Fast, Cheap Movie Thoughts

Kelley Baker on “The Angry Filmmaker Survival Guide Part Two: Sound Conversations With (un)Sound People”

2012-02-02T03:04:00.000-08:00

Although the book's focus is on sound, it's really on the bigger issue of the impact that sound has on movies and how low-budget filmmakers tend to forget that. What's the biggest sound mistake that low-budgeters make?

KELLEY: They don’t even think about sound until it’s too late! So many filmmakers have become in love with equipment. How often do you hear people say, “We just shot our new film with the 7D.” Or the RED, or whatever. Why aren’t they talking about story? Good visuals are a must, but good sound is even more important! If an audience can’t understand the dialog it doesn’t matter what you shoot on. No one stays in the theater to look at visuals (unless it was that damn Koyaanisqatsi and don’t get me started about that movie…).

Low Budget filmmakers have the most to lose if their sound isn’t good. They usually don’t have the money to fix it correctly in post and on a low budget film if the audio is bad people will shut it off. If you have very little money you need to spend as much as you can on production sound, it will save you TIME and MONEY in post production and make your film look that much more professional.

Why is the recording of sound often a last consideration on the set?

KELLEY: I wish I knew…

I think part of it is that everyone has been waiting around for camera and lighting for so damn long that now they just want to hurry up and shoot. I also think that it’s easier to imagine how a film is going to look, it’s much more difficult to imagine how a film is going to sound. Too many filmmakers think that it’s the visuals that are going to carry their films. It’s the story, acting and sound that actually do the heavy lifting, trust me on this one.

I blame Hollywood and the big expensive features for part of this. If you look at all of the comic book movies and a lot of the blockbuster films they spend so much time on visual effects and pyrotechnics to literally blow us away visually that many filmmakers think that’s what they need to do. The truth of the matter is that if you’re making a film for very little money I don’t care how good you and your friends are with After Effects, you can’t compete with Hollywood movies! It ain’t going to happen!

As Glen Trew (production recordist) points out, on any shoot most of the people involved have something to do with picture, the camera crew, the gaffers and grips, the production designer, make up and wardrobe, the list goes on and on. Usually there are only one or two people on the sound crew. So sound is considered less important and gets the short end of the stick.

The camera crews have convinced everyone that they’re the rock stars; they’re the important ones on a set. As Ken Karman (music editor) says, “No one ever came to Hollywood to fuck a sound guy!” The visual people have spent all this time telling everyone how important they are and if you repeat that over and over enough people start to believe you.

A friend of mine likes to say that when we had radio dramas those people could paint a picture with nothing but sound, silent films needed dialog cards and music to tell their stories… Just sayin.

What's wrong with the phrase "we'll fix it in post" when it comes to sound?

KELLEY: It’s much easier to fix sound in post then it is to fix picture. Fixing picture is incredibly expensive which is why I included post-production supervisors (Bob Hackl & Gregor Hutchison) in my book. They talk about how expensive it is to fix picture. But Gregor also points out how expensive it can be to fix sound. He worked on one film where the ADR bill was around $60,000. Most filmmakers don’t have that much for their entire budget.

But the question I like to ask is why are you fixing anything in post! Low Budget filmmakers need to spend more time in pre-production, you and I both know that’s where your film is really made. You need to try and solve potential problems before they come up! If you know one of your locations is really noisy then why not change the location! Find a better location, one that’s not on a busy street or on the landing pattern of the local airport.

I try to tell filmmakers any time you fix ANYTHING in post it is going to be a compromise and EVERYTIME you watch the film that fix is going to stand out to you and bother you!

Filmmakers think that they’re not really making a movie until they’re on the set, but the less money you have the more of a problem solver you need to be ahead of time. I see so many things in low budget films that if the filmmaker had spent a little more time BEFORE they started shooting, or a little more time on the set letting sound get properly set up they wouldn’t have those problems.

Boom or wireless?

KELLEY: I have to go with boom. Remember to get the best dialog your mic needs to be pointed at the mouth. With a boom mic you can do that. The boom mics are larger and have better electronics, wireless mics have gotten a lot better in the last few years, but booms still sound better.

If you’re putting a wireless mic on someone you’re making a huge compromise right then and there. The electronics are smaller, you’re usually putting a mic below someone’s mouth, like on their chest, and then you’re covering it for God’s sake! You’re putting clothing over it, sometimes multiple layers! How do you expect to get good sound? And the camera crew always just looks at you and says “Just put a wireless mic on the actor, we need to shoot.” I always tell them why don’t you shoot this on VHS then, because in my mind that’s similar to putting a wireless mic on an actor and then covering it.

Now there are times when you do need to go with a wireless, but that should be a last resort, not an every take thing.

Why is looping (ADR) not a wise solution in most cases?

KELLEY: You’re asking your actors to work with at least one arm tied behind their back. How do you expect them to give you a great performance weeks or months later, standing in a sterile recording studio? You’re saying I want you to go back to that intimate moment when you’re confessing something very personal and I expect you to do that without being on the set, without any other actors performing opposite you and you’re expected to watch yourself on a screen, repeat this performance and MAKE SURE YOU LIPS MATCH THE ORIGINAL! That’s really hard to do.

There are some actors who are amazing at it, but many are not. Many actors think that by ADRing them you’re trying to ruin their performance. I have done a bunch of ADR sessions and there are tricks that you can use to make it work better, but why make the actors go through that?

What’s finally happening is that directors are really seeing the difference in the original performance and the ADR and they are spending a massive amount of time on the mix stages trying to make the original useable. It would have been so much easier to do it right on the set. And once again on low budget films you usually don’t have much of a budget for ADR.

If your DP says that last take was a little shaky and they want to do it again you say yes. If the actor says they want to do it again because they know they can deliver that line better, you say yes. If the sound person says that take was distorted or there was background noise on it everyone says, “We’ll fix it later.” I can’t figure that out. A film crew is supposed to be a team with everyone working together trying to do their best. Why doesn’t anyone listen to sound?

If there are sound problems on the set, think about doing another take just for sound. Do a wild track of the actors on or near the set. They’re in costume, they’re in character and you have the same mic set up that you did for the other production takes. A wild track will almost always sound better then an ADR line done later.

I have seen ADR hurt so many low budget films because it isn’t done well and it really makes the film seem amateur. Try and avoid it.

What's the value of a sound designer to a low-budget filmmaker and why is it worth the money?

KELLEY: I think the phrase Sound Designer is one of the most mis-used terms in filmmaking. There are very few real Sound Designers working today. The original concept for the term is someone who is like the “Director of Sound,” someone responsible for all of the sound from the beginning, starting in pre-production.

Sound Designers are people like Walter Murch, Ben Burtt, Gary Rydstrom, Jim LeBrecht and a few others. Most people take the credit and they don’t come in until after the film is shot, and in my mind that’s too late. Now you’re concentrating on fixing problems and with schedules being so tight you have less and less time to be creative.

I think that filmmakers should consult with sound people during the pre-production stage, and most sound people will give you a break for a consultation before you start shooting. I can look at a script and see where there might be problems with sound a head of time. A good sound designer can start giving filmmakers ideas on how to really use sound in their films. Not just music, but how can you use sound to tell us something about a character without dialog? How can you use sound FX or backgrounds to move the story along?

If filmmakers start thinking about sound at the script writing or pre-production stage then a good sound designer can give you advice that is going to save you money and time in the long run, and make your sound track so much better in the end. I think what you would get out of a pre-production meeting with a good sound person will absolutely pay for itself, and then some.

You cite several favorite films in the book for their use of sound. What's your favorite film or filmmaker when it comes to the creative use of sound in film?

KELLEY: That’s not a fair question for me. I have so many friends in the business who do great work and if I forget to mention any of them I’m going to hear about it. My apologies up front to anyone I forget…

David Lynch absolutely because of what he does with sound and with visuals. Whether I like a particular film by him or not, he uses sound in amazing ways. The Coen Brothers do amazing things and they’ve been working with Peter Kurland (production recordist) since Blood Simple. I am not a fan of Steven Spielberg’s movies but I have so much respect for the sound and visuals in his films. He is a master when it comes to filmmaking and he surrounds himself with amazing people.

And then I look at the films that Walter Murch has been the editor/sound designer on, (The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, The English Patient). Amazing work.

Then there’s Gary Rydstrom (Saving Private Ryan, Monsters, Inc, War Horse) and Ron Eng (Mulholland Drive, Coraline) and my list could go on and on.

And finally, what's next for The Angry Filmmaker?

KELLEY: In addition to promoting this book, I’m working on Part Three of the Angry Filmmaker Survival Guide series, Self-Distribution & Tales From the Road, (you can only imagine some of my tour stories…).

Also I have a documentary I wrote and directed that I’m trying to finish and I’ve got a script that I’ve written about a musician that has been on the road too long that I’m going to be raising money for soon. And I’m co-producing a couple of documentaries for friends. And I’m already looking ahead to next Fall’s tour. Basically, I’m doing way too much right now, but it keeps me out of trouble.

And don’t forget to go to my website and pick up the new book, The Angry Filmmaker Survival Guide Part Two: Sound Conversations With (un)Sound People. (http://www.angryfilmmaker.com/cool-crap-to-own/books/new-book/)

Zack Parker on "Scalene"

2012-01-26T03:01:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Scalene?

ZACK PARKER: Scalene is actually my third feature. My first, Inexchange, was released in early 2006, and my second, Quench, in late 2008.

I've been making films since age 11, starting with my family's home video camera at the time, a Sony Super 8 Handycam. Filmmaking is pretty much the only endeavor I have ever pursued or had any interest in. I studied film at Ball State University for two years, before transferring to a Professional Film Studies Program at UCLA. Every job I've ever had has been, in some way, film related. From working as an usher and projectionist at a movie theatre, to working at Blockbuster, Suncoast, film critic for a newspaper, Production Assistant for Roger Corman, and on up to where I am now.

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

ZACK PARKER: The idea essentially came about through reactions of my previous two films, both of which received incredibly polarized responses. I found it fascinating that two people could watch the same film and see something completely different. This really got me thinking about human perception, and that I had never really seen that portrayed in a narrative form before. We've seen a lot of films about perspective, but not perception.

I co-wrote the film with Brandon Owens, who I've known since about seventh grade. We have worked on several films together, in one way or another. This was the first time I collaborated on a script and it was a wonderful process. It was great to have someone to bounce ideas off of, but not only that, someone who would challenge your ideas. We were always pushing each other to make the story better.

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

ZACK PARKER: Like all of my films, the financing was raised completely privately. I had the good fortune of working with my Executive Producer Mike Khamis, as well as my Producing partner Carlos Jimenez Flores. It was a very grassroots campaign of calling everyone we knew, and a lot that we didn't. Many people said "no," but enough said "yes" to get us where we needed to be.

I actually get a lot of indie filmmakers asking me about financing, "How do you raise money for a film?" I always tell them they are asking the wrong question. What you must ask is how can YOU raise money for a film. We all come from different backgrounds with different contacts, resources, experiences, etc.

I think the key to raising money is being realistic with yourself. Look around and see what you have, what you can get, what you need to spend money on, and what you can get for free. Then come up with a story that you have a passion for that fits within those boundaries that can also show off who you are as a filmmaker.

As far as recouping goes, I have decided to experiment with a new form of hybrid distribution with Scalene. We are doing a kind of "roll-out" release, making the film available in more and more places, and on more and more platforms, over the course of several months.

We received a few offers from some distributors, but none felt particularly right. Many were concerned about the marketability of the film, since it did not fall into a specific genre and that its niche wasn't obvious, they were unsure how to sell it to an audience. What this is really saying is that the film is unique. This is what it has been the most applauded for, and is what I am most proud of. So, I decided that the best way to sell this film to audiences was for me to get out there and sell it to them myself.

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

ZACK PARKER: We shot on the Red One. I thought it was a remarkable camera, capable of capturing beautiful images. I often describe Scalene as the first movie I've made that I don't have to convince audiences is a movie. What I mean by this is, from the first frame, they accept they are watching a movie. With my previous films, while shooting on lesser video formats, I had to depend on the audience to forgive the video look and hopefully get involved with the story, fooling them into thinking they were watching a movie.

Only downside is that the camera does overheat a lot, and this slows things down immensely. But we used a first generation, I've heard this has gotten better.

You wore a lot of hats on the production -- producing, writing, directing, editing. What's the upside and downside of doing that?

ZACK PARKER: Upside is obviously total control, which I think most filmmakers strive for. Also I just feel that all of those positions is actually one job. That's just being a filmmaker. They are all intertwined for me, closely related. One has everything to do with the others. When you are writing a script, you are picking locations, cast, determining budget, crew needed, etc. Obviously the script is the first rough cut of the film in regard to editing. I just don't see any way of separating them.

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

ZACK PARKER: By far the smartest thing I did was convincing amazing actors to be my leads in the film.

The dumbest was not hiring a stunt double for a 60 year old actress.

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

ZACK PARKER: That I want to make another one.

Dan Poole on “The Photon Effect”

2012-01-19T03:00:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making The Photon Effect?

DAN POOLE: In an effort to create some kind of reel to land a job I wrote, produced, acted in and edited several Spider-man videos from 1988 − 1993. All on VHS and with no budget whatsoever, these 20 − 50 minute productions taught me a lot about the process of getting a story onto a screen.

Without any formal education in filmmaking, I continued shooting and editing small projects with whatever I had available. In 1998 I began working with a local production company where I finally learned some proper techniques and industry standards. I’ve worked as a freelance producer/videographer since then, working on other projects when inspiration struck.

In 2004 I wrote and produced another “fan film”, this time starring Marvel Comics’ Wolverine. It was after this project that I decided there was no future for me in working with copyrighted characters. It was time to do something original.

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

DAN POOLE: The idea came after a phone call from the producers of a show called, Who Wants To Be A Superhero? They knew me from my Spider-man days and believed that I would be perfect for the show. They sent me a form to fill out wherein I had to create a new superhero. It was extremely detailed as to what the life and abilities to my hero needed to be. With the help of my wife (then girlfriend), I created this character and the ones around him, but then decided I’d rather write a feature about him instead of giving it away to a goofy TV show.

The writing process is one of my favorite times in the creative process. Anything is possible. Anything. How liberating is that?! It’s awesome! I don’t sit there and think about how I’m going to pull it off during production, I concentrate on the most fun I can have with the story and the characters. While many things changed from draft to draft, it was always in an effort to streamline the flow of the story and make it more intriguing and powerful.

In fact, to this day, as proud as I am of the movie itself - I remain most proud of the script. I think it is better than the movie because there were some cool parts in it that just didn’t make it to the screen because we didn’t have the money to pull some things off.

I would also like to point out that there was a time when I thought I was done with the script because I couldn’t think of anything else to do with it, even though I knew it needed some polishing.

That’s when I found Mr. Robert McKee and his STORY book and workshop. I had the opportunity to attend a 3-day workshop in upstate New York where I learned more than I ever thought I would about writing a solid screenplay. It was amazing. It absolutely empowered me to complete this script with the utmost confidence in my characters, plot(s) and flow. I know there are many more resources out there now like Save The Cat, which I’d love to finally read, but this is what worked for me and I’ll always mention it when the topic comes up.

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

DAN POOLE: As someone that has never traveled in the circles of the wealthy or entitled, I have always had to stretch every dollar I could scrounge up to produce any of my projects. At some point I decided on a number and for years I openly crowed about “what I could do for $50,000.” One day a buddy of mine says, “Hey, you know how you’re always saying . . ?” Doug Adams, Executive Producer of The Photon Effect, had been thinking about it for some time, apparently, and presented me the offer of using his capital to get a movie made.

I was in shock. I couldn’t believe we were actually going to get something moving. But it’s funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. As incredible as Doug’s generous offer was, as soon as we got the LLC up and running and began preproduction, we discovered that we were going to need more money. We postponed shooting and made a well thought out Investor Prospectus’ and got in front of as many local business people as we could, but no one ponied up.

We decided to forge on ahead and shoot this thing with the money we had but it only lasted us two weeks into shooting. Dr. Brian Razzino, who plays Dr. Bob Chase in the movie, became a substantial investor in the project once he saw what was taking place. I sought more investors everywhere I went. I asked everybody I met. If I heard someone talking about someone of means I’d ask, “do they like movies?” With the help of friends, family and people associated with the movie in various ways, we raised enough money to get it finished.

As for recouping the costs, my plan has always been to target the genre fans that this kind of movie appeals to. I have somewhat of a fan base through all my years of making Spidey videos, so I need to get the word out to them as well as reach new fans by creating a presence at conventions and on websites. Once we gain enough momentum we will work with a distributor to see where they may be able to sell it further. I know it will take some time, too.

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

DAN POOLE: We rented the Panasonic HVX200 package from Zacuto. What I loved about it was the solid state media, it’s small size and it’s HD image. Not sure I hated anything about it, except maybe the way we had to use it. We shot 720p in order to save space. That kind of sucked.

Can you offer some suggestions to people who want to create great special effects on a low budget?

DAN POOLE: My first suggestion is to find a way to get proficient in a program like After Effects. Take a class, learn online or just ask someone that knows it. With computers and software being so accessible these days, kids in high school are rocking the visual effects. My biggest suggestion, however, is to not attempt an FX driven film on a low budget unless you already have all the tools. It took over TWO YEARS to get all of our effects completed. It was the most difficult part of the entire process.

You wore a lot of hats on the movie -- director, writer, producer, production designer, editor. What's the upside and the downside to taking on all those tasks yourself?

DAN POOLE: The upside for someone as particular as me is that it gets done the way I want it to get done and I don’t have to waste time explaining everything and potentially having to do it myself anyway. (Wow, that doesn’t sound pompous, does it?! Yeesh.)

I suppose that’s just the experience I’m used to. I’ve never had the luxury of the option to delegate certain jobs. I’ve always felt the need to direct and edit whatever I write. Although they are three separate tasks, I have always thought of them as one, which in my opinion is the job of a “filmmaker.”

As for everything in between, I absolutely believe in the collaborative nature of the process. Let the crafts people use their strengths to make your vision that much better.

The downside is that it can drain you to the core. You have to be self-motivating, which can take a toll on you. No one’s picking up the phone and yelling at you to make a deadline or get their project done - it’s all on me.

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

DAN POOLE: The smartest thing I did during production was press on. Had I taken any one of the hundreds of excuses that presented themselves to stop, this thing would have stalled forever and I would probably have never started another one.

The dumbest thing I did was sign something I knew I shouldn’t have in a moment of extreme pressure. I should have just called a ‘timeout’ and figured out the answer before continuing.

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

DAN POOLE: I learned that there is a fine line between ambition and irresponsibility. I love to aim high, shoot big and try amazing things - especially if I’m told it can’t be done. But when it comes to filmmaking, attempting something without the proper resources just isn’t fair, especially to everyone else you involve.

http://www.thephotoneffect.com/pebuy.html

Kevin Alexander Boon on “Two Days Back”

2012-01-12T03:00:00.000-08:00

What is your filmmaking background?

