Thursday, January 22, 2015

Colin Healey on "Homemakers”


What was your filmmaking background before making Homemakers?

COLIN: My dad is a photographer, and he was making videos of me and with me from toddler age.  I learned to edit deck-to-deck with VHS tapes at an arts camp called DASAC in the late nineties.  I also went to art school at the Rhode Island School of Design in their film and animation program and that’s where I found a lot of my collaborators. 

I really found myself as a filmmaker in the summers in college when I would teach video at DASAC and run around all day with costumes and a video camera making chaos with thirteen-year-olds.  Teasing something fantastic out of their nutty visions.

Where did you get the idea and what was the writing process like?

COLIN: A lot of my college-era work was about families and finding a home.  Particularly disconnected families was a theme.  I moved to Pittsburgh and was suddenly confronted with this city where families had been split up by the steel collapse.  Many people had left for Sun Belt pastures, leaving behind so many empty houses.  That, and I was living with a girlfriend for the first time, making a home that way. 

I wrote the film in a studio I had in a bombed-out old sign factory I was trying - unsuccessfully - to fix up a bit, and walking around on shifts as a security guard at the Andy Warhol Museum.

How did you cast the movie and did the script change much once you had your cast in place?

COLIN: Rachel McKeon lived with my studio mate but she actually found us through an ad we put out, and we found Jack Culbertson and a lot of good single scene players that way.  Molly Carlisle is a painter friend I had taught with who was in my thesis film. 

Once Rachel was on board, she really knew the theater scene in the city and we reached out together to respected Pittsburgh actors.  Our co-producer Adrienne Wehr helped fill in the gaps once she came on board.  She worked tirelessly to find an actress to play the burlesque ghost.


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

COLIN: Honestly, I can’t.  But!  I’ll tell you why I can’t:  we are still negotiating with distributors.  After we’ve sold, I can be more transparent.  I can say that financially, this would have been impossible without the house we shot in.  One of our production designers, Seth Clark, and our props master Travis Rohrbaugh were regulars and occasional employees at a great bar called the Bloomfield Bridge Tavern, owned by our friend Steve Frankowski.  He owned the house and used it as storage.  Steve gave us free reign to use it however we liked as long as we had our own insurance and the art department helped him gut it afterwards.


What kind of camera did you use to shoot the movie -- and what did you love about it and hate about it?

COLIN: We used the Canon C300, mounted on our DP Ben Powell’s heroic shoulder.  Nearly every shot is a Zeiss 28mm or a Canon 50mm.  Those two focal lengths are approximate - in different ways - to how the human eye sees, and Ben felt these lenses allowed a potentially cartoonish world to feel grounded. 

We chose the C300 because of it’s incredible low-light performance.  We didn’t want to use movie lights at all - and didn’t - because we wanted to capture light in this dusty old house as it was.  We wanted the indoor lighting to feel like it was coming from our character’s aesthetic choices, so practicals became a huge aspect of the set design and it was a conversation between myself, Ben, Danielle, Seth and Rachel. 

Most of all, I wanted the actors, playing drunk and wild a lot of the time, to have free range of movement and to have any prop or wall as an option.  Lights would just get in the way in that tiny house.  I love love love the C300 and what it allowed us to do.


Did the movie change much in the editing and, if so, why did you make those changes?

COLIN: Cuts, mainly.  The story wasn’t really altered - there had been a big script rewrite mid-production that worked a lot of kinks out.  A lot of scenes were cut in the edit, though.  One major scene was cut right before we premiered. 

The tricky thing with this film was finding a balance between the melodramatic elements and the slapstick.  Early cuts struggled because of that.  But in the end our editor Dave Schachter came up with some genius solutions that allowed us to move it into a more centered place, and Matt Bryan’s finished score really drove it home.

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

COLIN: The dumbest thing I did was underestimate how much organizational help we would need.  I really didn’t think we needed to do things like regular movies and have all this staff.  A week into production it was clear we needed some steadier hands to come in so we added a co-producer to teach our young producers how to rock out, and we added an assistant director Jeremy Braverman to teach our young director how to rock out, and it was pretty smooth from there. 

