently knowing that there would be a massive audience for it and that we'd have to slowly tease them out to experience the film. We felt Filly Brown cold be a word of mouth film which could really grow and find its audience.

What camera(s) did you use and what did you love and hate about it?

YOUSSEF: We shot with the RED camera on a MX sensor at a 1 to 6 compression. I absolutely love, love, love RED. I understand the nostalgia of film but I've been one to embrace technology.

On an indie film it just makes so much sense, the post workflow is pretty easy and the image is phenomenal, especially when you color correct the 4K footage. No need to process film, convert to video for editing , or negative cut. All that is eliminated which saves money. Being effecient in post is crucial to the success of an independent film.

MICHAEL: We were moving so fast that not waiting for camera reloads came in handy. 

You shared roles on this project: Director and Producer. What's the upside and the downside of doing that?

YOUSSEF: The very nature of an independent film is such that you have to wear multiple hats and you have to wear them well. You're always under-manned and under-financed so you have to over work.

The advantage is the wealth of experience and knowledge that's available to you as a Director, then Producer and in my case as an Editor, and Post Supervisor. I can't stress what a luxury it is to be able to just get it done and not rely on others. The short hand you can have with yourself and the efficiency of last second critical decisions without dealing with other people's egos.

The negative is that at the end of the day, you’re overworked and underpaid and that's not easy on my wife and my little two-year old boy who I miss terribly when I have to put in 16 hour days, 6 days a week. The film takes over, and your real life is put on hold.

And once you done with the movie, you have to catch up on all the menial stuff you couldn't get time to do. After a week of catching up, you really didn't make enough money to take a vacation, so you have to get back to work surviving anyway you can. You're equal parts fulfilled and exhausted. Being fulfilled is very important to me, so for now, I'll take being exhausted.

MICHAEL: Producing came with it's own set of challenges. You constantly have to switch from creative mode to put out a production emergency, and back.

Directing together also had it's own pros and cons. We have a friendship and respect for each other’s aesthetic that made our collaboration organic.

What was the smartest thing you did during production? The dumbest?

MICHAEL: Smartest? Spent time working with the actors to establish trust and a common creative language.

Dumbest? Not sleep enough and came down with the flu for the first 2 weeks of shooting.

And, finally, what did you learn from making the film that you have taken to other projects?

MICHAEL: Prep as much as humanly possible.