KEVIN: I’m an English professor with a diverse background. Long ago, when I had a full head of hair, I was an actor and a musician, both of which come in handy in filmmaking. I have also taught screenwriting at a number of universities, including Penn State, where I am currently on faculty. I directed and produced a short documentary a number of years ago and I’m a film scholar who has published a reasonable amount of film scholarship, such as Script Culture And The American Screenplay (Wayne State University Press, 2008). So I come to filmmaking from the perspectives of creative writing, performance and film criticism.

What was the teaching goal in producing Two Days Back with a class of film students and how -- in general -- did it work?

KEVIN: First off, they weren’t all film students. Some were, but we also had a contingent of English and communication majors. As a pedagogical experiment, I wanted students to experience all aspects of the filmmaking process the way it actually happens in the “real world,” and, if successful, to have legitimate experience of which they could be proud.

Students can often gain real-world experience in university-related films, but they are usually relegated to the roles of production assistant or intern. Seldom do they have the opportunity to contribute to story, work camera, and provide creative input to the core elements of film production.

As to whether it worked, I think it did. The problem with assessment, though, is that with each success, you raise the bar a little higher. My original goal was to produce a full-length feature that would hold up as an independent film, one that wouldn’t look like student video shot in someone’s backyard with an eighteen-year-old police captain investigating a ketchup-smeared crime scene.

We definitely have a film and best guess from the focus groups that have seen it, we did pretty well. The ultimate test, however, is what paying audiences will think, and that doesn’t happen for two weeks yet.

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

KEVIN: The Mont Alto Film Project was a four-semester practicum in no-budget filmmaking. The entire first semester was dedicated to the development of the script. Students voted on whether they wanted to do a documentary or a feature. In this case, they chose a feature. From there we talked about the limitations of no-budget film story and how screenplays are constructed. As a group, we work-shopped ideas.

Once we settled on a story arc, we structured the acts and put the individual scenes in place. Then those students who were interested in writing were given sections of the script. They each wrote the first draft of those scenes and then I took their work and used it as a guide for the final draft.

Because it was a no-budget film, we developed the story around available assets: a campus, wilderness, a forestry department, students.

Can you talk about how you raised your budget and your financial plan (if any) for recouping your costs?

KEVIN: The entire budget was right around $15,000, which I received in a grant from the Penn State Mont Alto Campus to fund the curriculum. Nearly all of that went to buy equipment, props, costumes, and the like. About two-thirds of the way through principle photography I had to start digging into my own funds, so a few thousand dollars more went into the production, much of it for craft services.

Recouping costs? Is that possible? My goal was to make a good movie. I gave no thought to how we might make money off the project. Making money on a no-budget independent film is extraordinarily difficult. Even now, I’m shelling out money for film festival fees that I don’t really expect to recoup. It would be nice, of course, as all the principle actors have back-end deals, but my concern is more to have a good film that everyone involved feels proud to have been a part of.

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

KEVIN: We shot the film with a Panasonic HMC 150. We had a Letus depth-of-field adapter so we could use camera lenses and get a more film-like look.

What I liked about the camera was the workflow. It shot AVCHD in 24 fps, 1080p onto SDHC cards, which were easy to pull from and drop into Premiere without transcoding. With such a small budget, I couldn’t afford to deal with a camera that used something like P2 cards. A 16gb P2 card would run me $350 bucks, but I could buy a 16gb SDHC card for less than $50.

I didn’t hate anything about the camera, but if I were to do it again, I’d rather get a camera that allows me to attach Nikon lenses without a DOF adapter.

What was your process for prep ... shooting ... and post with the students?

KEVIN: Since I was adamant about following the typical filmmaking procedures, we did most everything the way it would be done on a feature with a budget. We ran open auditions. Invited specific actors to private auditions. Scouted locations. Reviewed wardrobe and makeup choices. Tested special effects. Produced the shooting schedule with scheduling software. Worked up all the appropriate documents (deal memos, contracts, releases, call sheets, location sheets, etc.). And then shot each scene using the typical Hollywood style (i.e. master, reversals, closeups, inserts). Because students had classes during the week, we shot the film on weekends across two months. Sixteen shooting days, many of them in the woods.

By the time we got to post, many of the students had graduated or moved on to the main campus. There were only four students involved in post and each did the first rough edit on a sequence.

Everything else I had to do, so I cut the final film, did sound-engineering, mastering, and composed the soundtrack. I did, however, get a chance to show the rough edit to many of the original members, all of whom provided valuable input before I began on the final cut.

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

KEVIN: The smartest thing I did during production is the smartest thing anyone does during production, and that is to thoroughly organize the shoot. If you go in with the proper planning and documents, you eliminate hundreds of mishaps that could result in production delays.

We didn’t have time for many mistakes (though there certainly were some), so it was important to stay on schedule and have adequate references for wardrobe, makeup, props, cast calls, and so on. I might add that the value of having a good first AD cannot be overestimated. I was pretty busy on set and my first AD, Tressa Bellows, was invaluable.

The two dumbest things I did on set was:
1) I didn’t make sure the students knew the importance of lighting. More than once, I called for lights and was told that no one had brought them to set. When you’re deep in the woods and on a tight schedule, you simply don’t have the luxury of going back for them, so some of the images suffered visually—particularly the day-for-night scenes.
2) I trusted my sound people. Normally this wouldn’t have been a problem, but since our crew was all undergraduate students, I needed to spend more time listening to the sound we were getting. I spent hundreds of hours in post cleaning bad audio. I’d rather not do that again.

And, finally, what do you think your students learned from making the film that they will take to other projects?

KEVIN: That’s hard for me to say. I would hope they learned that planning is essential to a successful film, that a movie can never be better than the screenplay upon which it is based, that they should always use professional, trained actors, that they should shoot everything because you can’t go back, that filmmakers have to be decisive and confident and, if they aren’t, they still need to appear that way, that filmmaking is not magic, it is the combination of numerous skill-sets coming together for a common purpose, and most importantly that a person can accomplish a great deal if s/he studies the craft, swallows his or her fear, and obstinately forges ahead despite whatever obstacles may lie in his or her path.

Henry Jaglom on "Venice/Venice"

2012-01-05T03:49:00.000-08:00

What inspired Venice/Venice?

HENRY JAGLOM: My movies are always in direct relationship to what's going on in my life.

I was invited to be, strangely enough, the American representative, with my film New Year's Day, by the film festival in Venice. It was the only film from America that was in the official competition.

Certainly from the conventional point of view, my films are not the traditional fare that comes out, and festivals no matter how creative and art-oriented they are, they seem to like to support themselves with big, commercial, mainstream films.

In any case, I was stunned that I was invited to be the American representative. New Year's Day had gotten very good reviews in America and had a nice little run, but there was no reason to expect that anybody would take it on that kind of a level. But the Europeans really liked it, and they invited it to the festival with all the hoopla that goes along with being an official invitee, representing of all things the United States.

I'm such a counter-cultural figure here, I thought it would be a really interesting opportunity to make a film about a counter-cultural figure like myself, someone who's far from the mainstream, being invited to represent his country at this oldest and most prestigious of film festivals.

So I did, but I made one condition for my doing it. I figured it was highly unlikely that I would ever be invited again, knowing the films I was intending to make, so I thought, why not take advantage of this and shoot a film -- since I'm very interested in the position of the off-center artist in society -- why not make a film about this unconventional filmmaker who finds that he's invited to be the official representative of the United States, and what will happen to him?

So I made the condition of accepting their nice honor that I would do on the condition that anyone who interviewed me I could interview them at the same time. I would have a crew with me. The Festival people were all too happy to do it, they thought it was fascinating. And so that's how I did.

I brought no crew from America. My cinematographer, who's Israeli, I brought from Israel. He put together a five or six-person crew of Italians in Venice. I had three actors come: My star, Nelly Alard, who came from France, my friend Suzanne Bertish, who came from London, and against my wishes and without my economic support, Daphna Kastner, an actress who I'd used in Eating, who I told, "I'm sorry, I can't afford to bring anyone over for this, it's all going to be shot there," so she got on a plane and came by herself anyway. So I cast her as my assistant that I could annoy and drive crazy.

And that was it. David Duchovny was there, because David was in New Year's Day. So I said to David, "Okay, I want you play a little part in this as well," and he said, "Sure."

I decided I would make it up as I went along, based upon what was happening to me, because that would give a sense of what happens to somebody who comes to the film festival.

Then I thought that the second half will take in California. I structured that half, to reflect my feelings about Venice, America, Venice, Italy, movies, real life and all of that. And that's the part where I did the interviews in my office, and for that part I wrote a much more structured script and brought several of the characters into it who had been in the European half. And then switched it around, turned it around, so that what happened in Venice, Italy was really the movie they shot. We end on the editing machine in my office, editing the Italy part of the movie.

At what point did you decide to make that switch and put what is essentially the second half -- the scenes in Italy that we later discover are actually the movie he's making -- when did you decide to put that sequence first?

HENRY JAGLOM: As I was doing this, I realized that one of my main themes here was the affect of movies on our sense of reality and on our romantic dreams and that this whole movie was kind of a romantic dream. I'm meeting this extraordinary creature, this journalist who falls in love with me and who I fail to attract because I'm being such an asshole and she's expecting the person I am in the movies and all of that. So I thought, that really sounds like a movie.

I didn't think about it while I was shooting the movie in Italy, I just shot it the way I would have shot it anyway. I shot it for its own reality. But when I came back I realized that the Italy segment should be the film that I'm making.

That film does reflect more profoundly, for me, my sense of what my life is like. It really captures in some way, deeply for me, my own interior sense of life. So that's why I'm very attached to it.

You made good use of Nelly's background in physics, particularly when she compares moviemaking and movie watching to the principals that Heisenberg developed.

HENRY JAGLOM: I always do this with my actors -- if they have a particularly interesting bio, I ask "Let's talk about something." So I said to her, "Listen, the most important scene in this movie is going to be a scene -- and you're not going to know when it's going to take place -- but it's going to be a scene where I'm pointing out that this feels like a movie I'm making."

I said, "What I would like to do then is for you to bring in Heisenberg and the cat in the box business, because it becomes this whole metaphor for films and how we see them and seeing them affects our perception of reality and all of that." She said, "Great."

To me it's just a question of finding out what the actor's equipment is, what special aspects they might have handy, that further help explicate a point in the thematic intention. That's why we used the Heisenberg Principal, it worked very nicely.

I love the scene where you're commenting on how noisy the awning above you is, and how it would be tough to shoot a movie in that spot.

HENRY JAGLOM: Well, that's because I was shooting a movie and the goddamned awning was clicking, so the only way to deal with that is to comment on it.

What advice would you give to a filmmaker who wanted to make a movie like yours?

HENRY JAGLOM: It's really simple: Don't do my kind of movie, do your kind of movie. Figure out what your kind of movie is, not my kind of movie. That would be my advice.

And once you've figured out what your kind of movie is, don't let anybody tell you that anything about it is wrong. Don't let anybody diminish your enthusiasm or excitement about it. And insist that you know what you're doing, even if you don't know what you're doing, because you will find out what you're doing as you go along.

Joe Lueben and Jesse James Russell on “Bits”

2011-12-29T03:57:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Bits?

JOE LUEBEN: Before Bits, I had written and directed dozens of short films--some good, some unwatchable--while studying English literature at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. While at Augsburg, I was lucky enough to meet and work with the other filmmakers and actors who would become the core group of Bits. After graduating, all of us were eager to take our filmmaking abilities to the next step by making a feature film.

JESSE JAMES RUSSELL: Bits was the most ambitious project and first feature length film that I had worked on at the time. Up until that point, I was still in school and most of my work consisted of shorts: experimental, narrative, and installation pieces. Most of the Bits crew was already assembling in Minneapolis (all Augsburg College friends) while I was going to school in Vermont. The summer before my senior year, Trevor Tweeten (Director of Photography), told me he liked my shorts and that they wanted me on board. So I took a year off of school to work on my first collaborative feature.

Where did the idea come from?

JOE LUEBEN: Bits, to me, began with an image. I found an old, broken iPod in my friend Phil Mershon's (the lead actor's) house. I was obsessed with having a scene in which the iPod was laid out on a worktable and dissected as if it were a corpse. From there, I had no idea where the film would go, but the image always stuck with me. Of all the ideas thrown around in the beginning, the iPod corpse is the only scene that made it into the film.

Other ideas came and went so quickly that it is hard to remember the origins. I do remember that, originally, Bits was titled, as a joke, The Angle, and was going to be a film about a tech-obsessed inventor who winds up in the woods of Northern Minnesota and, through the love of a country girl, learns to experience the wonder of the natural world. Jesse and I came up with this idea about a week before shooting, pitched it to the group, and we all decided to go with it.

All that changed at 3 AM, the morning of Day One of shooting.

I remember I went outside to have a cigarette because I couldn't sleep. I was surprised to find Jesse outside having a smoke, also unable to sleep. We talked about our idea and both confessed that we thought our idea was boring. We were about to make a film that neither of us would ever want to watch. So, with only hours to go before shooting, we decided to change the entire film. We would do that--the setting and changing of ideas--hundreds of times before shooting was completed.

How did you use improvisation during the writing and the production of the movie?

JESSE JAMES RUSSELL: When I say that we were collaborative I mean that we had a back and forth conversation with our actors about story, not just within our "story team." Phil was not only the star of the film, but its producer, and someone who was heavily involved in the story process. This went for other actors, too, who we would often look to for story details, and characterization. (You may notice that many characters play themselves in the film.) So there were times when we would select friends of ours to be in the film based on their actual personalities, and I suppose, their ability to "improv" as themselves.

To be honest with you, we were using improv to fill in blanks sometimes, and other times we would try to let it determine certain things about the story or characters. A lot of times, since we didn't have a proper script, we had to improv, and as "the writer," I'm not going to lie, I got lost in this process sometimes. As "the writer" it was really hard to be the person in charge of "steering" the story when in fact I definitely was not the only one steering. At the same time, this film would be nothing without improvisation.

So many of the best moments of the film were not planned or written down beforehand; I almost think that anything good about the film was probably a happy accident.

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

JOE LUEBEN: One of the most fun things about Bits is how it was shot. For the bulk of the film we used an HVX-200 with a lens adaptor and a Nikon 35mm lens set (used for still photography). In addition to that, we shot numerous scenes using mixed media: Mini-DV, iSight, cellphone, 16mm, VHS, etc. Because we shot with so many different formats and styles, Bits has a truly unique look--a mix of high and low production value.

I love the result, the texture of the film. All of the scenes shot with the HVX-200 look really buttery and clean, like a real movie. When they are mashed up with scenes shot on a cellphone, for instance, they only look better.

The biggest pain about shooting with the HVX-200 and Nikon lenses was that, on wider shots, the edges of the frame tended to blur slightly. Thankfully, Trevor was able to overcome any optical obstacle and give each and every scene stunning imagery. Bits may lack in other areas, but it doesn't lack in strong visuals.

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

JESSE JAMES RUSSELL: This film wouldn't have been remotely possible without Phil Mershon and Trevor Tweeten who had already raised money and acquired equipment for their production company, Omni Kino (we used a different company specifically for the production). So I didn't raise a single dollar for this film and I couldn't have been happier with that, naturally.

Our plan for recouping costs would have been roughly as follows: Potential money earned via distribution deals would first pay back the film's expense and then it would be divided equally between collaborators. This hasn't happened. It was never really a plan, just a distant hope.

We didn't expect to make any money, and we didn't, so nobody was disappointed or devastated financially.

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

JOE LUEBEN: The smartest thing we did during production was corralling a group of people crazy enough to want to make a feature film. We had a window of 40 days where all six core members of the production were gathered in Minneapolis. Even though we didn't have a script, we had the people. And, at the time, that was most important.

Everyone on board had an energy and a hunger to see a feature film through to completion and we used that energy to get Bits started.

The dumbest thing we did? Not writing a script. Because of the time crunch, it wouldn't have been feasible to wait around for a script to get written and polished in those 40 days.
With that said, it would have been great to at least have a working outline for what we were shooting. Time and time again, we found ourselves backed into creative corners, trying to write or shoot around ideas that we eventually abandoned. This became only more frustrating as the days/weeks/months went by.

In a perfect world, all story issues would have been worked out weeks before the camera started rolling. But, as any filmmaker knows, what you want and what you get are always at odds. On one hand, a scripted Bits may have been a more coherent film. On the other hand, a scripted Bits may never have been shot.

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

JESSE JAMES RUSSELL: When you submit to film festivals, do a lot of research and don't submit to only extremely competitive festivals. I think this was part of the reason Bits didn't go very far in the festival circuit.

For most stories, you want to work out the kinks before you go into production, but there's also something to be said for collaboration, and working together on what is usually a lonely, personal process (writing). Make art that you care about deeply and that means something to you personally. Keep going back to whatever is that you connect with most. Discover what you really want to communicate to a potential public, work with people who want to say the same kinds of things, and never turn down a project that could satisfy your goals or needs as a filmmaker because it might be a long time before you get another chance.

There are a million ways to communicate an idea via film (and you can fuss over technique all you want), but try to be in touch with the simplest incarnation your most powerful idea, your message, your vision, whatever you want to call it. Know what it is, know how to talk about it and you'll be a lot more likely to shoot it.

Jeff Mizushima on "Etienne!"

2011-12-22T03:57:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Etienne!?

JEFF: I interned at a story development and production company in Los Angeles for two years. I was maybe a year out of high school and was very clueless. I treated my internship like a real job. Getting coffee for the producers was just as important as anything else. The other interns were all college graduates and jaded by the entry level. One of them had graduated from Harvard and I joked with him that I just got out of high school and we both had the same position. He punched me in the stomach.

I was also a production assistant on two features and I found myself learning-by-embarrassment. That’s what I call it when you learn by making so many newbie mistakes that everyone laughs at you and you feel shame and guilt and depression. Actually, that’s quite horrible, but by the time I went to film school, I felt I already had the experience that put me slightly ahead. In my last year as a film student, I wrote the script for Etienne! – two weeks after I graduated, I was in production on the film.

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

JEFF: I worked at an after school program while in film school. I brought a dwarf hamster in as a mascot and the kids loved it. The idea for the film came out of that. I wanted to make a kid’s movie.

I wrote the first draft of the script in less than a month. It was pretty fast because I wrote within my resources, writing only what I could afford to shoot. I find it easier to write when you set a lot of limitations from the beginning. It gives me boundaries and focus.

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

JEFF: A good chunk came from me. I used all my savings, sold my car, used college graduation money. My producer is from Switzerland and was also a graduate film student at UCLA at the time, so he found Swiss investors and we were able to take advantage of some student discounts. We also had two generous producers gets us through post.

We are trying to recoup costs by looking into alternative international outlets. Earlier in 2011, my Swiss producer took our finished movie and as a new way to market the film, we had a famous children storyteller narrate in Swiss-German. It’s basically the same film, except the volume is lowered and the Swiss-German narration is telling a story that fits the culture and age demographic of that audience. This version was released theatrically in Switzerland and is on DVD shelves at their equivalent to Best Buy.