The smartest thing I think I did was hire great people.  And really trust them to do their jobs, and make sure they have the environment they need to create.


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

COLIN: I learned the most about leadership.  I can take that to any project, even if I’m the only person I’m leading.  Improving as a leader, and thinking about yourself as a leader - in terms of the responsibilities, not the perks - is the best thing you can do for yourself as any kind of artist, particularly one who literally gets people do things. 

I also learned so much about the festival process.  It’s important to know what you’re getting into, and we really didn’t.  But at the same time, one thing that allowed us to be so creative was just saying ‘we aren’t going to talk about festivals.’

Our goal wasn’t to get into Sundance, although that would have been nice.  Our goal was to enable each other to make our most creative decisions.  And we absolutely did.  Killed it.  1000%.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Alan Cumming on "The Anniversary Party"


What was your inspiration to do this movie?

ALAN CUMMING: Well, first of all, Jennifer and I both wanted to work together. We were in Cabaret together on Broadway, but we didn't really do anything together in the show. But we just got on and wanted to do something. We knew we wanted to explore working together, so it came from that.

And we wanted to write something about how we felt about relationships at that point in our lives -- something that was very current for ourselves and something that was honest and open. And also we wanted to use elements of ourselves, or experiences, and put that into a story.
How did you divide up chores of writing and directing?

ALAN CUMMING: We didn't, really. People understand the notion that you can write together. I think people have more trouble with the idea of directing together. But it wasn't divided up; it was quite smooth. We both would talk. I would do of the shouting and general announcements.

But there were certain actors where we said, 'You talk to him,' or, 'I'll talk to her.' We were very aware that we get better results with one of us talking to someone rather than the other.

It's not difficult to direct with someone else; it's actually really nice.

In a way the whole film, with it's theme about openness, and it's very much an ensemble thing, and we were using everybody who were our friends and we were using elements of them in the story as well. And the crew, they were all doing it for, obviously, very little money.

It was very sort of democratic, with the crew and everyone. There were no trailers. We all ate together. If someone wasn't working, they'd just lie on the lawn. We tried to open out, ask people's opinion. It's easy to make people feel good about coming to work. You just have to make them feel involved and that you respect their opinion and it's not an autocracy. When you have that attitude, it makes it very easy to have two directors.
Were the actors nervous about doing a digital feature?

ALAN CUMMING: No, I don't think so. If anything, they were nervous that they would look bad. We all rightly think of video as making you look hideous, shiny and awful. So that was why we got an incredible DP. We wanted to make sure that the film looked good, that was our main concern. As exciting as it can be to shoot on video and have that eavesdropping feel, the films that we had seen prior to making ours were ghastly. The technology, the process of transferring from video to film was still in its infancy, and it wasn't looking good.
The scene where the guests give out their presents is a pretty interesting scene. How much of it was written?

ALAN CUMMING: For that scene, we asked the actors to make up their own speeches for that or to make their own things. We guided them about what perhaps their character might say, what their character's angle might be, but we left it up to them to make up their thing. It was really fascinating.

We shot their stuff and our reactions at the same time. We were hearing it for the first time, which was really exciting. And also, they were really nervous, like you would be really nervous standing up and doing that, because they were actually having to perform something that they had written for the first time, too. It was good -- it worked.
What was the biggest lesson you took away from the experience?

ALAN CUMMING: Biggest lesson; Treat people respectfully. There's a sort of vogue, and there has been for decades now, that the director is god and the director is all knowing.

But when you say to someone, 'I don't understand this and I'm asking your advice because you're better at it than me,' by doing that and involving people and making the film truly a collaborative process, you get much better results. You get a better film and you get happier people and get an atmosphere on the set that is truly creative.


Thursday, January 8, 2015

Jamin Winans on "The Frame"

What was your filmmaking background before making The Frame?

JAMIN: I got into filmmaking when I was a kid (about 10).  Just grew up with an RCA camcorder on my shoulder.  I made my first feature on VHS editing on two VCRs when I was 17 (it was horrible).  I then went to film school for a year, dropped out and started Double Edge Films (about 16 years ago).  