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

JEFF: I shot Etienne! on Super 16mm on a newer Fuji film stock that was supposed to have a vintage 1970s texture. I used an Aaton LTR, an Arri SR II, and SR III. The look of Super 16mm fit the style of the movie, which was why I chose it, but I will never shoot on film again unless my next movie has a huge budget (so probably never).

I had no experience and no money and that’s a bad combination to shoot film. It took too much time, cost too much money, and didn’t make my movie any better. That’s like, an epic fail on the indie film triangle: Time, Money, Quality – choose two. I got none.

How are you using film festivals as part of your distribution plan?

JEFF: My movie came out a few years ago, so using festivals as part of a DIY distribution plan was something I didn’t think about. Traditionally, a sales agent shows your film to distribution companies and then you sit back and watch them bid on your film and take the best offer. Unfortunately, Etienne! came out as the economy crashed, so umm. . .yeah, that didn’t happen for me.

What was the process of getting the movie onto Netflix and how is that working out so far?

JEFF: I signed a digital distribution deal with a company who put my film on Netflix and some other digital outlets. I don’t know if I’ll be breaking my contract terms by telling you this, but … I hate Netflix. If you don’t care about making money and just want your film available to a wide audience, then Netflix is great. But if you want to recoup your investment, then look into other options because once Netflix has your film available for streaming, you are done.

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

JEFF: I don’t think I did anything smart, but I know exactly what the dumbest thing I did was: I did not budget for a production monitor. I trusted my cinematographer, who was also the camera operator, to make sure everything was good. We had a budget for weeklies, not dailies. So after the first week of shooting, half the shots were out focus and/or not composed well. That wasn’t entirely my DPs fault. There needs to be more than one eyeball on every shot. It’s just common sense.

I thought I was saving time and money by not having a monitor, but this ended up costing us so much more. I then took over as camera operator and eventually became my own cinematographer midway through production. This turned into the second dumbest thing I did: an inexperienced director should not also be his own inexperienced DP.

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

JEFF: Working on a low budget film is stressful and bad for your health. It’s essential to be in good mental and physical shape before going into a production. I had never cared about that before, but now, I get as much sleep as I can. I create a diet and fitness routine as though conditioning for a triathlon. I’m surprised how much of a difference that has made with my focus and energy level. Your body is like a car and the production is a long road trip, if you don’t tune up before you go and maintain it along the way, you’re guaranteed to break down at some point.

Ravi Godse on “Help Me, Help You”

2011-12-15T03:56:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Help Me, Help You?

RAVI: I went to film school for two years and directed some student movies. After that I directed two feature length movies. Dr.Ravi & Mr.Hyde a comedy on mid-life crisis and a murder mystery called I Am a Schizophrenic and So Am I.

I know how hard it is to find a home for independent movies but we were fortunate to get a DVD deal. So before I directed Hollywood actors under a SAG contract, I had a solid real life experience of having been there and done that. And my first movie was no slouch. It did well in DVD market and gained a ton of good reviews.

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

RAVI: Life imitates arts. So the idea always comes from there. I can't call it autobiographical but I love to give advice and I really love to help people. I have noticed others who are well meaning but you wish that they just left you well alone. So I built a story on this kind but goofy doctor who gets everything wrong and lands his friends in trouble.

I am so glad you asked about the writing process. We shot this movie in 10 days so I had to set the script in stone. I wrote it in one sitting, gazing over the sea of Cortez in Mexico. Twelve hours and the first draft was done. Then I took it through rigorous process of defining the story, stream-lining it, polishing the dialogue, arching the characters etc.

Then I held script readings with focus groups to see what makes people laugh, what is it that they don't get. Then I got a few script consultants. Spent a lot of time listening to them, rejected all of their suggestions and moved on. I told the actors that they can take some liberties with the script if they were in a one-on-one scene with me but for the group scenes I requested them to stick to the script to the last comma.

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

RAVI: I will duck this question. But can't resist the temptation to get on the soap-box. Once you have a track record, once you are little known, you can find people to help you. I admire everyone who wants to make a movie. But when I take a look at their target talent or their expected budget, I wonder why are they throwing a hail-Mary on the first play in the first quarter. I believe, no matter how humble the budget, how unknown the cast, if you do a full-length movie, and do it well enough to be seen, then you can look back and point to that shiny disc as something tangible and real. You keep at it and you get somewhere.

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

RAVI: We used Panasonic HDX 900, true Hi Def uncompressed. I loved the fact that we were able to throw prime lenses on it to give it a film look and I hated the fact that it was too cumbersome to do a 2-camera shoot on the climax.

You wore a lot of hats on this project -- director, writer, actor. What's the upside and the downside of working that way?

RAVI: When I answered the previous question, I was just answering the question to show off the nut and bolts knowledge. The real answer was I trusted my Director Of Photography and my lighting director with my life. I left the technical issues in their capable hands and then got the heck out of there. What made wearing these hats easier was, I had a competent producer, terrific lawyer and beyond comparison production team who had ownership interest the movie.

The upside of wearing the hats, is, like, Truman used to say, the buck stops here. So the decisions were clear and lightening fast. And I had to live with them, good or bad. Steve Guttenberg missed his flight coming in due to some scheduling problem. Within seconds, I had the script supervisor looking at doing the group scenes without Steve and I asked the producer to buy seats on as many flights to Pittsburgh on that day, whether the ticket was refundable or not. So we bought four first-class tickets on 3 different airlines in a minute. It would have taken some time to clear this decision with a committee.

The downside is at times it is just too much. We were location scouting at Hartwoond Manor is Pittsburgh and figuring out the scene to be shot there. I got a call and I was talking for a while. The crew asked me as to what I was doing and I told them that I was giving directions to the Locations Manager who was lost!

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

RAVI: The smartest thing I did was to spend months on pre-production to think through pretty much everything.

The dumbest thing I did was not to build some slack into the system. When we shot the opening scene, it was just not happening the way I wanted it. We had that day and that time to get the shot in the can and no back up. That is the only thing, I can think of. I am sure, my friends will find others and point it out to me.

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

RAVI: I learned that I have to figure out a way to foresee unforeseeable issues. It was a team effort and a happy team gave me happy efforts. For the next project, I will be adding a few more members to the team, strip some responsibilities away from me, some away from the producer, trust the team and go with the flow.

Barry Canty on “L.A. Proper”

2011-12-08T03:56:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making L.A. Proper?

BARRY: I did not go to film school, and although it obviously isn’t necessary, I feel it is a shortcoming of mine and limits me as a filmmaker. I chose to go to Wake Forest University for the basketball scholarship they offered, and when my interest in filmmaking was sparked during my junior year, I was disappointed to find out that not only was there no film school, there weren’t even any filmmaking classes. However, I minored in theatre and began writing one act plays my senior year.

A few years out of college, while working as a model in New York and Miami, I wrote my first screenplay, a drama called Brevard. The script was about a group of kids who run away from a small town in the North Carolina mountains and make a suicide pact to never return, and is an homage to one of my favorite films, Badlands.

Brevard was optioned by indie producer Richard Harding, who went on make the 2010 movie The First Grader, starring Naomie Harris. A funny tidbit: A pre-DUI/cocaine/shoplifting Lindsey Lohan was attached to play the lead. Unfortunately, Brevard was never made.

After that, I created and co-starred in the web series Net Profits. Net Profits is about a group of hard-partying college kids in L.A. who sell drugs online and get mixed up with organized crime.

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

BARRY: I am a huge fan of Woody Allen, Kevin Smith and Ed Burns, and self-referential art has always appealed to me. The idea for L.A. Proper was born out of the contrast between the way Los Angeles is depicted in films and on television, with the reality of the city I was experiencing on a daily basis.

There is a notion that many who have never lived in Los Angeles have about the city, and it is that L.A. is mostly populated by people trying to make it in the entertainment industry...and gangbangers. That ain’t exactly an accurate assessment, and when I first moved here I found a lot of humor in the clumsy interactions I witnessed between people from various ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds, and, unlike in the movie Crash - which I find to be one of the more unintentionally funny movies ever made about Los Angeles - I wanted to examine this through humor.

The lives of the eclectic group of friends I had assembled provided points of view that were not generally taken into consideration by filmmakers who set their movies in L.A., so I decided to tell a story that works as a sort of tour of a more accurate depiction of Los Angeles...with jokes about sex, race, immigration and unemployment.

One of my favorite movies about L.A. is Swingers, so I decided to steal ideas from the development process used on that project. I heard about the live readings Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn did around Hollywood to draw the attention of potential investors, so I held auditions and set up a staged reading of the script at a performance space in Santa Monica.

Many of the actors in the film were part of that reading and it gave me confidence that the material didn’t suck completely and that my characters were at least relatable.

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

BARRY: I quickly came to the realization that there was no way I would ever be able to raise enough money to make the movie as it was written in its original form. Luckily, the story isn’t plot driven and the humor is mostly in the dialogue, so I came up with the idea of placing the characters primarily in places that could serve as multiple movie locations that I knew I could get for free or at minimal cost (we actually ended up only paying for two locations).

I used my apartment, the homes of friends and exterior locations throughout Los Angeles and Orange County that we could steal. We did have permits for some scenes, but it was surprisingly easy to shoot guerilla-style when needed. The budget for L.A. Proper was a combination of my own cash, credit cards and money from friends and family.

In terms of recouping the budget, in May 2010, the movie was purchased by a small east coast distributor. I had never heard of the company prior to being contacted by them, but they offered an advance and guarantee equal to 60% of the budget. Unfortunately, after only receiving the advance, due to a breach of contract caused by their failure to release the movie as scheduled in May 2011, I am now in the process of suing the company.

After considering how lucky I was to get ANY money from my ultra low budget movie with a no name cast, I decided to make L.A. Proper available for free on Youtube and Facebook in August of this year. Unfortunately, due to Youtube’s file size restrictions on my account, I’m not able to present it in full HD, but if something’s funny, it should work no matter the resolution.

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

BARRY: L.A. Proper was shot with the Canon HVX200. I can’t really say I hated anything about it. Our cinematographer, Valentina Caniglia, has a lot of experience shooting documentaries in HD and she was able to adapt to all of the shooting situations we were in.

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

BARRY: My smartest act as a director on L.A. Proper actually took place during post production. Once I came to grips with the fact that my limitations and lack of experience as a filmmaker prevented me from executing some of my more ambitious goals, I embraced how the editing process could conceal some of my failures.

The original cut was bracketed by two overly long sequences that didn’t work and are no longer part of the movie. I decided to take the approach of first removing anything that I felt was weak - scenes, moments, bits of dialogue - no matter how strong my emotional attachment to it was.

I then worked on figuring out a way to tell a coherent story - even though it’s very different from my original script - with the pieces that were left over. I mercilessly trimmed almost 30 minutes, and I think I now have a comedy that makes you laugh while you’re watching, but subtly suggests that I have more on my mind than just jokes...and then ends before you get sick of it. In my opinion, that is what a humorist should always attempt to do.

The dumbest thing was to failing to recognize how superfluous some scenes were. Due to the brief shooting schedule (12 days) and my duties as director and co-star, I was unable to watch dailies, and I actually didn’t start seeing footage until halfway through the shoot.

In the final cut of the movie, many of the most difficult to film scenes are nowhere to be found. This is time that I wish I had used for the most important sequences to create more options for my editor to play with. We have many scenes in the movie, with multiple actors, where we only shot one take!

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

BARRY: Writing: Less is more, more or less.

Directing: I come from a sports background, and while some aspects of the communication style used in that arena can be applied to filmmaking, plenty others cannot. Athletes are taught to adjust to their coach, but when you’re a nobody director, co-starring in a low budget movie that you wrote, the smartest and most efficient thing to do is quickly figure out how each cast member ticks, what communication style they prefer, and do whatever you have to do to get the performance you want out of them.

Marketing: I can’t overemphasize the importance of marketing your film and yourself. L.A. Proper won the Heineken Red Star Filmmaker Award and I was profiled in Variety and on IFC.com, but due to the fact this all happened after my first time having a movie at a film festival, I wasn’t ready, nor did I know, how to capitalize on the exposure. I now appreciate the value of marketing a project during pre-production, production and post production, and I plan to do that for the web series I’ll be creating based on L.A. Proper (see, I just did it!).

Dan O'Bannon on "Dark Star"

2011-12-01T03:46:00.000-08:00

How did the script come about?

DAN O'BANNON: John (Carpenter) and I were talking and he said he was going to do this graduate film project. I was very taken with it, and I started pitching ideas back at him. First thing you know, I was helping him make that film. At first he just wanted me to act in it, and I did that. But I was very excited about working on all aspects of the thing.

By the time we got through, the thing was about 50 minutes long. And when we took it to the USC Cinema department and started talking to them about taking it to festivals, we were told it was too long -- that it should have been 20 minutes long, and then they would have taken it around to festivals. But because it was 50 minutes long, they couldn't do anything with it. John and I were pretty upset about that, because it meant nobody would see it.

What did you do then?

DAN O'BANNON: A friend of ours said he would put $10,000 of his own money into it if we could expand it into a feature, and then we could try to get it distributed. It was a tough decision, because it was pretty tight at 50 minutes. Expanding it meant we were going to have to shoot a lot of scenes that were filler, and that would lessen the tightness of the story and make it into an episodic film.

Since they weren't going to take it around to the festivals, we were pretty much stuck. We only had one option--go ahead and shoot some extra scenes. It was kind of disappointing, because that meant we had to go from the most-impressive student film ever made to one of the cheapest features. It wasn't a question of choosing between two venues; there was only one venue offered.

We added a lot of stuff with me in it, because I was the most reliably available as an actor. And we added a lot of slapstick stuff, like the whole subplot about me chasing the alien balloon around, up and down shafts and things. All of that was done to pad.

How did the elevator scene come about?

DAN O'BANNON: We were talking about that old Harold Lloyd film, where he's climbing over a building and how funny and scary it is. We had this idea that we could do this funny thing with this creature going up and down in the elevator shaft. And then we had to figure out how to shoot it.

The first thing we thought was that we'd go find an elevator shaft somewhere, but that didn't get very far before we realized--never mind practical or impractical--it was dangerous. So we finally came up with, let's just do it on its side. What the hell. At least we can do it that way, and maybe if it's funny and exciting people won't care.

I ended up having an appendectomy right after I shot that scene. I just had that board down to my butt, and I had to keep my legs up, waving around in the air. Sometimes I think that I forced some food or something into my appendix from all that stress. I was 26 years old, and you really don't think what that sort of thing is going to do to you. You just have a good idea and you start to do it. And then you find out how hard it is. Today I wouldn't be able to do it all, even if I were willing to try, which I wouldn't be.

What's the biggest lesson you took away from Dark Star?

DAN O'BANNON: I learned all the wrong lessons on Dark Star. When I finally directed a movie for real, I thought I was supposed to do everything. And I ended up making everybody mad. I was over-prepared for directing and I was mis-directed by having gone to film school, and thought that the director was supposed to be an auteur and do everything himself. When I actually tried doing that in a real movie, I found that I couldn't get anything I wanted, because they would sabotage me.

It basically took me two pictures to learn an entirely different orientation toward directing.

What I learned was very simple: A director doesn't make a movie. Everybody else makes the movie. That means the director doesn’t have to know how to do anything. All the director has to do is be there and stand there and make creative decisions if he feels like it. I had to swivel around 180 degrees and stop worrying about exactly how I wanted to get everything on the screen and start worrying about how to trick 300 people into doing it for me.

Coleman Hough on "Bubble"

2011-11-24T03:42:00.000-08:00

What screenplays had you written before Bubble?

COLEMAN HOUGH: Before I started Bubble, I had written a movie for HBO about the life of Katherine Graham. And I was developing a TV series with some producers in Los Angeles. The thing for HBO, I was hired to do it, I did it and it was completed, but it's never been produced. It's still in development. Apparently, one of the re-writers is Joan Didion. That's kind of cool. If you're going to be re-written by anyone, Joan Didion's the one.

And then I went to Los Angeles last Fall and was developing this TV series. And I ran into Steven, and he wanted to know what I was doing. I told him and we started talking about working together again. He said that Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner had commissioned him to do six films in this new format, day and date release. And he said, "Why don't you write the first one?"

I was thrilled. And then he said, "I don't want to use actors, I want to use just people in the town. And I want there to be no scripted dialogue; I want it to be all improvised." So then I thought, well, what am I going to write?

What was his concept for the movie?

COLEMAN HOUGH: He had an idea, he wanted to do a tale of jealousy that took place in a factory, a love triangle. So I said, "Well, what kind of factory?" And he said, "I'm thinking about an animal testing facility." And then we started talking about the political implications of that, and we decided we didn't want that overlay of political implications.

We started brainstorming about other factories, and I was researching industries in the Midwest, because I knew he wanted to film in the Midwest because it was during the re-election, and Ohio specifically was such a hot swing state. I found two doll factories in Ohio and Indiana, the only two remaining doll factories in the country.

I started making some calls. I didn't tell them what I was doing, I just said I was interested in making dolls and I wanted to know if they did tours of their plant. So I went with a location manager and it was this fun research trip for two weeks, with a week in each town. It was really great, it was like working as a site-specific playwright. I fell in love with the Ohio town, because it was right on the Ohio river.

From the people I met in the town and the feeling I got from the town, and just by observing the life that I had landed in the middle of, I fashioned this story. And then I presented it to Steven and he liked it; we made some adjustments and that gave us our shooting outline.

And you were on the set throughout the shoot?

COLEMAN HOUGH: The fun thing, the great discovery, was that he wanted me on the set every day, because he wanted to be constantly incorporating the stories of the actors into the story.

So I found my job to be the best job of all, because I was not only putting the non-professional actors at ease -- Steven called me The Human Green Room -- because they would hang out with me. I would listen to their stories and we'd share stories and we'd talk about things we'd done and I'd ask them a million questions. Their stories were so great and so rich. So, whenever I would see Steven, on a break or whatever, I'd say, "Okay, I've got a good one. You've got to get Debbie to talk about …" whatever story they had told me that day.

For example, the scene where Rose is taking a bath in the house she's cleaning is a story from my life. I've always wanted to put that scene in a movie because I used to take baths at parties. When I was in my 30s I went through this weird phase where I would just disappear and take a bath at a party, because my idol, Zelda Fitzgerald, used to do that.

I've always wanted to put that in a movie, and I thought, what if she takes a bath in the house where she cleans. And so, that day Misty, the actress, was very apprehensive about wearing the nude suit and being in the bathtub. So I told her that story from my life, and it put her at ease. She just thought that was so funny and it just made it more delicious for her to do it.

How did you create the characters once you had the story roughed in? And did it change once you cast the non-actors?

COLEMAN: I had a clear idea of the characters before we cast the actors. We cast the actors based on the characters I'd imagined. When Steven and I were reviewing the audition tapes, the criteria was, are these the people that I imagined? So we didn't have to make any adjustments to the story, because they were the characters.

So, Debbie just jumped out, she was Martha, and Misty was Rose. They couldn't have been more perfect. We found them, they found us. The whole Bubble experience was like the magic synchronicity of everything. The town opened up to us, everything that was meant to be happened. It was wild.

How difficult was it for you to not write the dialogue and let the actors make it up on-camera?

COLEMAN: It was very hard for me at first, because that's what I write. I'm a playwright and dialogue is what I love to write. I felt a shift -- Steven always talks about a writing head and a making head, which is developing a film and then actually making it. And it's true. So I got to experience that in terms of listening to their cadences and pointing out to Steven the things that really spoke of their characters. Like Misty would say, "Oh, yeah," that was one thing she said that was so that character.

We filmed in the bait and tackle shop for a long time. I would listen on the monitor through all the shooting, and I was thrilled when that woman said, "The darker the water, the darker the bait." And I said, "Steven, you have to start there. It's such a great line."

So it was kind of like writing it as I heard it. It was such an honor, because it was like not making it up in my head, but listening to it and catching it. Which is what you do when you immerse yourself in a world or a culture, you start to hear certain phrases or certain intonations. That was a hard adjustment, not hard but challenging.

I always thought dialogue was so important to me in writing scripts, and I couldn't imagine what that would be like to relinquish the control of that. But it was thrilling. On the first day of shooting, we did the lunchroom scene, where's there's an awkward silence and then Rose says, "Do any of you all smoke?"

I got chills when I was watching that, because of the silence. That's what I love to write; in fact, in a lot of my plays the stage direction says, "There's an uncomfortable silence between them." And the fact that they just trusted that silence, and the sub-text in that line "Do any of you all smoke?" I just couldn't have written anything better than that! Just by putting them in that situation, it was amazing to see the organic response.

Alex Fegan on "Man Made Men"

2011-11-17T03:55:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Man Made Men?

ALEX: Nothing really formal. Although I did a six week summer course on filmmaking in 1999. I also made lots of animated films before that. These were short stop-motion films I shot on my bedroom floor mainly using lego toys as cast.

One such film, perhaps cheekily called Save Us Adolf, can be found on YouTube. It looks at the circumstances where an evil dictator could possibly save the world. It was shot in 1996 when I was 17 on a High 8 camera.

Of course, it was almost a half an hour long, which is was way too long for an animated black comedy but I think it ultimately got me hooked on filmmaking.

Unfortunately though, after making that, I didn't make another film until Man Made Men -- not even one short film with actors. In fact, I went off and qualified as a lawyer in Ireland and worked in an Irish law firm for over four years. Then, one day, having had the idea for Man Made Men in my head for a while, I decided that I would make it while I was still working full time. Thus, most of the initial scenes in Man Made Men were shot at weekends only.

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

ALEX: My biology teacher in the Irish equivalent in High School inadvertently inspired me to make the film. He was giving a particularly boring class on mitosis when I decided to read one of those blue boxes in the biology book; the ones that give a biography of some famous biologist from the distant past. This one concerned a scientist called Stanley Miller who conducted an experiment in 1953 in Chicago to try and make life from lifeless materials. In a way, he was a sort of real-life Frankenstein character. I recall immediately going into a daydream and this is where the idea for the film was formed. I wanted to tell the story of a man who becomes a God over his own man-made world.

The writing process ended up being quite straightforward. There was probably two reasons for this; the first was that I had the idea in my head for a while before I started writing so I think I knew exactly where I was going with the story. Secondly, I had no one watching over me and had no great expectations so I just got on with it. All in all, the first draft took about two weeks. Then I started revising it, which probably took me another couple of months. Once that was done, myself and a friend who said she'd help, Helen Sheridan, immediately started casting for up speaking 40 parts in the film and looking for a 50 piece choir to work on the soundtrack.

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

ALEX: There was really neither a financial plan nor a budget. And the last thing on our minds was recouping our costs since in essence there were no costs. Frankly we just leapt into making the film. We had no experience, no money, no schedule and no financial plan and both Helen and I were both working full time in completely different professions. Everyone involved gave up their precious time for the cause. Our only commitment was that we would finish what we started, so all we could ask in return was that everyone gave the same commitment.

When we started, all we had was one hand-held camera, which I already owned due my interest in animation, and a direction mic, which I bought. So I said to Helen, you do the sound and I'll do the camera and we'll record the sound directly into the camera. Thus, for the first 80% of the production, all we had was a crew of two people doing absolutely everything. It was really only in the last three days of filming that we got a small crew to help us (who turned out to be great) and that was mainly because Helen was having a baby at the time.

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

ALEX: We shot the film on a Sony VX 2000. It's a small, very light camera that is very handy for filming a film like ours because when your filming in airports, busy streets and coffee shops people assume you are shooting a family video rather than a sci-fi thriller. It also has a sort of gritty, documentary look when projected on a cinema screen that I think sort of worked for Man Made Men.

Having said that, I wouldn't use it again. As it's standard definition footage, you are very limited in post in terms of fixing up shots and color correcting.

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

ALEX: The smartest thing was just doing it. The dumbest thing was probably the exact same thing. In hindsight though, with what I now know, I would do lots of things differently and prepare way more.

However, at the time, I didn't have the luxury of that experience so I have absolutely no regrets. The film is what it is. In the end, we spent a total of €4k ($5,300) on it and it owes us absolutely nothing. The fact that it's getting out there, it's being received well and people are enjoying it is more than we could asked for. I think and hope that everyone that got involved in it is very proud of it.

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

ALEX: The most significant thing we learned was that nothing is impossible; no matter how big the challenge, no matter how daunting the task. There is a way to make things happen. Also, we learned that creativity and a problem solving attitude, rather than money necessarily, will find the solution to all problems.

On a personal level, I learned a lot about directing actors mainly from making mistakes. I think there is no book in the world that can teach how to direct better than actually directing. I feel the learning curve has been steepest since the film was complete, i.e. watching the footage afterwards and finally watching an audience reacting to the footage. It is then that you suddenly realize how you could make stuff a lot better, and this, I hope, is what I will take to the next project.

Kenton Bartlett on “Missing Pieces”

2011-11-10T03:55:00.000-08:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Missing Pieces?

KENTON: Very little. During college, I rented a small consumer camera from the university and experimented with Final Cut Pro. Then after making one project, the creative drive to do better kicked in, and projects continued until about 13 short films had been made. The final short film took one year to complete. The title of it is Student Short Film, and that project was the main stepping-stone towards realizing feature film production is not much different than making a student film.

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

KENTON: The idea for the script came first out of parameters (marketable story, use outdoor locations for natural light, involve several story lines so scenes could be deleted without ruining the story, and a few other parameters to fight looking like an ‘indie’ movie).

After thinking of a basic story that involved kidnapping and cinematic locations, the rest of the writing process involved filtering personal experience into the narrative and plugging plot holes. The writing process started in March 2008, and really didn’t finish until the end of second unit photography in December 2010.

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

KENTON: We filmed on the Red One (which we purchased). It was really a saving grace for us because the footage looks like a ‘real movie’ without the high cost of 35mm film. Without having anything to compare it to, it would be hard to evaluate pros and cons of the camera. However, it worked very well throughout production, and if we did not have a camera at our disposal for a year and a half, we never would have been able to make the movie.

On a related note, how did you and your DP create the look of the movie?

KENTON: During pre-production, we tried to experience a learning curve with the Red One’s settings. We shot two short films with our Red during pre-production and used trial and error to figure out the best way to use the camera. The camera and lens settings we used were very specific and seemingly arbitrary, but after we honed in on those settings, everything we shot looked great. We used consumer Nikon lenses and attached panty hose cloth to the front of the lens to give more of an organic look and to fight the digital crispness of the image.

People often overlook composition when discussing cinematography, and our DP, Jonathan Arturo has a great eye for wonderful compositions. He also has great handheld instincts and skills for infusing light into a scene.

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

KENTON: Raising the money started by being as proactive as possible through making a website, a business plan, creating promotional videos, flyering parking lots, delivering flyers door to door, spamming the internet, creating as many social network sites as possible, etc. All this effort generated about $5,000 through friends. However, by being so proactive, everyone started noticing our passion, and a close family member offered to co-sign on a loan.

At the moment, we are out of money. We are quite close to debt as the loan money is spent (and personal life savings), and it’s been 3.5 years without a paycheck. We have been trying to recoup the costs through selling Missing Pieces to a distributor. With such a competitive market for distribution, we are proactively seeking publicity and film reviews so that maybe a kindhearted executive will notice our film. As this interview is part of that campaign, we would like to thank you for all your help with this project.

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

KENTON: There were close to 100 cuts of the movie. Many family and friends watched the movie to give feedback during post-production, and it changed quite drastically throughout. With such a cumbersome story line and limited experience during production, many of the scenes we filmed had no place in the finished movie. The movie is not chronological, so figuring out the most coherent structure was quite challenging. We had to re-shoot a couple scenes and add a few sequences here and there in order for the story to fully make sense.

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

KENTON: The smartest thing I did during production was think that we could actually make a legitimate movie for $80,000 by enlisting enthusiastic volunteers and fighting ‘indie’ movie conventions.

The dumbest thing I did during production was take on the responsibility of making a legitimate movie for $80,000. It’s too daunting and heartbreaking to ever want to do again. The hopeful outlook for the future is that maybe next time production will be easier if we somehow find a budget.

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

KENTON: With my personality, every project seems like a failure at the end of it. The only way to fight that failure is to jump into creating something new and attempt to overcome the shortcomings of the last project.

Missing Pieces was plagued with problems, but every problem is an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson. From that perspective, there have been boundless learning opportunities. Going forward into our second feature film project, we intend to learn from all of those mistakes and hardships.

Kasi Lemmons on "Eve's Bayou"

2011-11-03T03:45:00.000-07:00

What was going on in your life and your career before you came to write Eve's Bayou?

KASI LEMMONS: I had been an actor for a long time. I'd done a couple of plays with really good companies, Naked Angels and Steppenwolf, and then I went to film school. When I got out of film school I had a short film that was festivaling around, called Fall From Grace. And then I did Silence of the Lambs and moved to Los Angeles.

I'd written with other people, but Eve's Bayou was the first thing I wrote by myself. At that point in my life I was starting to think about the future. I'd been to film school, so it wasn't a completely foreign concept that I would start to marry all of these elements, the things that I'd been doing for years.

What I really wanted to do was to write the perfect role for myself. To write the perfect part. If you could write a perfect part for yourself, what would it be? So I wrote the character of Mozelle for me to play when I got a little bit older.

Also it was very much an experiment in a certain type of language and a certain type of writing style. It was very ambitious. I knew what I wanted to do, but it was more of an experiment. And then when I was finished with it, I showed it to Vondie Curtis-Hall, who was my boyfriend at the time, and he said, "You've got to show this to somebody else." He was the person who said, "You can't put it in a drawer. You have to show it to somebody."

Where did the idea for the story come from?

KASI LEMMONS: I remember the first time I told any story from Eve's Bayou was at an audition. The casting director didn't want to see a scene from the show. He wanted us to talk. So I started spinning Eve's Bayou stories. I talked about my aunt who had gotten married five times and all of her husbands had died. That was true. The more fantastical parts of the story are true.

I wrote it down as a short story and I wrote some other short stories. One was about two little kids, a brother and sister, who go and look in their grandmother's room and it talks about all of her medicines and the way in which her room was very evocative. And then another was about Eve and Jean Paul Batiste and how a bayou came to be named after this slave who saved her master's life with voodoo and witch-doctoring. So I had all these stories, but they weren't really connected. There was some connection in my mind, but I hadn't found it yet.

Then I invented the character of Louis Batiste for the stories to revolve around. Way before I wrote anything down I could tell you the entire story of Eve's Bayou, the entire thing complete with flashes of lightning. I could tell you the whole movie. I had it all in my head.

Where you thinking about budget at all while you wrote?

KASI LEMMONS: I wrote it as a literary experiment. So I wasn't thinking about anything other than wanting to get this story down on paper. As a matter of fact, when I first started writing it I thought it might be a book. And then I ended up writing it as a screenplay and I had the idea of the role of Mozelle, but I wasn't really sure if it was going to turn into a book or a screenplay or what was going to happen with it. I just let it come out.

I wasn't thinking about budget and I wasn't thinking about directing it at all. We took it to directors. So I really wasn't thinking about budget until I decided to direct it.

What was it that made you decide to direct it?

KASI LEMMONS: I took a bunch of meetings that were a little bit frightening to me and I started to realize that I'd written a very delicate piece of material that could be misinterpreted very easily. In fact, it was just as easy to misinterpret it as it was to interpret it the way I intended. I took some scary meetings where I thought, "Oh God, I'd rather keep it in the drawer than let people interpret it this way."

My producer kept saying, "What's a sexy idea of a director? Who's sexy?" And I was thinking, "Who's sexy? Who's sexy?" Literally I woke up on my birthday and it was an epiphany. I was like, "You know what? I'm going to direct it."

After that moment I never vacillated. I went to the producer and said, "I went to film school. My short film did really well and I've decided I'm going to direct this." He almost fell off his chair. But he was very supportive. The first thing he said when he recovered from shock was that he wanted to produce a short film for me to see what I could do. Something with a 35mm camera, real crew, the whole thing. And that's what he did. My agent put up half the money and he put up the other half. It was really amazing.

Once you decided to direct it, did you ever consider also acting in it?

KASI LEMMONS: No. I find directing to be a very, very voyeuristic art form. Almost a perversion. You're really watching other people's intimate moments and trying to get those moments out of them. But I don't think there was ever a question of me wanting to be in it once I decided to direct it.

Was it much of a struggle for you to get the tone you felt in the script up onto the screen?

KASI LEMMONS: Not really, once the actors nailed the language. The language to me, and I really haven't felt this way with other things that I've written, but that language in Eve's Bayou was like Shakespeare. That's because it started out as a language experiment, so I made them say it word for word. And the words were really important to me. So they had to say it as it was written.

Once they nailed the language, the language really helped them fall into the tone.

How tough was it for the actors to get that and make those speeches work? I'm thinking in particular of Mozelle's "Life is filled with good-byes, Eve" speech.

KASI LEMMONS: That's my favorite speech. Debbi Morgan's such a wonderful actress. She came in and her audition was wonderful. Wonderful. She really got it. And once she got the words exactly, like, "Well, you musta been thinking something right before you was thinking that, what led you to that particular thought?" Once you could nail the words and you're not improvising on the words, you're saying those exact words, the words help with the character. But she was so wonderful, she was wonderful from the beginning and she understood Mozelle. There was a part of her that was Mozelle.

Did you learn anything writing Eve's Bayou that you're still using today?

KASI LEMMONS: You know, there's an innocence when you write your first script. You don't know what the rules are. It's almost something that's really hard to reclaim. So that's what I'm always trying to get back to, the innocence, to try and be that pure. I don't know that I can ever do it again, but to try and remember to be that unleashed in a way.

Travis Mills on “The Big Something”

2011-10-27T03:55:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making The Big Something?

TRAVIS: I went to film school at ASU and made a few shorts but things didn't really take out till I started Running Wild Films with Gus Edwards in 2010. We threw out tradition and rejected the culture around us. Filmmakers like Godard, Herzog, and Cassavetes were our models, in terms of their passion and their urge to make films without the restrictions of Hollywood structures and techniques. We made shorts fast and cheap, exploring genres and styles.

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

TRAVIS: The idea came from my days working in a record store in Tempe, Arizona. The employees and the customers were bizarre people who left lasting impressions and they had to be fictionalized somehow. With the help of a sketch comedy writer Ryan Gaumont, these characters made their way into a mystery plot.

The writing process went slower than I hoped. I think the best way to write screenplays is very fast, the way I've read the old Studio pros worked back in the 30s and 40s. We worked out the problems and finished but I learned not to over-think a first draft.

Can you talk about how you made the movie for $2,000 -- where did you cut corners and what did you spend the $2,000 on?

TRAVIS: I have to say that everyone I talked to thought I was crazy to make a feature for $2,000. But it had been done before and I knew there were clever ways to get around spending money. I found locations with co-operative owners, restaurants to give us food for free, and actors/crew hungry and passionate enough to work for the experience. You can't go into one of these projects asking how much it's going to cost; you have to think, "how am I going to get it for nothing?" You never know what you'll get as long as you have the guts to ask.

I spent most of the budget we had on our record store location (a beautiful place of the past essential to the movie) and picking up some extra equipment. If I hadn't produced the movie myself, if I'd had some help, we could have done it for cheaper.

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

TRAVIS: We used a Canon T3i. We'd worked with that one once before and others like it a few times. I'm not very technical; I suspend that side of production to my DP and crew so I can focus on story and performance. To be honest, how it looks is the least of my concerns and I think that modern film is dominated by great-looking images and poor stories.

However, I enjoy the size of the camera and how easy it is to use. On the bad side, I think the DSLRs can easily seduce you into focus and depth of field issues that will trap your movie in a visual box.

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

TRAVIS: The smartest: to trust my instincts and not over-analyze my decisions. Often times, we were faced with the possibility of doing something ridiculous in a scene (mostly concerning performance). Some of us might have felt scared because this style of acting was unordinary or outlandish. But my gut said, "go with it." It was instinct filmmaking, not an intellectual process, and that's how I like it.

The dumbest: I scheduled the fourteen days of production pretty well. One of my mistakes came as quite a surprise. I purposely made the last four days of production light and easy on cast and crew. This move produced the opposite effect than I hoped. Instead of appreciation for time to rest, it was greeted with laziness. The set turned lethargic and I struggled to bring the energy back up. I learned not to make things easy; people don't respect easy.

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

TRAVIS: We're just now starting work on our next feature, The Detective's Lover. Like I said before, I've learned to trust my instincts completely, however outlandish the ideas may be. Only this way can we learn to make original movies.

Beyond that, I feel that I don't know my characters well enough and that maybe I haven't pushed my actors to also know them as well as they should. I'm going challenge myself and them to the limit.

Joe Infantolino on “Helena From The Wedding”

2011-10-20T03:54:00.000-07:00

What prompted you to make the switch from producing to directing?

JOE: I didn't really make a conscious switch. I just started writing and directing. I will say that part of the motivation was that producing is a lot about finding money and I'm more interested in films and story and execution. That said, I like helping other writers and directors make films and am always open to projects that need producing.

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

JOE: The seed of the idea came from the location which is a cabin in the mountains of upstate New York that has been in my family for a long time and which is not used for months at a time. I decided to make a film there and then needed a story. My only rule was that it needed to take place only at and around the cabin.

As I got into it, it turned into a working out of what was on my mind at the time. Having recently gotten married, I was thinking a lot about what it meant to be married. Approaching forty I was thinking about what it meant to no longer be "young." And so on. At some point I got an image in my head of the last shot in the film: a man and a woman standing and facing each other and just looking at each other. Then I worked backward to come up with a story to get to that image.

It was not the typical "what if..." process but more of an investigation, a "who are these people and how did they come to be standing in front of each other just looking at each other and what are they thinking about?" process. Once the main action started to center around two newlyweds, I thought it would be interesting to set the story over the course of a New Year's weekend celebration.