Since then I've made a number of shorts and three features (11:59, Ink, and The Frame).

Where did you get the idea and what was the writing process like?

JAMIN: Ultimately I wanted to make a movie about the feeling of being abandoned by God.  I wanted to explore the questions of God's existence, God's nature (benevolent or malevolent) and how we struggle between control and submission.

The writing process for me always starts with images.  I'll get an image of a moment and begin asking questions.  Those questions eventually lead me to knowing the character and what brought him/her to that moment.  With The Frame there were two primary images I started with; a man physically fighting to get out of a cage, and the man picking up a violin.

I work for months (if not years) on an extensive outline and then write the actual script fairly quickly.


How did you cast the movie and did the script change much once you had your cast in place?

JAMIN: The casting was headed up by my wife and producer, Kiowa.  We were determined to have a very democratic and nation-wide casting call so we used Breakdown Express and Actors Access.  We received about a thousand submissions for each role and Kiowa went through them one by one.

After looking at demo reels, headshots, and resumes she narrowed it down to a handful of actors she thought might be right.  We then sent those actors a few scenes to read and gave them a week to submit a taped audition.  From those we found David Carranza and Tiffany Mualem who we fell in love with.  We flew them out and auditioned them in person before giving them the roles.

The other roles were almost entirely people we knew or had worked with.  Christopher Soren Kelly is a long time collaborator and friend who's been in a number of our films.  Almost all of the actors were out of Denver (where we shot). 

Very little of the script changed after casting.  During rehearsal David, Tiffany and I tweaked some dialogue once we got a sense of how it played, but generally we kept everything as it was.


How did you and DP Robert Muratore establish and execute the look of the film?

JAMIN: Robert was involved a good year before we shot.  We're good friends so every casual get together quickly turned into talking about the film.  We watch a lot of movies together and talk about them constantly so we had a really good film reference shorthand.  I could mention the look of almost any movie and Robert knew what I was talking about.

We had the typical conversations about aesthetic that most filmmakers have.  We started with theme and discussed how best to capture that visually.  We had various rules we established early that stemmed from the point of view the story is coming from.  One big rule we had was "no handheld."  That made the shoot a lot more complicated because if we wanted the camera to move it meant it was on a dolly, jib, or steadicam.  All of those things take time and resources.   We also wanted the film to be dark, but very natural.  We had a number of references we kept going back to.

But the bulk of our conversations were much more technical.  There are some big visual ideas in the film and one specifically that I've never seen done before (the "Frame" visual).  That was difficult because we didn't have any references to look out and know if the idea would even work.  We did a lot of testing starting with miniatures and mock-ups and eventually landed on our "Frame Rig."  I don't want to say too much about that for the those who haven't seen the movie yet, but in the end we were really happy with how it turned out.


What kind of camera did you use to shoot the movie -- and what did you love about it and hate about it?

JAMIN: This was my third feature on a Sony.  This was shot on the Sony F55 which came out just weeks before we started shooting.  We were lucky enough to get our hands on it just in time and absolutely loved it.  Everything about it was fantastic.  We shot and finished on 4k, the low light sensitivity was amazing (critical because we couldn't afford big lights) and it was small which is always a requirement for me.

I had no complaints whatsoever with the camera.  It was honestly about as perfect an experience as I have ever had.

Did the movie change much in the editing and, if so, why did you make those changes?

JAMIN: No, this was probably the most faithful I've ever stayed to the script and the storyboards.  I felt confident in the script and had spent five months storyboarding the film so I had worked out most of the issues by the time we shot.  I cut a few lines and shots, but for the most part it's very close to the script.


At what point in the process, as the composer, do you start thinking about the music and does that change as the edit is happening?

JAMIN: I usually start working on the music at the script phase.  The music helps me write and the writing helps me compose.  With The Frame I composed about 75% of it before we started shooting and I was able to use that on set for key moments.  Then in the edit I bounced back and forth between cutting and tweaking the music.