The writing process started with me walking around for a few months thinking and then took about a year from sitting down to write to the actual shooting. I started with the last scene and then went to the first scene and wrote it forward. The first draft took a few months and then I re-wrote it up until shooting but it didn't change fundamentally. The re-writing was a process of making a lot of small changes which cumulatively made a big difference.

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

JOE: I was never going to raise a budget. I was just going to pay for it as I went along. Initially I set out to create a film with three characters and the crew was going to be me, a DP and a sound guy and we were all going to live in the cabin. As I got into the writing, more and more characters started showing up to the party and it became clear that I would need a bit more crew to deal with them and we were all not going to be able to live in the cabin.

When I budgeted the first draft of the script, the rough cost came out to be about $100,000, an amount I didn't have lying around. And then an interesting thing happened. I found out I was going to be a father. Not only did this news reverberate somewhat in subsequent drafts of the script, it forced me to sell my apartment, and I potentially had my budget. A few friends wound up putting in five or ten thousand dollars which, given the budget, was significant.

As far as recouping costs go, I sold the film to a small distributor called Film Movement. The initial advance covered 20-30% of the budget, but the deal was only for North America and it contained a small theatrical release, which was important for me. We'll see if there are any overages. I have a company called Forward Entertainment brokering foreign rights and we'll see how that goes. So far I think we've sold television in Spain and Portugal for 10-15% of the budget. I think if it recoups it will be through additional foreign television sales.

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

JOE: We used the Sony EX-3. I loved that it was very small so we could shoot the entire film, except for the last shot, handheld. I also loved that it was able to capture a great looking image in natural and practical light. Those two things sped things up enough to be able to shoot the film in 12 days and also allowed me to keep the focus on working with the actors. I like digital because I like to shoot long takes, usually at least the entire scene, and also I like to shoot a lot both before and after the actual scene on the page.

How did you cast your ensemble and what advice would you offer to someone trying to cast a movie with multiple characters all around the same age?

JOE: I worked with two great casting directors, Suzanne Smith Crowley and Jessica Kelly at Christie Street Casting. We held many rounds of auditions. They sent the entire script out to prospective cast so everybody came in knowing the whole as well as their piece of it. Through this process I found everyone but Alice and Alex, the main newlywed couple at the center of the film.

One of the producers, Alexa Fogel, is a casting director and had done OZ and suggested Lee Tergesen for the husband, who I have known for a long time but for whatever reason didn't think of him for the role. We met once and it was obvious he was Alex. He didn't even read. About the same time, Suzanne and Jessica met Melanie Lynskey, who was in town for a day from LA auditioning on another project. They put Melanie on tape in the morning and met her in the afternoon and cast her as Alice I think on the spot.

I would advise anyone casting any film to do a lot of auditions. If you can afford a great casting director, hire one. Not just for handling logistics and to give you credibility within the actor community, but for their opinions. Also, auditions are a great way to learn about your characters and story.

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

JOE: The structure of the film and the story didn't change. It is as it was on the page, except we cut one or two scenes that felt redundant. Some things about the characters changed and some things about their attitudes towards one another changed. We didn't do very many takes, maybe 2 or 3 on average but I usually went out of my way to adjust the actors wildly from take to take and in addition to coverage, that gave me some interesting options to mix and match and create some moments and shape the characters in ways that I didn't completely envision at the script stage.

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

JOE: The smartest was to conceive a film that could be done well for the budget I had and also to hire great actors and crew and then to trust those actors and crew. The dumbest was to write a climactic scene that would be lit only with exploding fireworks, and then schedule it for the final night of shooting and not check and make sure we had enough fireworks to do more than one take.

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

JOE: Prepare and don't panic.

Tara Miele on "The Lake Effect"

2011-10-13T03:51:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making The Lake Effect?

TARA: I had directed a couple of short films that did the festival circuit, Miss Gentilbelle, based on a short story by Charles Beaumont, and Smackers a minute and a half long parable about the downfall of Junior High royalty. I started writing features in the hopes of convincing someone to let me direct one -- I sold Cougars to Gold Circle, Tits to Silverwood Films, and Cover Your Assets to Lionsgate before meeting up with Jennifer Westin and writing The Lake Effect.

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

TARA: The idea came in the middle of the night several years back - I was desperate to get pregnant and my husband wasn't ready - and I thought there was something interesting about a guy who wasn't ready to have kids but maybe already had one... and maybe his daughter was about to have one herself...

I wanted to write it then but my reps said it was too small so I put it on the shelf. I didn't really think about it again until two years later - I was 4 1/2 months pregnant and I got an email from a friend who knew a producer who was looking for a script/director to shoot a micro budget movie in Michigan.

I pitched the idea to Jennifer Westin and she really responded to it... so I lied and told her I had a treatment on it! I told her I could adjust it to be set in a lake house in Michigan and send it to her in the morning... I went home that night and wrote a 7-page treatment.

The whole writing process was lightning fast because I was pregnant and had to fly back to LA before I hit 37 weeks... so we planned everything around my due date. I wrote the first draft in about 5 days, got notes and a week later did the second draft in about five more days... It wasn't ideal but I was still writing through pre-production, while I scouted Michigan. That turned out to be a blessing - I really had an opportunity to develop the project for where we were shooting - South Haven and Michigan and the lake house just naturally became characters in the film.

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

TARA: Jennifer structured the film like an arts project. We were sponsored by the Kalamazoo Arts Council and received donations from dozens of generous donors. Because of that, we have very little to recoup. It's the only way that making a movie this small was financially feasible.

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

TARA: We shot on the Sony EX-1. I loved that it was small and fast and easy to go guerilla with. I hated that we didn't have the look of lenses but at the end of the day, my cinematographer (also my husband Brett Juskalian) made the film look stunning. I swear, we could shoot on a Fischer Price camera and make things pretty. Also, it was frustrating when we got into editing (on a Mac) and there were some problems between Sony and Mac...

How did you and Brett, your DP achieve the look of the movie?

TARA: Because the DP is my husband, we have a good short hand and we had plenty of time to find the look, which was dictated partly by our surroundings and partly from the limitations of our shoot schedule.

We shot handheld because we needed to move quickly and because I wanted there to be a looseness and naturalness to the movie. We also wanted to make sure that the camera's movement reflected the intensity of the scenes, so every scene had a number -- "camera shaky 1-5" -- so we could easily be on the same page about what the movement should be like. Because we barely had lights to use, we played with natural light as much as possible - as the character's get closer, the movie literally gets warmer - a good example is the great sunset light during the birth scene at the end.

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

TARA: The smartest thing I did during production was re-write and re-shoot the end of the movie. After we shot the original ending, I watched dailies and I knew it wasn't working. Our shoot schedule was so tight, I had to sacrifice time on other scenes. Our longest day after that was 8 7/8 pages... but now I love the end of the movie.

The dumbest thing I did was shoot endless hours of footage around the house the day after we wrapped. I had first time director disease. Everyone had gone home and I couldn't stop shooting. I was dragging Brett around, making him shoot close-ups of fruit bowls. To be fair, SOME of that stuff made it in... like 1%.

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

TARA: I learned that you don't have to abuse your crew to get your movie made. I learned that next time, I want more than 15 shoot days.

Wayne Kramer on "The Cooler"

2011-10-06T03:43:00.000-07:00

What was the genesis of the script for The Cooler?

WAYNE KRAMER: My good friend,, Frank Hannah is a fountain of great ideas and he used to bounce stuff off of me all the time. I had only sold one project to Hollywood at the time (Mindhunters, which was in the process of being rewritten by the umpteenth writer) and had had a couple of scripts optioned, but nothing was really happening with them. My original goal was always to write and direct, but nobody was interested in letting me direct anything at the time since I had zero track record.

When Frank pitched me the core idea for The Cooler (a guy with contagious bad luck being used by a casino, who falls in love and gets lady luck which backfires on the casino), I instantly responded to it. I told him that's the idea he should be working on and that he should start writing it immediately. At the same time, I was looking to direct my first "real" feature and I had interest from a producer (Michael Pierce) about financing something at a real low budget. I just couldn't let the idea go and a few days later I called up Frank and asked him if he would be interested in writing The Cooler with me -- but only on the condition that I get to direct it -- and, thankfully, he was amenable to that.

So we sat down (fairly quickly) and worked out most of the story beats. We both blurted out Bill Macy's name as the perfect guy for the role right at the start. We wrote it with him in mind -- to this day, I don't think that another actor could ever do justice to that part. There was a time when Bill wasn't going to do the movie and another actor was being considered for it -- and I think it would have never been the movie I wanted it to be without Bill.

Since Frank has the gambling gene and I don't, when we were ready to write the actual script, I broke it down so that I would write the more character focused stuff and Frank would concentrate on more of the casino action and then I blended the scenes together into a singular work.

Were you concerned about budget at all while writing --- that is to say, did you write with keeping the budget low in mind?

WAYNE KRAMER: Absolutely. First and foremost in my mind was that I needed to deliver a script that could be shot for about a million dollars or less. One of the things that attracted me to the idea at the time was that it could be made for very little money. Most of it was set on a casino floor and in Shelly's office and a motel room.

Our biggest challenge initially was that it was written to be a period piece and that would have been cost prohibitive. By giving it a contemporary setting, I was still able to retain somewhat of a period vibe by keeping the Shangri-la casino in a "time warp." I don't think the film would have been as interesting if it was set in the 70's as we originally envisioned. This was a case of budget constraints on us making the material even better.

Even though the original was always about the changing face of Vegas, it just became more "relevant" in 2002 because Vegas was really exploding into this amusement park behemoth at the time.

If one breaks the script down, it's all set within the casino and hotel, other than two or three other locations. And that's the way we approached production, to try and shoot everything in one location - which is what we ended up doing. We must have shot about 90 percent of the film at what was known as the Golden Phoenix at the time (formerly the Flamingo in Reno). Even luckier for us, the casino/hotel was going through renovations, so it was closed to the public. They were literally tearing up the casino floor while we were shooting.

Can you think of one or two money-saving tricks you did while shooting that other low-budget filmmakers could learn from?

WAYNE KRAMER: Well, the more prepared you are, the more you're going to save money on what's important. This probably relates to the next question as well, but I knew every shot I wanted to film and where the camera was going to be looking. I had spent the previous six months up until the day of shooting storyboarding every frame of the film -- I was determined to leave nothing to chance. Of course, you make changes to your boards, but you have a strong blueprint for what you want the film to be and everyone can refer to it when they have questions.

Besides storyboarding, you want to limit your company moves while shooting, which means finding locations that are really close to one another, or even better, within the same structure.

We were amazingly lucky on The Cooler, because we shot in an existing hotel/casino and were able to not only use the casino floor (which we did significant production design work to), but their theater, including the backstage area, where we built the interior of Bernie's motel room, their employment office (doubling for a hospital), their hotel rooms, an upstairs restaurant was turned into Shelly's office and so on.

When we did venture outside of the casino, we probably only traveled a block or two, so we never had to wrap our main location. We also housed and fed the crew in the hotel, so we could just walk away from the equipment at night without having to worry about wrap time or travel eating into our budget and schedule. It was a truly miraculous scenario, but borne out of solid planning and scouting.

Is there a key lesson you took away from your experience on The Cooler?

WAYNE KRAMER: For me, I learned it was all about collaboration.

Surround yourself with talented people who understand your vision for the film and let them bring their best to the table. If your ego gets in the way, you'll only end up hurting yourself.

At the same time, you cannot allow your vision for the film to be usurped by cast or crew. You have to follow your gut and it's a difficult balance to maintain.

Directing is a tough job and everyone around you on the set seems to be having more fun - because you're too busy stressing about the next setup or an actor that you haven't cast yet, or a million different things. You have to stay focused at all times and be able to think quickly on your feet.

You also have to KNOW your film. If you know your film, you'll be up to the challenge. It's also about keeping the film tonally consistent.

Preparation and collaboration is everything. And CONFIDENCE. Even if it's an act. Never let them see you sweat.

Most important is that you work with good people. Trustworthy people. If you don't have a final cut contract, pray that your producers and financiers are behind you.

The biggest battles I've ever fought are in the editing room - or after test screenings. This is where I find a filmmaker is at his/her most vulnerable.

You can shoot a great movie, but the money guys have to be willing to let you release the best version of the film and not just the most commercial version. I thank Ed Pressman for having the balls to back me artistically on The Cooler, because it could have been a far different movie if someone like Harvey Weinstein had gotten his hands on it.

Brett Eichenberger on "Light of Mine"

2011-09-29T03:54:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Light of Mine?

BRETT: I had directed a few short films and documentaries going back about 15 years. One of my short films, The Leeward Tide, played in over 35 national and international film festivals. I also do corporate video, music videos and commercials to pay the bills -- which is a great way to hone the filmmaking skills.

What was your involvement in the writing process -- did the script come to you finished or did you work with the writer?

BRETT: Light of Mine was initially my concept. A few years ago while daydreaming I had wondered if it were conceivable to be a blind photographer - even though it's an oxymoron.

I did a bit of research and sure enough, there are a bunch of blind photographers, all of which have different degrees of blindness. Some of them have lost vision progressively (and were photographers before) while others were born blind and picked up a camera later in life.

I brought this idea of a photographer, who's at the beginning of his career and losing his sight, to my wife Jill, who has written several great screenplays. Jill took the idea and turned it into a 25-page outline. I massaged it here and there and chose to shoot the outline because I wanted to work in a more intimate improvisational way.

I also felt that a script could be intimidating to my lesser-experienced actors. It was a different way to work, but it was liberating because we were able to be a bit more honest with the material which really serves the subject matter and film well.

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

BRETT: We did a few different things to raise the budget, including Kickstarter, a fundraiser and we were finally approached by an investor who really wanted to be a part of our project.

Our plan for recouping the costs involves going the festival route to earn some praise and buzz for the film. Light of Mine isn't the most marketable film, but we feel there is an audience out there that is really thirsty for a film like this.

We'd like to work with a Producer's Rep and a Foreign Sales Agent to get it out there, but we don't have anyone we're working with at the moment.

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

BRETT: We shot on DSLRs and an old 16mm Arriflex for a dream sequence. With our shooting schedule and budget I decided I wanted two competent DP's on board to run two cameras simultaneously. It's a very visual-heavy film, therefore I wanted guys who didn't need a tremendous amount of direction from me while we were in the thick of it.

The camera models we used were: Canon 7D, 5D Mark 2, T2i, and a GoPro HD. This was a film that couldn't have been made on really any other cameras. We were afforded a "stealth mode" while we shot in Yellowstone without a permit. The DSLRs also gave us the ability to set this guy in a "photographic" world by varying lenses and depths of field. I don't think any video camera could've conveyed the visual feeling that the DSLRs did - which gives the film depth, warmth and intimacy.

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

BRETT: I don't think it changed too much. I was also the editor on the film, which is good and bad of course. Being an editor for almost 20 years I had a great idea as to how I wanted to cut it while we were shooting.

There were some surprises as I went through the footage though. Mostly because I couldn't monitor the feeds of both cameras while in Yellowstone etc. I was able to take those surprises and punch up the emotion in places I didn't think I could.

I also approached the edit from the heart as well. I'm much more of a logical heady editor, so it was a bit of a transition to move into this different style if you will. Most importantly, I wanted the film to feel organic. We shot the film in an organic way, much the same way I've read Terrence Malick works (which there's not much information on out there). Malick's films have this honest beauty and natural organic flow to them. I wanted Light of Mine to have that same type feel.

What is your distribution plan and how did you develop it?

BRETT: Our distribution plan is still forthcoming. With the market changing as fast as it is, we're researching a few different options. Its a big screen film with lots of nature, vistas and travel shots, I would love to make sure it gets at least a bit of a theatrical run.

We've discussed four-walling (self theatrical run) and other options. Again, we're just not sure that it will be picked up by a major because it lacks big stars and high-end production value - but it's got a good story etc. so we never say never.

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

BRETT: The smartest thing I did during production was trust my instincts. They're there for you to trust. If you want to connect to your audience in an emotional way, then go with your first thought. Don't over think something, that's the equivalent of sending your idea back for rewrites, which can ruin something pure and raw.

The dumbest thing I did was not trusting my instincts. Overall I felt very prepared going into this film after working towards it for many years.

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

BRETT: The most important lesson I learned was that you can never stop believing in your project. There was a time I really felt like I should archive the footage and move on.

We had some early edits go out to a few people and the feedback wasn't where I was hoping it would be. I felt that our "grand experiment" went wrong, so chalk it up as experience. Jill, the writer, reminded me of something that I'll take with me on every film from now on, she said: "People need this film". That really hit me.

Her comment didn't resonate to me from a personal perspective, but more from a global perspective. There really is an audience that needs this film, because they need to feel that no matter how bad life can be, there is a light, and there are people who love you who will help you to see that light. This is our goal henceforth, to show people the Light of Mine.

Light of Mine Trailer from Brett Eichenberger on Vimeo.

Frazer Bradshaw on "Everything Strange and New"

2011-09-22T03:53:00.000-07:00

Where did the idea for the script from and what was the writing process like? As primarily a cinematographer, do you think you approached the writing differently than a non-cinematographer might have?

FRAZER: I'm going to answer these first two question together: Because I'm a cinematographer, by trade, and because I spent three years in a fine arts high school and five years at the San Francisco Art Institute, I'm very steeped in the visual. That being the case, I don't so much write, as much as visualize.

The film came to me in visual cinematic moments; not so much as pieces that helped flesh out a treatment, but just as pieces that I had to figure out what to do with. It was like a puzzle that I didn't have the box cover for, in a way. It was really a bunch of cinematic moments that just felt right and I figured out how to fit them together.

I wrote without a treatment and didn't see the climax coming until I was almost to the end, and the other pivotal moment came, very much as I wrote it; I was almost as surprised as it I typed it out as the audience is when they see it on the screen.

How did you juggle your two on-set roles -- director and DP?

FRAZER: First, I'll say that I had to be my own DP. For me, the story and the visual storytelling are so intertwined that to not shoot it would have meant a major compromise (or driving my DP completely insane because I was making 90% of the decisions for him/her).

There's definitely a notion that one shouldn't be one's own DP, and it's definitely true of people who aren't DPs and don't have that skill set. And I imagine that it would be true on a large scale project with lots of levels of middle management. But for me, on this particular film, it was obvious and really quite easy.

I had a crew of about 11, so I had personal contact with everyone on set, and there was a distinct family feel because of that. I hired my best people from productions I shoot, so I had a team of highly skilled technicians, but also people who were genuinely good people and who had my and the film's best interest at heart.

That being the case, it was a well-oiled machine. Everyone had my back. And I never argued with the DP about anything :-) I very much knew what I wanted, going in, and we pretty much shot what we went in for and got out.

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

FRAZER: I had $40K in the bank and I decided to make the film for $40K if it came to that. Luckily, it didn't (that would have been very tough and probably would have shown up on the screen), and in the 11th hour, a producer friend introduced me to Steve Bannatyne at Lucky Hat Entertainment. Steve came on for the money I needed to get though production, comfortably, plus the money to get me though post. It was still an exceedingly small budget, but it was designed to be, from the start, and we were able to work comfortably within the low budget confines, since it was a lot more than $40K

As for getting my money back, well…it's going to take 10 years, and maybe we'll never see all of it. People often come to me, now, and say: you made a successful indie film, it played Sundance, won prizes, got a Spirit nomination and more, what direction can you give me to make my film successful. My reply is something like this: If you want to be successful, DO NOT MAKE A MOVIE!

If you have something to say, and saying it is so important that ending up on your death bed without having made this movie will mean having failed, then you HAVE to make your movie. But if you want to be successful and be famous and get rich and laid by hottie chicks, then please go back to your day job at the financial services company.

If you're making a truly indie film, you have to make it with as much sincerity and honesty as you can. You've got to be vulnerable and pull no punches. If you make a film that is truly honest, then you have a good shot at real success (the kind that is deeply gratifying), but don't bother with the fake success, because the odds are 1000:1, at best (and that's no exaggeration).

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

FRAZER: I shot it in Super 16 with my Aaton. I'd been shooting on my Aaton for close to ten years at that point (fall of 2007), and I knew it well and loved it dearly. At the time, there was no digital camera that I would have considered. The RED and the Silicon Imaging cameras were both barely out and very dysfunctional technologies, not to mention still very expensive to rent. If I were shooting it again, today, I'd be shooting it on my RED, but in that moment, film was the only viable option.

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

FRAZER: During post, we moved some scenes around, but the heart of the project didn't change. Things shifted to help develop characters or pace things better, but the meaning is still intact and not much ended up on the cutting room floor. I didn't feel my way though it, I knew what I wanted going in, so that meant that I more or less had what I'd set out to get, once I was in post.

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

FRAZER: The smartest is easy, and also my very best advice: Hire the best people you can find. And I don't mean just the best at their craft, I mean the best people; people who's heart is in helping you make a great film.

I have to say that I didn't do anything very dumb. The privilege of working as a DP on indie projects for 12 years before making my own film was that I got to watch a lot of people make a lot of dumb decisions and also to make a lot of smart decisions. I went into production knowing what the consequences would be of most of the decisions I was making, so there were no disasters.

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

FRAZER: I learned how important character development is and how critical it is for the characters to be authentic, recognizable and likable. In my work, at least, everything hinges on the depth of the character development, and I'd underestimated how critical that would be. Luckily, I had the material to get the characters to where they needed to be, but in the first editorial pass, it was missing and I was afraid I might have sunk my own ship. On the new project, I'm writing, I've been very cognizant of my characters’ development and particularly of their introductions (because movies are like life in that the first impression really matters).

The other thing I learned is that I have to trust myself. Feedback is indispensable, and no one can really make a good film without a bunch of good feedback, but there are certain decisions and approaches that people tried to talk me out of, but I knew, in my gut, were right for the film, and I kept those elements against the better judgment of others. Some of those choices were quite unorthodox, and were risky, but making them and standing by them has a lot to do with why the film has had the reception it has (mostly good, sometimes really bad).

Sheri Candler on "Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul"

2011-09-15T03:19:00.000-07:00

Authors of the book are Orly Ravid and Jeffrey Winter from The Film Collaborative, Jon Reiss (author of Think Outside the Box Office /film directing adjunct professor at CalArts and acclaimed filmmaker), and Sheri Candler (film marketer/social networking expert).

What's the biggest misconception that filmmakers have about distribution?

SHERI: That there is some kind of magic distributor fairy waiting to give them a fat check and make their dreams come true. I hear many, many times filmmakers say ‘we’re artists, making films is supposed to be fun’ and I am sure thinking about the business of art isn’t fun to them. But it is imperative. As my filmmaker friend Greg Bayne says, "You may not be interested in the business but you probably like to eat."

It is your responsibility to your investors, your crew, yourself to take charge of this and have a solid plan from the outset that isn’t solely dependent on a distributor coming along and making your film whole, which is to say paying a minimum guarantee that recoups your production budget with interest. VERY few of those deals exist now, no matter what producer’s agents and distributors like to say.

Ask many questions of anyone currently working in film today and if you can get them to admit it, there aren’t big upfront deals going on, there aren’t a lot of presales going on and the likelihood of most independent films recouping is slim. Don’t base your estimations on box office returns either. Until there is a number revealed that shows how much was spent to get those returns, you don’t have a clear picture of profit. A film that has a $10 million box office may have spent $15 or $20 million to get that.

Setting aside the goal of recoupment though, it is more than possible to start building a career off of the attention you can get from a release. That’s where having a prestige festival premiere comes in. Say what you like about the films that play Sundance or how difficult it is to get in, that festival has the cache to change the life of your film and your career simply because of the amount of press coverage it receives and that is why it is so coveted and competitive.

Having the Sundance brand on your film can be very lucrative to your career IF you play it right. One of our case study films in the book, Bass Ackwards, premiered at Sundance 2010 and then launched directly after the festival instead of waiting to see if they would get picked up and released 8 months later per usual. They received a lot of publicity off of that and I hope we will see more films doing something similar this year because there were films last year that received distribution deals and little has happened since then. There were also films at Sundance last year that didn’t get distribution deals and nothing ever happened and that is a shame.

There should now be no reason to NOT have distribution, even worldwide. There are so many tools and so many websites available to filmmakers to get their films out that not having some kind of distribution is just silly. It is building attention and audience that is the problem, not distribution.

What's the most common mistake that independent filmmakers make when they consider distribution options for their film?

SHERI: Not planning for it from the start. There are decisions that need to be made very early in the process, such as who is going to love this film (I mean exact characteristics, not general demographics), how will you reach them to tell them about it, what distribution outlets will be used (is this really a theatrical title or more VOD/digital streaming?), how the audience of this particular film enjoys watching films (because this isn’t all about your screening preference, it is about their habits), whether to start building an audience from preproduction or wait, hoping to be picked up by a distributor where significant money will need to be spent to get attention? It is well and good to think the latter will happen, but if it doesn’t, it is very late to realize that all the work you planned for that company to do will be on you now when you can least afford it from a time or money perspective.

Building an audience relationship early will never hurt your chances, but it directly impacts how the film will sell. If there is a provable audience and you have done all you can to build up a relationship with a sizable group that can be immediately monetized on release, what distributor in their right mind would turn that down? It only gives you leverage in making deals. Part of that leverage is choosing the right partner who can take your film to the next level, not beg around for someone to take it on for little to no money. You also should carve out the right to sell directly because that money all goes to you, why split percentages with someone who didn’t come into the picture until the end? And keep those direct relationships with your audience going so you don’t have to start all over again on your next film.

When looking at self-distribution, what are some of the hidden obstacles a filmmaker might encounter?

SHERI: One obstacle is budgeting money to do it. Depending on how best to distribute your film, you must factor in the costs of marketing and utilizing distribution avenues. If you’re going to use the festival circuit as your theatrical, budget in the submissions fees, DVD/print copies, postage, travel for all that will attend etc.

If you are doing your own tour, you may need to four wall in some cities and that has significant costs in the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands if it is many cities.

If it is digital, factor in how much aggregator costs like Distribber or Tunecore will charge to access iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon VOD and soon Vudu.

If you plan to distribute from your own site using Dynamo Player or Distrify, you may need a little bit of technical advice for your website to integrate that in a seamless way which could cost something.

No matter what, you will need someone to drive traffic to those sites be it iTunes or your own website so there’s a salary or at least a consulting charge to advise you on how to do it best. If your website will be a prime sales location, you’ll want some SEO advice to make sure you are optimizing search engine rankings and pulling in customers. You’ll have printing costs for business cards, posters, postcards, you may need an attorney to look over contracts especially if you want to sign with a 3rd party distributor for some sales.

Despite those costs, I think all artists should be looking at some form of direct distribution. While I realize that distributing your film yourself has the connotation in the industry of lack of quality or professionalism, releasing directly to your fans is far more rewarding in the long term for the artist. I think a lot of the talk about the DIY movement in indie filmmaking has been dismissive mostly by distributors and sales agents whose roles are being diminished which is a scary prospect for them and by filmmakers who really shirk this responsibility and fear it, so it is easier to say that is only done by hacks. I think within 5 years most of these people will have moved on or changed their focus because distribution really isn’t difficult to obtain, but there will always be a role for marketing and attention getting.

The hidden obstacle is a mindset change to tell you the truth. I know that the myth surrounding the industry is if you make an extraordinary film, people will just know and money will fall out of the sky and your mansion in Beverly Hills is just there waiting for you. The truth is this is damn tough work and you will be doing waaay more than just writing a great script and bringing it to life on screen and there really isn’t much money in it, not for a long time if ever. If you can swallow that reality and say “well, I know the truth and I still need to do it” more power to you, your chances of success just went up.

How has the Internet altered the distribution world?

SHERI: It drove the prices for content down that’s for sure. When Netflix is selling unlimited movie viewing for $15 a month, basically the price of one DVD or movie ticket, things have changed. When your film can be distributed worldwide for no cost and with no one’s permission, things have changed. I think it altered it in good ways and bad ways.

Good because it enables totally unknown artists to reach people on a global scale without having to do deals, cut in outside entities for percentages, spend tons of money to reach audiences globally. Bad because now everyone can do it, which raises the noise level, the confusion level. The competition means you have to be that much louder to reach the large scale or much more surgical in your approach and be ok with reaching a small, but highly valuable niche.

Also, there is such overwhelming choice when it comes to finding content, audiences have become fractured and it is harder to reach them and harder for them to know where the “good stuff” is anymore. When there were very few choices, people just lived with what those few outlets offered. That’s bad for someone looking for the unusual, but good for someone who just wants to be spoon-fed and not have to make many decisions. I think the majority of people fall into the latter.

Up will rise the curator, another gatekeeper really, to sort the “good stuff” from the crap and those curators will have great power. It just will be very specialized, not broad interest I think. All of these online movie sites that have cropped up and basically take any film, they will not grow in power. It will be the highly specialized sites like FearNet, Cooking Network, even Troma (which is my favorite example) that will win. They are very specialized in their programming, bringing viewers the best in their niche and really creating a community and identity around their brand, those will be the big winners. There is a huge lesson here for distributors if they will pay attention. There’s more money in the niche than in the mass.

Also the overdependence on selling copies has become a losing proposition. Exact copies of your film are available for free online. Not degraded VHS, shaky camera copies, EXACT digital copies. If selling copies is your only form of revenue, you are really stuck. New business models, new revenue streams must be found by indie filmmakers or they really won’t survive.

Suing your audience into compliance isn’t going to work either. Making your work effortlessly available, for an affordable price, in a way that is convenient to your audience, that’s how you combat piracy. Also building in other revenue streams such as experiences, merchandise, sponsorships, crowd donation, those are all forms of revenue that filmmakers can use.

What were some of the smartest ideas for distribution that you came across while putting the book together?

SHERI: I especially loved distribution that took place in partnership with organizations. This is done particularly well with documentaries where a cause or special interest is involved. If the organization can see a great reason to partner, like their mission goals will be met or there is a financial incentive, then this form of distribution can work REALLY well.

Two film cases in the book characterize this kind of partnership, Ride the Divide and For the Bible Tells Me So. Narrative films will have a more difficult time with this kind of partnership unless their film has some niche interest involved.

As far as the narratives, I was really pleased to hear from many festival award films that had kept the production budgets very low were able to nearly recoup their production costs through festival screening fees. This only works if the film has been an official selection or better won an award at the prestige fests like Sundance, Cannes, Berlin.

The smaller fests want these films to play and they will pay screening fees to get them so leverage all you can from those selections and wins. Programmers will contact you to request a viewing and if they like it and want to program it, then you ask for a fee. Much of the revenue from Undertow (Contracorriente) came from festival screening fees and that was a narrative film.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the fact that we are self publishing and distributing this book too. In fact, we felt it would be hypocritical to write a book about self distribution and then work with a publisher who would take our rights and about 90% of the revenue and then only IF we could get a publisher interested since most of us are new authors and this isn’t a mass consumer oriented book.

Typically, new authors are only offered maybe a $5,000 advance which we would have had to split between 4 people. So we had to find a way to fund our book so that we could take time to write it and develop it as the digital book format we wanted. We accomplished that through selling sponsorships. Not only has the development and the printing been paid for by the generosity of our sponsors, particularly Prescreen, Area23a Movie Events and Dynamo Player, but we are already in the black before one copy has been sold. How many authors can claim that? It also enables us to make one digital copy (a free pdf text only version) free always so there is no excuse for any filmmaker not to read this book.

* * *

Selling Your Film Without Selling Your Soul Presented by Prescreen and Area23a Movie Events will be available starting September 13, 2011 on major ebook platforms such as Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble Nook and Apple iBooks. Printed copies will also be available directly from the website and soon on Amazon and in retail bookstores. A text only pdf will be indefinitely available for free. To follow all the happenings with the book, “like” it on Facebook and follow the Twitter hashtag #syfnotsys

You can reach Sheri Candler on her website www.shericandler.com, on her Facebook page, on Twitter @shericandler and on Google+, add her to your circles.

Andrew Haigh on "Weekend"

2011-09-08T03:52:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Weekend?

ANDREW: I had worked as an assistant editor for what felt like a very long time. I'd been working on all kinds of films, from Gladiator to Mister Lonely, but felt I was getting trapped in a certain job when I always wanted to make my own films.

In the end I just decided enough was enough and I had to go out and make my own stuff.

I had done some shorts that had been on the festival circuit, but I decided to make a very small micro-budget feature to get things moving. It was called Greek Pete.

Filmed over a year it was docu-drama about London male escorts and it was released theatrically in the UK and on DVD in the US. This helped me raise a little bit of money for Weekend.

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

ANDREW: The idea came from a lot of things but primarily I just wanted to try and tell a realistic story about two guys falling for each other, have it be about aspects of the gay experience but also have be about so much more than that. The writing process was quite drawn out and the main challenge was to make it feel as naturalistic as possible, almost as if it were improvised, but at the same time enable the themes to come through.

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

ANDREW: We were funded by a mixture of public money in the UK, tax breaks and other bits and bobs. The budget was small but even when you're trying to raise a small amount of money it is tough - especially when you are not doing something particularly mainstream.

The plan for recoupment mainly comes from distribution companies buying the film although those amounts are never as much as you hope unless you are incredibly lucky. Money also can come in from festival play and the fees can quickly add up to a substantial amount. We are also hoping for a TV sale or two, probably in Europe.

Hopefully all of this will pay back the budget and then you just hope the film is a big success!

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

ANDREW: We shot on the Canon 5d but with cinema lenses and a massive rig which ended up making it about as big as a RED camera. I love the image quality you can get from something relatively cheap and small, but it does have its problems. It's not made as a video camera so it can be frustrating to use in terms of attaching monitors etc and the workflow is bit of a nightmare.

I don't think my DP would really want to use it again, although I think she did an amazing job. You also have to careful with focusing and not get too caught up in the shallow depth of field the camera can achieve, otherwise it will look like a music video rather than a film. It's also not fantastic in bright light but luckily when we shot there was a lot of cloud.

What are the advantages -- and possible disadvantages -- to being the editor on a film that you also wrote and directed?

ANDREW: I always knew I wanted to edit the film and for me it is simply an extension of directing. I think maybe it's partly because I'm a control freak, but also because I'm from an editing background it makes sense to do it myself.

For me personally when I edit I discover what works simply by trying different things without really knowing where it is heading. I think I would drive an editor completely crazy. Of course you do loose objectivity and that is the biggest problem but I always figure you loose that anyway whether your are editing yourself or sitting in the same room as an editor.

Editing is a strange part of the process when you are all alone with your film trying to make it work, discovering what you've done right and what you done wrong. I both love and hate that feeling in equal measures.

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

ANDREW: The smartest thing was hiring Tom and Chris, the two actors, because if they hadn't been great and the chemistry between them believable then the film would have been complete garbage. I think also keeping the crew tiny and shooting in order was also incredibly helpful in making the film feel real and authentic.

The dumbest? Not sure. I got drunk one night and my hangovers make me very irritable which is never a good thing when you're trying to make a film.

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

ANDREW: I think I've learnt a way of working that I really enjoy and a way of making a set work that I think creates the right tone for the type of films I want to make. Of course I've made mistakes as well, which I hope to not do again, although more than likely, I will.

James Repici on "Subprime"

2011-09-01T03:53:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Subprime?

JAMES: When I was in high school, I would make promotional videos for the school’s various fundraisers. So if they needed to get kids to come out to a carwash or whatever they were pushing, they would have me shoot a video with my friends to encourage student involvement, and it would play after the morning school news. Those same friends and I would make movies after school for fun.

At the time we were big into an MTV show called The State, so we would make sketch comedy stuff like that. Editing consisted of two VCRs and a boombox. It was all very poorly done and most of it is now funny for all the wrong reasons. At this point I still didn’t realize that filmmaking was an actual option in life. I always knew it was what I wanted to do, but I didn’t realize that it could be a career. “What’s a Director?” I really had no idea – the guidance my family provided was very limited and one-dimensional.

In college, I went to Business School but I took every film class that Florida State made available to me. Unfortunately for non-film students, those classes are limited to Film History and Theory type classes, so there was no hands-on training. In hindsight I think this was actually a good thing though because these classes built a foundation of understanding the art of filmmaking. It kept me from putting the carriage in front of the horses, so to speak. I’m big into subconscious communication with the viewer and film theory now, and I think these classes were the impetus for that.

Looking back, I’m kind of glad I didn’t go to film school. I think I’m a better filmmaker for it. Here’s a Terry Gilliam quote I love “There's so many film schools, so many media courses which I actually am opposed to. Because I think it's more important to be educated, to read, to learn things, because if you're gonna be in the media and if you'll have to say things, you have to know things. If you only know about cameras and 'the media', what're you gonna be talking about except cameras and the media? So it's better learning about philosophy and art and architecture [and] literature, these are the things to be concentrating on it seems to me.”

Too true Terry… Too true.

After I graduated college I moved to Los Angeles and befriended a bunch of filmmakers and writers. In LA I really focused on learning the craft of screenwriting. I did this for 3 or 4 years – and unsuccessfully I might add. I think after my 3rd feature, I started to figure it out and felt good about what I was writing and how I was doing it. In 2007 I was a finalist in the Page International Screenwriting Competition for my feature Cigar City, and everything has sort of taken off from there.

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

JAMES: I was working as a banker in 2005 in LA making $35,000 a year while brokers younger and less educated than me were coming in cashing checks for 15 and 20 grand every month. Imagine that - an 18 year old, cashing a 20 thousand dollar check. I just couldn’t get over how much money these kids were making - this was the seed for Subprime.

I didn’t consciously say to myself “Oh I’m going to write a story about these entitled little bastards” but it definitely clicked – I knew there was a story there. About two years later – 2007 I think – I was living in Orlando and working at a brokerage with about 30 loan officers. In June of that year the Page recognized Cigar City, so with that I started work on Subprime.