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

JAMIN: At one point in the shoot I just realized how well we had hired.  We just had the perfect cast and the perfect crew and that made all the difference.  The dumbest?  I can't think of any one thing, but I tend to be overly optimistic with what we can do which ends up making me miserable because I'm stressed the entire shoot.  But we always get through it.


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

JAMIN: More than anything each new film helps me gain more focus both as a storyteller and in life.  The Frame has given me a clearer path as to where I'm heading next.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Scott Kawczynski on “Trust, Greed, Bullets & Bourbon”

What was your filmmaking background before making Trust, Greed, Bullets & Bourbon?

SCOTT: I have a load of credits for Art Department in both broadcast TV and film, mostly for motion graphics and title sequences. Also, in terms of Production Design, I won an Emmy for MTV Unplugged in 2010, and was also the Production Designer for the short film Two Hands that was an Academy Award Nominee in 2007. For directing, this is my first feature, I directed a short back in 2008.

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

SCOTT: I had just a sliver of an idea of a simple heist gone wrong who-done-it, and I was watching a bunch of Hitchcock (Rear Window, Rope) and 12 Angry Men, and I thought of writing a small little story that takes place predominantly in one location and all the characters were stuck there.

My process is somewhat unique I guess. I don't think anyone should do exactly what another writer does, do what works for you. I am not a big outliner, I get the beats of the story done rather quickly. I am way too anxious and need to start writing. That first draft is where I get everything figured out and it takes the longest. Then I read it through and rip it apart and put it back together. And then I do that again.

I actually love the rewrite process. That is where you get to really dissect the writing and play with it. Trust, Greed, Bullets & Bourbon went through 11 complete rewrites. 


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

SCOTT: Going in, I knew I was going to fund the film myself. That sounds pretty crazy, but please understand this is a very, very low-budget film. I had a number in mind, that quickly doubled once we got into production.

Once the film was completed, when we were on the final cut of the film, I decided to do a Kickstarter to raise money for the color correction and sound mix. Honestly, I have a love/hate relationship with Kickstarter, but I felt OK using it in this case because I had a completed film done.

As for recouping costs, well, let's be honest, it's a truly independent film, so I had no expectation of making the money back. You hear this all the time, but I had to make this film, and I was going to do everything in my power to do it. That said, it is doing pretty well in terms of iTunes pre-orders and DVD sales, so I'm making a little bit back. The connections I have made with actors, crew, producers, investors and distributors has been incredible, and impossible had I not made the film.


How did you cast the film and did the script change much once you had your cast in place?

SCOTT: I cast the film mainly through and IMDBPro account. Living in NYC, I went through all the TV shows that shoot in New York and made a spreadsheet of actors I thought might fit the part. I did a ton of research, watching reels and back episodes of TV shows.

From there I emailed and called managers and agents. I had much better luck with emails actually. I think because I was able to spell everything out on what I was able to accomplish and why I thought the particular actor would be great in the role. With the cold calls, I would get an assistant whose first question always seemed to be "How much money is in it?" and would never hear back from the agent. 

The script did not change very much at all once the actors were on board. However, once we began shooting we did have conversations regarding the characters and their motives. I wanted the actors to be comfortable with what their characters were doing, and if what was on the page was not believable to them, we worked together to get it to a place where it did work. If something didn't make sense, we discussed it and fixed it.

We ended up adding one additional scene while shooting for this very reason. Dialog was a little different. As long as the actors were getting across the emotion and importance of the scene, I was fine with them going off script. 


What kind of camera did you use to shoot the movie -- and what did you love about it and hate about it?

SCOTT: We shot on a Sony F3 with Prime lenses. It was my DPs camera so I let him make this call. I was ready to rent an Arri Alexa, but we had a shooting schedule of 12 days, so I wanted him to be as comfortable as possible. From my point of view, the camera was great. Shot beautifully and workflow was seamless. 


Did the movie change much during editing, and if so, why did you make those changes?

SCOTT: They say that editing is the final rewrite of the script and that couldn't be more true. The story itself did not have any radical changes, but you just trim trim, trim until it is nice and tight. We reworked one scene, because it really was not working and when we yanked out a big section of it, realized nothing was lost, and that it actually made the story stronger. The script itself was a pretty lean 92 pages to begin with, but it's so important to make it clean and tight, always moving forward. 