I enlisted the help of Darius Amendolia, a coworker of mine that had similar tastes in film and music – he also provided a more knowledgeable and tenured perspective on the mortgage industry. After our daily 9 AM meeting, Darius and I would work on the script in my office until noon. Over lunch we’d discuss the story and character development and then around 1 we’d finally get some paying work done.

Writing about crooked brokers while working in an office with crooked brokers, I must say was awesome. Every character in Subprime is based off of someone from that office. Actual lines were used in the movie, from real lines we heard in the office – sometimes verbatim. If there was ever a disagreement between Darius and I over what the Nick character might say if put in a particular situation, we would just walk over to the office of the guy he was based on, and ask him.

The regional manager comes in and says, “Forget about your piece, you need to take your unfair share” – we used it. Broker X is overheard saying “Yes, I’m the quality control manager…” No he’s not – but we can use it. Every day was filled with moments like this – a bunch of snake oil salesman providing us with great free material. This went on for about 6 months until Darius got fired for low production (go figure, we were writing the whole time!). After that we would meet at my house once a week to push the script forward.

After we had our first draft, I worked on the rewrites alone. I think comedy is the only exception where it’s better to have multiple writers but certainly for drama you’re better off with one voice – taking on the rewrites alone made the whole thing much more balanced. It took about one year to have a readable version but I was rewriting all the way to and through the shoot. The scene where Ian is selling during the 9/11 tragedy was written 30 minutes before the shoot. Writing is sort of like filmmaking – you never really feel like you’re finished.

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

JAMES: Initially I had a 10 grand commitment from a friend/ex-coworker I had met in the mortgage industry. His investment was rooted solely in my showing as a finalist in the Page. When the final results from the writing competition came in; I don’t think he even cared what I was writing about, he seemed pretty confident that whatever I put together would be good.

For writer/directors, writing competitions are a great resource to build a resume. The Page for example has different categories you can enter to increase your chances of being recognized. You still have to be good at what you do – you still have to write something great – but instead of competing against 6,000 other writers, you’re competing against 2,000 dramatic feature writers. If you can say you’re better than 2,000 other writers and they publish your name, you’re going to impress somebody. It was enough to get an investment from my coworker, so with his commitment I knew we could at the very least get the film made, albeit on an EXTEMELY low budget level.

After the first draft was written I set a shooting date for about 6 months in the future with a two way plan.

1: Continue to hustle my ass off to raise more money. In the event I could raise a substantial budget, I’d put the project on hold to elevate the scope of the production.

2: If I strike out in finding another investor, c’est la vie, I’m making it anyway with the 10 grand.

From there I approached all my mortgage professional connections but struck out completely. The market was really starting to collapse, so they were all experiencing a drastic decrease in income. Had I asked them just a year prior – I probably could have raised 100 grand pretty quickly. Unfortunately, that just wasn’t the case anymore though.

This was really my only angle. There was no Kickstarter.com or IndieGoGo at this point, and if there was, I didn’t know about it. I was tempted to hit up my family but I think they ultimately would have said no, and their lack of belief may have jilted my confidence. For that reason I decided to run with the 10 grand, and just do the best with what I had – that’s all you can do. Do the best with what you have.

The low budget in the long run has turned out to be a saving grace for me. When you don’t have a lot of money to recoup, you’re enabled to turn a profit quickly. I figured even on a grass roots promotion level, recouping 10 is doable. You can print 1,000 DVDs, with case, plastic wrap and all for about 1,000 dollars. So at 12 bucks a pop you’re already in the black.

We set up a website (SubprimeTheFilm.com) and added a link for interested buyers. My team blasted everyone they knew on Facebook/Myspace/Twitter, and all through the post production and festival run we directed our traffic there – we’re still doing this actually (Go visit the site and add your name).

Just from the site we have close to 1,000 buyers already. For the fests, I would blast email/fax every real estate agency, mortgage brokerage, bank, lender, appraiser’s office and title company that shared a zip code with the location of the showing.

I contacted the city’s chamber of commerce and got leads on different businesses/clubs that would be interested in my subject matter. Posted on mortgage related blogs, craigslist, etc. I reached out to any periodical I could find that were located in the city of showing. I’d walk the city’s financial district the day of the show and pass out flyers about my film. I’d talk to anybody that would listen really.

I wish I could say we had a legitimate marketing campaign but when there’s no money, it’s just not an option. Again, you do the best you can with what you have and you make it work. As far as actual distribution goes, right now I’m sending DVDs to different production companies that have distributed films that I feel are on Subprime’s level. With the limited budget, there’s no point in sending a screener to Paramount, but Lions Gate just might consider the merit in my film.

I send the screener to as many companies as I can find – I talk about it incessantly – And above all, I’m polite and take the time to speak and listen to every person that expresses interest. Leaving good impressions on people has served me well.

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

JAMES: We used an HVX AG 200, with a 35mm Letus Film Adaptor. It’s a pretty easy camera to use and a lot of cinematographers are comfortable with it. It was the best camera I was going to be able to afford, I had a lead on one, and my cinematographer had used it before – so that was that.

I think the fact that the camera is so commonly owned was a life saver for us – definitely what I loved about it most. We were shooting a scene at Mons Venus in Tampa Florida; I had arranged a crane, a grip truck and about 20 extras for the scene. I had cashed in a bunch of favors and put in a lot of leg work to make the shoot happen for next to nothing, but there was no room for error. We had about 4 hours to get what we needed and no second chances. The crane was in place, everybody’s ready to go, I yell action, and… the camera doesn’t work. We had somehow damaged the imaging chip in transport and the whole project was nearly derailed.

Fortunately one of our grips owned the exact same camera so we just borrowed his for the day. Obviously my film adaptor fit and we continued our shoot having only lost 1 hour of time, for him to go pick it up. If the HVX wasn’t such a popular camera, I’m not quite sure what I would have done here. The whole movie would have looked primo except for that one Mons scene shot on my camera phone… Haha , we would have had a camera phone strapped to a crane – how awesome would that have been.

I guess what I hate the most about the camera is simply that it’s not film. You can emulate film all you want, the film adapter certainly helps, but if you’re not shooting on film, it won’t look like film. There are individual shots and moments in Subprime that will fool you, but on a whole it’s clear we didn’t shoot on film.

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

JAMES: As far as duration goes – yea it changed pretty drastically. The first cut was about 2 hours long which held true to the screenplay of 124 pages. However; given the subject matter of the movie, I don’t think 2 hours is the best idea. Holding someone’s attention for a feature film is no easy task, so once we got all the pieces put together I started chopping anything that was expendable to the story. We got it down to a tight 78 minutes and it moves very fluently now.

Not just Subprime, but Micro/No Budget Film in general is best between 75 and 85 minutes. The shorter run time will save you money on the actual shoot, and your low budget doesn’t provide the kind of production value that will sustain a viewer for 2+ hours anyway. I’m not saying you need a car chase or explosion to keep somebody watching for 2 hours but even camera movement is difficult to execute when you don’t have money. A well written great story is essential and in your control so it’s imperative that you provide this.

But duration is also in your control; if you keep your feature short, the viewer will give you a lot more latitude on what you can’t provide. A shorter film is also beneficial to festival directors that are choosing what they will program. If a festival is trying to fill a 4 hour block of films with 2 features and 2 shorts – a shorter feature is more likely to fit into their schedule.

This probably sounds like a silly reason to keep a runtime down, but why do anything that could inhibit success? For a Micro/No Budget film – the festivals are nearly all you have, so cater to them. I lost a few story lines in cutting my story down but I think ultimately the shorter version is a better film.

What was the smartest thing you did during production?

JAMES: The smartest thing I did was preparation. Like most everything if you prepare efficiently; when it’s go time you’re going to be alright. There are still disasters (like with the camera), people are going to quit on you, locations will try to reschedule at the ninth hour, the crew won’t show up, an actor will no-show because they booked a paying gig, basically if it can go wrong it probably will, but… I hate to keep going back to this… you do the best with what you have, and preparation is something you have – so if you prepare your ass off, you’re going to make it.

The dumbest?

JAMES: Don’t be ridiculous John, I never do dumb things.

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

JAMES: Wow, where do I even begin here? Everything… I’m currently trying to find investors for a project I’ve written entitled Dutch Book, and my entire approach is based on what I’ve learned from Subprime. Here’s a breakdown of some of the more notable stuff:

Writing: Less is more. Don’t try to dictate the situation to your actor or your viewer. Some of the best scenes don’t have a word of dialogue. Sometimes you need to let the actor make the scene play – you can’t always do it on the page. Also, unless you have serious money, as I said before, I don’t see any purpose in a screenplay beyond 90 pages. Keep it short.

Casting: If you’re not 100% on somebody, don’t pull the trigger. Wait it out, have another casting session if need be, but wait until you have the perfect actor for each role. Use real actors for everything, no matter how minor the role. Find and cast people that are active in the industry. Avoid the whole family and friends routine.

Subprime has about 20 speaking parts and 20 non-speaking – if I use 40 real actors here, I’m going to have 40 industry involved people talking about my movie to everyone they know. This is free marketing. I love Dar’s Brother, and Grandma Repici cooks some amazing lasagna, but even if I'm desperate, I can't use them - they’re not going to be a bit of help when it comes to getting Subprime into the right person’s hands. I also noticed 2 distinct differences in the type of actor that audition for something on this level; some of them are aspiring actors because they want to be famous, and some of them are aspiring actors because they love to act. Avoid the prior at all costs and cast the latter with confidence.

Investors – Subprime was my first film and I had everyone involved telling me I needed to wait until I raised more money. “There’s no way you can make this with $10,000.” – I can’t tell you how many people told me this. Several people quit on me (some multiple times) because of my insistence to keep moving forward with such little money. I’m glad I was stubborn enough to not listen to them. If it’s your first film – just do it. Don’t wait for somebody to come along and say “Oh you’re a genius, I love your screenplay, here’s some money!”, because it’s not going to happen. If you’ve never made anything, why would anyone give you money? Put together whatever you can and just make it happen on your own.

Pre-Production – Plan like a maniac, and if it’s possible, rehearse when you have your cast. Rehearsing is huge.

Production – In William Goldman’s, Adventures in the Screen Trade, George Roy Hill (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) says of directing, something to the effect of “if the story is well executed and the film is properly cast, you’re job is nearly done”. His comment is so accurate. Take your time on the story and wait until you’ve perfected it. Then take your time finding the right cast, and watch it all come to life before your eyes during production.

Post – Editing is kind of like writing in the sense that, if it’s expendable just cut it. I don’t want to say this is true universally, but with Micro/No budget film you want to trim all the fat. As a writer it’s easy to fall in love with a certain scene or a certain piece of dialogue, but you have to detach yourself from that kind of thinking. On the page you might have something phenomenal but then on screen it might not play for any number of reasons.

And lastly, in general, I learned to never squander an opportunity. If you find you’re not getting enough opportunities, start creating them on your own. I email at least one person a day about my projects. I don’t even know the people I’m emailing – I scour the internet, find someone that I think could help, and I send them the most cordial email about what I’m working on and why they should involve themselves.

If you email 1,000 people blindly, 9,500 will ignore you, 400 will tell you to stop emailing them, 99 will tell you to go fuc! yourself, but 1 will give you an ear. And that one person is the opportunity that could get your project made. One of your readers could potentially help me. Hey! Yes You! … Reader! Do you want to invest in an amazing well written project? Do you want to invest in the most thorough, intelligent, and likable human being you’ve read about in the past ten minutes? Then you should contact me at JamesRepici@gmail.com and invest in Dutch Book…. You see, that was an opportunity, and I just took full advantage.

Adam Reid on "Hello Lonesome"

2011-08-25T03:52:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Hello Lonesome?

ADAM: I didn't go to film school. Or any school really. I was always a terrible student and find the very best way to learn is by doing and then seeking out those who simply know more than me and are willing to share their experiences.

I moved to New York many moons ago for a six-week freelance gig working for the promo department at Comedy Central. This was a big jump for me, as I was living in Los Angeles at the time and didn't even know anyone in New York. That six-week gig turned into several years, and I was given the magical opportunity to write, produce and direct promos for a living. This opened up my eyes to the possibilities, a playground to learn in, and for the first time I felt my dreams were within reach.

I left Comedy Central but continued to work behind the camera as a writer and director, making my first film, a short (available on iTunes) called While the Widow is Away. I'm so proud of this little film. It starred Lynn Cohen and Kamel Boutros, two actors who I wrote juicy roles for in Hello Lonesome and were kind enough to work with me again.

Making the short was a big baptism by fire introduction to filmmaking. The twenty minute short film was basically rejected from over 40 festivals. Then we were accepted to CineQuest and that felt like a huge victory at the time.

Shortly after that, we started winning awards at festivals all over. A road that eventually saw us short-listed for an academy award (but ultimately falling short of the nomination. With ten films selected and only five nominations. Our odds were 50/50!) I was crushed that we didn't get the nod, but the entire experience told me that this was much more than a pipe dream, I could call myself a filmmaker and expand my ambitions to feature length projects.

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

ADAM: My very favorite films are often these character driven stories of an intertwining nature. Stories cut from the cloth of life, featuring the beautiful but messy nature of things and a hopeful vibe. I think of my favorite films from directors like Robert Altman, Alejandro Inarritu or the duo from American Splendor, Shari Springer Bergman and Robert Pulcini. There is a humanity and warmth there behind all the drama, and I wanted to find that line. Early in the development I wanted to try and weave three stories together like a braid. It was a big experiment for me.

From my background in promos and commercials, I have a lot of experience working with voice over artists and that's where I had the idea for the character of Bill Soap. Most of the successful voice over guys work from their idyllic homes where they have sound studios which are tucked away in a closet or basement. I think for a lot of people that kind of life is alluring but it's a double edged sword, if you don't have your shit together and healthy relationships, I can't imagine a more lonely profession.

At the same time, I had just lost my sister to advanced breast cancer and was working through that loss by writing my sister’s story. Less the cancer part and much more the romance that came as a byproduct of that discovery. My sister met a guy online, just like in Hello Lonesome, shortly before she found out she was sick and he stayed with her. Writing Hello Lonesome was in large part a way for me to work through what happened to her. As depressing as it sounds, there's a lot of joy in that story. She was in a bit of denial about the whole thing but at least she wasn't alone.

For the third story, I wanted more than anything to take full advantage of Lynn Cohen again and her huge talent. I wrote this role of a rudderless widow just for her. Lynn is just so saucy and full of life that I wanted to create an unconventional love story for her. This story changed the most as we made the film, I was very lucky to have James Urbaniak (who played Crumb in American Splendor) in the role opposite her. That part was written for a much older actor, but Lynn and James made these parts their own completely. The best I could do was get out of their way and let them chew up the scenery (in a good way.)

I write quickly. It takes me forever to outline and work out the story, just ages, maybe a year or more just thinking about the story and breaking it all down. But when it comes to writing action and dialogue, that happens very fast. About three weeks or so writing the screenplay itself. Then Hello Lonesome went through several distinct drafts and title changes. Then there's so much improv on set that the last rewrite comes in the edit as we piece it together.

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

ADAM: Hello Lonesome was a VERY small movie. Self financed for less than $50,000 and shot in fifteen days with a principle crew that consisted of myself and four other brave souls. With the stakes low, I wasn't as afraid to wear multiple hats. This was a big learning process for me and I got the most out of the experience this way. Writing, producing, directing, shooting, art directing and pretty much working as my own production assistant. Our gaffer was also the DIT tech and camera assistant. Our Make-Up stylist doubled as a script supervisor. Everyone did many jobs, we had a small footprint but it was fun and doable this way. The focus would be on character and story over visuals. Working on this small scale was quite liberating compared to what I'm used to on commercial shoots where we can spend five times our entire film budget in one day.

With such a low investment, I'm hopeful we can make our money back with just the limited theatrical, video on demand (now through November) and future DVD sales. It was very important to me that this first film not need to be profitable in order to be considered a success. It's enough that it exists. A good metaphor would be comparing the budget to Vegas spending money. I only spent what I could afford to lose. I knew I was paying for the experience and joy of the thing. If we walk away with anything in the end, that would be a big bonus. But it's not expected and that makes the ride that much more fun and less stressful.

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

ADAM: In just the few years since I shot Hello Lonesome, all the technology has changed. In the summer of 2008 when we shot, I chose the Panasonic HVX for it's built in Leica zoom lens and tapeless HD recording. Now, with the HD SLR revolution in full effect, the HVX seems primitive and outdated. This is the greatest time to be a low budget filmmaker from a creative standpoint. We could have easily shot with the same budget today, but with the glorious lenses I love and a much richer look overall. Expect my next film to be gorgeous! There's no excuse anymore!

You wore a lot of hats on this project -- director, writer, producer, DP. What's the upside and the downside of working that way?

ADAM: For this film, on this small scale, it was perfect. I can't say that this is a great way to work on all projects but as a learning experience and an intimate creative process was exactly what I needed to do. That said, it's likely never to be repeated, at least not exactly the same way.

I work with some truly uber-talented folks who I can't wait to rope into my next film. And I doubt I'll ever take on the sole responsibility of being the only camera operator. To that end, I doubt I'll ever shoot with only one camera again.

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

ADAM: One smart thing that I plan to do as much as possible from here on out is having the real world stand in for itself. In the case of Hello Lonesome, we didn't even have a production designer or art director. I chose real world locations (which were all donated) as the backdrop in all three stories. This left very little for our tiny production team to fill in, little props here and there, but we never needed to build anything, or make a place look like something it wasn't. We could show up with the actors and get right to work by just placing them in the environment. It helped to cast the locations like I cast actors. When I cast, I look for actors who are as close to the role as humanly possible so we can get to the real work of mining their soul.

I have one scene in the movie that features great dialogue that moves the story forward and utterly horrible picture. I made the mistake of mounting a camera on the hood (for production value) not really understanding at the time that the glare from the front windshield and shake from the moving vehicle would make the resulting footage unusable. I've since learned a ton about car shooting (by shooting car commercials no less) and have a handful of low budget solutions to get beautiful images from actors in car scenes with very simple set-ups. To this day, I wish I reshot that scene but Lynn and James are great and it gets good laughs despite the lousy picture so I decided to live with it. I literally cover my eyes when I get to this scene.

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

ADAM: It's an insanely tough business. But with the right attitude, anything is possible. Refine your dreams, evolve, and make shit happen every day.

Jamie Greenberg on “Stags”

2011-08-18T03:52:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Stags?

JAMIE: Stags is my first feature film. Before getting into film, I had a 12-year career as a television writer and performer. I co-created Where In Time Is Carmen Sandiego on PBS, as well as acting in over 50 episodes. I was nominated for 2 Emmy Awards for this show.

I also wrote for numerous other childrens' TV shows, and-- flipping over to the dark side -- also worked extensively at MTV, co-creating their hit show Lip Service and going to three Spring Breaks, etc etc etc. I was also an on-camera Correspondent for Court TV's irreverent and unwatched show Snap Judgment.