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

SCOTT: I am going to give you two smartest things. First, we shot in upstate New York for most of the principal photography and had absolutely no rehearsal time at all. So instead of having everyone in separate hotel rooms, we all lived together for two weeks. It really created a great bond with the cast and crew and brought us all together. 

The second smart thing goes against what you generally hear. They tell you that the first day of shooting should be simple and easy to let the cast ease into the story. I did the exact opposite. The first day, we did 64 takes of an eleven-page scene. But, there was a method to the madness. The scene is about when the ensemble all get back together for the first time after five years apart. In reality, these people would be nervous and unsure of where they stood, just like my actors. So it worked perfectly, and we got one of the toughest scenes out of the way that first day. 

The dumbest thing, hands down, is not having catering set up. I had delusions of how the food was going to work out and it did not go as planned. We got it under control by the third day, but hungry cast and crew makes for cranky cast and crew. 


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

SCOTT: Making the film really reinforced the concept of great collaboration. Surround yourself with talented people who believe in what they are doing, and you will make something great that you are really proud of.

I had the honor of working with a group of great people that put everything they had and more into making this little film, and we are all extremely proud of it. In such a collaborative art form, it is crucial. It builds an incredible amount of trust and friendship. 


Trust, Greed, Bullets & Bourbon is available worldwide on iTunes, Amazon, Seed&Spark, VHX Digital, and DVD. Just go to http://trustgreedbulletsandbourbon.com 

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Hugh Sullivan on “The Infinite Man”

What was your filmmaking background before making The Infinite Man?

HUGH: I studied directing at film school, which provided me with the opportunity to make a few short films, and also to meet some great collaborators (Marden Dean, for example, was Director of Photography on both the film school shorts and The Infinite Man).

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

HUGH: There were a few ideas and desires I had. I’ve always enjoyed time travel and wanted to try my hand at it. I also wanted to look at a relationship as experienced by a somewhat troubled mind – a mind plagued by insecurities and ruminative thought. Time travel allowed me to approach these things quite explicitly. And I knew that I would be working with quite a small budget, and this kind of story seemed ideally suited to that.

The writing process was one of constant revision. Due to the inherently complicated nature of time travel, even the smallest change to a scene would reverberate throughout the entire script, and necessitate many more changes. Repeatedly. In fact, the experience of writing The Infinite Man was not too dissimilar to the experiences of its main character, Dean: constant frustration, endless revision and many, many tears.


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

HUGH: The film was financed through the South Australian Film Corporation’s FilmLab initiative. This meant the financing was pretty much guaranteed from a 1-page idea – a very strange and beautiful position to find oneself in. We have released the film theatrically in Australia, with the US and hopefully other territories to come.


How did you go about casting the movie ... and did the script change much once you had your cast in place?

HUGH: The casting process was quite traditional. Fortunately the film contains just three actors, which kept things pretty simple. I was familiar with Josh, Hannah and Alex’s work, and keen for them to read for the parts. And as soon as I saw them I knew they would be perfect.

Things changed very little as a result of casting. One thing that did have an enormous influence on the script was the location. Settling on the abandoned motel as the primary location necessitated a considerable rewrite. But I think we all felt it was worthwhile. At the very least it provided us with a place to stay for the duration of the shoot.


What kind of camera did you use to shoot the movie -- and what did you love about it and hate about it?

HUGH: We were fortunate enough to get a very good deal on an Arri Alexa. Obviously it’s a great camera, and while I hate to give such a dull response, I really have no quibbles whatsoever.


Did the movie change much in the editing, and if so, in what ways?

HUGH: The movie changed very little in the edit. Things were shortened, and a few scenes were removed. But with a piece such as this, where everything must fit together both temporally and spatially, it was impossible to significantly reorder things without rendering the whole somewhat illogical or entirely incomprehensible.


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

HUGH: I’m not sure what the smartest thing was, and as for the dumbest, well, I’ll let the viewer decide.

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


HUGH: Get the script right, respect the schedule and wear comfortable shoes.