After 12 years in TV I became pretty disillusioned with television, and decided to fumble my way into the world of film. I made a number of short films, then threw myself into making Stags.

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

JAMIE: The idea came about mainly from looking at my life and that of my friends. I had come up with the term "Stags" in my head years before, as a kind of joke with myself: shorthand for guys (like me) who were in their 30's or older, yet had never married or had children.

When it came time to write a feature, I specifically wanted to do something fairly mainstream and approachable, as a lot of my short-film work had been mock historical or fantasy stuff. So I decided to make something out of this Stags concept.

The writing process took place over a year, and since a lot of my previous long-form work had been with a writing partner, I decided to replicate the "writing partner dynamic" between myself and the legal pad. So I intentionally wrote a lot of loose, sometimes unconnected ideas-- the way two writers would, when trying to crack each other up in the room.

Eventually I had to pick and choose among the ideas and beat it into a narrative. There were originally more than 4 main guys, and additional storylines, etc. Killing some ideas so that others may live is necessary... but awful.

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

JAMIE: I sold myself outside the Port Authority bus station. I now have 431 minority investors in the film. I guess this is what they mean about giving investors "a piece."

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

JAMIE: The Sony EX-3. It was mainly handled by our DP, Salvatore Interlandi. However, after we wrapped principal photography, there were various inserts and pickups which I had to shoot myself, so I had to learn to use the camera as well.

I love the fact that it's affordable and shoots full 1080p. I don't love the fact that its depth of field is quite deep-- the opposite of the dreamy, filmic "shallow depth of field" everyone is chasing. Since we shot the film, several solutions for shallow DOF have become very popular, such as the Canon 5dm2 and 7d dslr's.

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

JAMIE: Smartest: casting the film well. Having a strong, engaging cast means viewers will forgive you a lot of the smaller stuff. Also the cast made very few mistakes, meaning we didn't lose a lot of time on-set due to actors forgetting their lines, etc.

Dumbest: shooting much too long a script, which meant a VERY long and involved edit process in order to figure out how to trim it down to decent length. With the wisdom of hindsight, shooting less would have meant more time to devote to any given scene, and also less stress in post.

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

JAMIE: Movies truly are a different medium from the written word, and visceral moments -- a glance, a reaction -- can seem like nothing in script form, yet be the most powerful moment in a scene. The trick is to magically predict these moments when writing the script!

"STAGS" Trailer from Jamie Greenberg on Vimeo.

Jim McBride and L.M. Kit Carson on "David Holzman's Diary"

2011-08-11T03:40:00.000-07:00

What was your inspiration for making this film?

MCBRIDE: It was a combination of things. Michael Powel's Peeping Tom had a big impression on me. I saw it when it was banned in the United States; maybe it was banned everywhere, I don't know. On my first visit to California, a guy I knew got a hold of a print of it and showed it at midnight at a movie theater that no longer exists here. I was just knocked out by it. The whole idea of self-examination.

Then, in addition to that, I was very interested in Cinema Verite. Kit Carson and I were going to write something for the Museum of Modern Art about Cinema Verite, and we interviewed all these filmmakers--like the Mayles brothers, Ricky Leacock, Pennebaker, even Andy Warhol--who were making films that purportedly were for the first time entering into real life and finding out the truth.

People were really passionate about this idea that you could find the truth with this new, light-weight equipment and faster film stocks and synch sound--all the stuff that was very new in the sixties. So at that time I was very passionately interested in all of that, and at the same time I felt there was something wrong here.

So you didn't out to specifically fool people?

MCBRIDE: That certainly wasn't the idea. One wanted to make a movie that would be believable. Yes, on one level you wanted people to believe that it was real and to affected by it, but on the other hand, I didn't set out with the intention of fooling people. But just as with any film you make, you want people to suspend their disbelief, you want people to believe it.

I know that this film is an important film to a lot of people, and always, constantly surprised when people come up to me and say, 'I saw your film when I was in college.' My own experience with the film is that it's never had any kind of commercial release, it's never shown in theater. It really only has a life at film festivals and colleges. So I'm always surprised that more than seven people have seen it.

I know that at a lot of early showings people walked out, but I think that was more from being bored than being fooled.

How did you and Kit write the film?

MCBRIDE: I had a different way of working with Kit. We were writing this thing for the Museum of Modern Art, exploring this whole idea of truth.

For those parts of the film that took place in his apartment--we really did it all in one long weekend, I think--we spent several days beforehand with just a tape recorder in a room. I would give him a sense of what I wanted to have happen in a given scene, and then he would put it into his own words, and then we'd listen to the tape and I'd say 'I like this, I don't like that, change this.'

It was very much controlled improvisation, and by the time we actually went to shoot the scene--although it wasn't written down--we all knew exactly what was going to happen. Because we didn't have a lot of film to fuck around with, so we had to get it on the first or second take. So it was pretty carefully rehearsed.

How did you get involved in this project?

CARSON: Jim had conceived of this idea to do a film called David Holzman's Diary, which was, at the time he introduced it to me, a 12-page outline on David Holzman, this guys who starts the movie by saying 'My life is all fucked up and I'm about to be drafted and I figure it's time for me to try to figure what's going on. And if I shoot everyday and look at the rushes of everyday, I can find the plot again, because I've lost the plot.'

The interesting thing is that at the time I was also studying the roots of the English novel. And the roots of the English novel are these fake diaries, like Robinson Crusoe and Pamela. It was the first way they figured out to do long-form fiction, was to make diaries out of it.

So that also informed what we were attempting to do, because a diary is something that feels like it's real time, but you know, if you think about it for two seconds, 'Oh, yeah, he's edited this together.' So it's not really happening in front of you. It's been examined and purposed, structurally, to be this way.

What was the experience of shooting the film like?

CARSON: On my Easter break from college in Texas, I came to New York. And since I didn't know how to do it any other way, I just became the character. I lived in the editing room, I slept in the closet, and I lost my girlfriend who at the time thought I was nuts -- just like Penny in the movie thinks I'm nuts. So it worked.

We did several days of improvising through the scenes, between McBride and myself, until he felt that we got the shape of the scene. And then when we would shoot, I told Jim that I was not going to rehearse. 'Just turn the camera on and I'm going to do it.' Because I didn't want to filter the improvisation any further. If I had rehearsed it before we turned the camera on, it would have turned it into self-conscious thought. And I wanted to keep it raw.

We were satisfied that we had the shape of the scene, built off of the 12-page outline. We knew the beginning, middle and end. But I said to Jim, 'I want to surprise you.' I had no idea what I was saying when I said that, but the idea was to keep that instant alive, the instant when anything can happen.

I like the idea of not filtering the moment, not knowing how I'm going to do.

So we shot maybe two or three takes each time.

Were you involved in the film after it was shot?

CARSON: I came back from Texas and Jim had put the film together, sort of, and he had Thelma Schoonmaker come in and take a look, because Thelma was everybody's pal at that time.

What Jim had done was take the worst takes of the two or three that we had made, because he felt that was more truthful to the character. And Thelma said, 'Fine, that may be more true, but it's horrible, so you have to use the best takes. Otherwise it's really painful if you don't use the best takes.'

I understand his thought, that the bad takes make it seem more like a documentary. But Thelma talked him into using the best takes.

What lesson did you take away from making this movie?

CARSON: The lesson I took away is that there is a lot of depth of thought required; you can't just do it off the top of your head. Jim had this brilliant idea. It came out of six months of experience interviewing a dozen documentary filmmaker to conclude that, 'No, wait a minute, this is not true. Therefore, let's expose it.' That was all Jim's energy. But it came from spending all that time thinking about it.

And from my angle, it came from studying the roots of the English novels, studying what documentary IS, so that you say, 'Oh, I know. It's an act of fiction.' It looks real, and you propose it stylistically as 'this happened, just now,' but it's actually been edited and pieced together.

What you try to achieve when you create any fiction is truth, a fictional truth that has the right ending.

With the movies I've made since that time, I've always tried to stay in touch with the job of telling the truth in your own way in this particular story.

Adam Lefevre on “Return of the Secaucus Seven”

2011-08-04T03:41:00.000-07:00

What was your experience making Return of the Secaucus Seven?

ADAM LEFEVRE: It was really quite wonderful. It was my first film -- for a lot of people who were in it, it was their first film -- and it was John Sayles’ first film. All of us had the blessing and the curse of being gung-ho and not quite sure what we were getting into.

I think there was only one person who was in the Screen Actors Guild at that time; the rest of us had gotten together at a summer theater where we shot it, in North Conway. We actually used the Lodge that the theater people stayed in, and John shot it at the end of that theater's summer season.

The movie is always held up as the perfect example of how to construct a low-budget movie, writing to the resources at hand.

ADAM LEFEVRE: John had very specifically tailored the script to who he knew he had. He had tailored the movie to people's type and abilities. Because his budget was very limited, it had to be thoroughly plotted out. People have said that a lot of it sounded improvised, but really very little was improvised, because he didn't have enough money for film to do that. He knew going into it exactly what he had to get, and he was very diligent about getting shots and moving on, getting shots and moving on.

Everybody knew everybody and worked with each other before, so there was a level of comfort there and a lot les time necessary to get to know each other, because the centerpiece of the film was this group of friends. I think it was advantageous that we had a shared communal history, and I think, since there was so little time, it was good to have that going in.

John knew that and I think exploited that in a very good way. I think from the point of view of the actors, that made it easier for all of us, because there was already a history there of friendship. Subsequent to that, sometimes you arrive on a movie set and you end up in bed with somebody you haven't met yet. In this case, the working relationship among the core group was already established.

It was really a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

What did you learn from working on that movie?

ADAM LEFEVRE: I learned a lot. The lesson for me was learning to be still and not to act. If you thinking right and feeling right, the camera will see it. It was great for me in that regard, and the fact that the movie got some notoriety was helpful for me subsequently, it was a calling card for me.

Working in a low-budget movie is very much like my experience in working in episodic television, because there you gotta move. You get the shot and you move on.

So it was helpful for me, because as an actor you learn to take care of yourself, there's a baseline that you want to give, an artistic standard that one sets for oneself and that you want to make sure that you do.

And so you learn to have a certain amount of confidence that, even without any direction, you can come up with something that will work and hopefully be interesting as well.

Brian Douglas on “I’m Just Saying”

2011-07-28T03:51:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making I'm Just Saying?

BRIAN: I actually did not really have a filmmaking background prior to making I’m Just Saying. I am what you might call someone who just gets something in his head and goes and does it. And, I wanted to make a movie. However, I did have an entertainment background. I had worked in Programming at the Hallmark Channel and On Air Promotions at FX Networks as well as International Publicity for A&M Records.

The bulk of what I knew about film I definitely learned at the Hallmark Channel where I was extremely lucky to be trained by some of the best in TV. I was part of a team who created the master on-air movie schedule and helped decide what movies Hallmark Channel would air, so I experienced first-hand how decisions were made behind the scenes and learned what truly made a good movie and what may hurt a movie.

As part of original programming, I was also fortunate enough to see how movies were created from the early stages of writing all the way through the marketing and on-air promotion planning. This experience definitely helped me when I decided to launch the I’m Just Saying project.

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

BRIAN: I originally came up with the idea when I was in undergrad, but it took years for the story to materialize in a way I felt comfortable sharing. Over time, I realized that some of my initial thoughts did not work well and felt that some of them were too “in your-face,” which was not my goal. I wanted something that would be genuine, honest and fair for all audiences. It wasn’t until I actually began writing that the story-line was fully conceived.

My goal was to treat the audience as intelligent while taking on issues such as politics, religion, and sexuality. It was important to me to focus on using non-preachy dialogue in the movie because nobody wants to be preached to or told what to think. At the same time, I wanted to bring humor to the conversations in a way that challenges without offending and keeps people talking about the movie long after they have watched it, which from the feedback I have heard, is happening…so that makes me extremely happy.

The writing process was actually pretty exciting, though difficult. After playing around with my writing for years, (and after reading the book Story by Robert McKee) I decided to follow his advice and write my screenplay as a book first, all the while, knowing that the plan was to actually turn the book back into a screenplay in the end.

After I completed the book, turning it back into a screenplay was challenging at times, as it was difficult to cut out all of the thoughts and emotions I had written into the story. But, at the same time, it was nice to be able to cut parts out of the book that I felt needed to be cut for one reason or another.

Did you use any improvisation -- either in the writing process with the actors, or actually on-camera?

BRIAN: Yes, I used improvisation in both the writing process and parts of the filming. After choosing the actors, one of the things that was very important to me was that the actors make the characters their own. I felt this would allow them to be more genuine and believable. So, I told the actors that if there were lines they felt did not fit, or maybe they had some lines of their own they believed their character might say, let me know, and as long as it did not conflict directly with anything in the story, I was all for the writing adaptations.

In addition, we also shot three scenes which were almost completely improvised. I knew what I wanted and what I needed for the story, so I just told the actors to hit on a few major points while digging more into their characters; and, just have fun with it. We let the camera roll and they started exploring and it worked perfectly. They were fantastic! I was so happy with how it turned out.

Editing the improv was especially enjoyable, because I was able to create mini-stories from their improv. I ended up using parts from two of the three improv scenes in the movie and the only reason I did not use parts of the third scene was because I wanted to keep the movie around 90 minutes in length.

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

BRIAN: Our film was a micro-budget picture, so I used my savings, some of my retirement, and credit cards to finance the movie. I figure we only live once, and I had a fantastic opportunity to make a movie and just could not pass it up. My friend Michael Morris (our Director of Photography) had some time in between his other projects and basically said to me, “Brian, if you want to do it, now’s the time”…so, we did it.

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

BRIAN: We used the JVC HD-100U, a versatile camera they first started using as a B-camera on "24" a few years ago. It is one of the first professional instances they started using digital to be intercut with 35mm footage. However, due to budget constraints on our movie, we were unable to afford the various shallow focus lenses which give that fashion photography look to a lot of features.

Instead, we made strategic use of the Fujinon stock zoom lens, being careful to shoot actors' close-ups with a specific focal length to gain a similar depth of field effect (when the background falls out of focus). The other great thing is that we were able to shoot all of the exterior night stuff with just construction work lights and china balls, thanks to the camera's optical chip light sensitivity.

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

BRIAN: The biggest change to the movie during the editing process was the addition of the soundtrack, which definitely enhanced the final product. From the very beginning, I had music in mind and actually wrote music into the storyline of the screenplay. I love music and truly believe that the right music is like an additional character in the movie. It can make you happy, sad, intense, etc, etc and choosing the right music was as important as choosing the right cast member for each part.

I was extremely lucky to have such phenomenal musicians/bands in my movie. From the very beginning of the movie, the music takes you on a roller-coaster ride of emotions from start to finish. Forty Marshas (Goo Goo Dolls’ Mike Malinin), Rene Reyes (Ruby James, Katrina Carlson), The Green Car Motel (featured in Collateral, Seven Pounds, Next), Into The Obscure, Pedraum Pardehpoosh, Charm the Moon, Josh Postler, and Tara Hill provided the music to the movie.

The film itself only changed a little bit here and there once we hit post-production. A few times I felt that the dialogue needed to be tweaked, so I was able to cut different lines out here or there, or sometimes I would move a line around to keep the timing the way I needed it and to shorten a couple of scenes.

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

BRIAN: The smartest thing I did was read as many books as possible prior to shooting, especially books that were directly relevant to what I was trying to do, such as Rebel Without A Crew by Robert Rodriguez. I also listened to as many DVD special features sections as I could to understand what the different directors were doing and thinking when they made their movies. I especially remember listening to Edward Burns’ commentary from his film Brothers McMullen.

One of reasons I felt this was smart was that these books and special features helped me to understand how important it is to get the right cast. We looked through hundreds if not thousands of headshots and brought in somewhere around 75-100 people to read for our five main characters. By doing that we were able to get five amazing actors who really strengthened the final product. The number of lines they were able to memorize and deliver with truly awesome performances makes the movie. They were wonderful. I would hire all of them again in a minute.

To add to that, I trusted the advice of those around me. If Michael, our DP, had a suggestion, I trusted his expertise and let him do whatever he thought was best. Actually, I would go so far as to say that the smartest thing I did was trust all of those around me to do what they were there to do and what they did best.

My one regret was that I should have hired more crew to help out, such as a full-time sound man to help the DP, and more people to help with lighting and set arrangements. Our days were long and we were worn out by the end of each day. As a first-time director, I simply did not realize how many people it would take and I took on too much at times, and sometimes asked too much of those around me. In the end, everyone around just helped where they could and worked incredibly hard, especially Michael, our DP; Tara, our line producer; Josh, our boom operator; and, the cast.

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

BRIAN: I learned how important it is to rehearse the dialogue out loud in front of an eclectic audience. This is critical because it is not until you hear a line play out loud that you will fully understand how it is heard and responded to by an audience. I applied this concept to my current screenplay, which I am in the process of shopping.

SPECIAL OFFER: The first ten (10) readers who email Brian will get a free copy of the the DVD for "I'm Just Saying." Send an email to: imjustsayingmovie@yahoo.com, along with your mailing address and he'll send you the DVD. (Sorry, this offer is only available to folks with mailing addresses in the U.S.)

Phil Hawkins on “Being Sold”

2011-07-21T03:54:00.000-07:00

Where did you get the idea for Being Sold?

PHIL: Being Sold is based on a story I originally wrote as a short about 6 years ago and put it in a drawer thinking that I must do something with the idea in order to develop it into a feature. Suddenly it just ‘clicked.’ I had quite a big feature project fall through at the last minute and realised, in working on this particular film, that I hadn’t shot a feature in two years.

The idea of shooting it in two days came about for a few reasons. Firstly budget, secondly cast - as we weren’t able to pay anyone but I knew we needed as many names as possible - and thirdly because we needed an angle, a story to help sell the film.

There are so many independent films made these days but hardly any of them reach an audience except ‘the one that was shot on £50’ or ‘the one that was made in someone’s bedroom.’ Yes, it’s a gimmick but it’s a powerful sales tool. Would you be hearing about this film now if we hadn’t done it in this way?

I wouldn’t, however, have shot it in two days if it was going to affect the story. The script was written in such a way that we could shoot it like this. All events occur in real time (without the 24 split screens!). Our crazy approach to shooting added to the energy of the camera and the performance. I wanted to make it feel real. Shooting a film in two days allows only one or two takes… you’re getting ‘real’ every time.

What was the process of working with the writer, Aidan Magrath?

PHIL: Aidan and I had been discussing the short that was to become Being Sold ever since I wrote it six years ago so you could say we had the groundwork covered. It went through so many versions and variations over the years… not drafts particularly, just discussions. Aidan didn’t put the proverbial pen to paper until about four weeks before we started shooting!

We started out with a long outline of the plot. The major challenge was trying to restrict the story into these two locations (inside and outside a house) without making events feel too small. We already had a clear idea of how we were going to end the film and set up a certain amount of ‘rules’ about how we would approach telling the story.

Another difficulty was the real time aspect of the script. Aidan had to write dialogue that would include times such as “there’s 16 minutes left on the bid” or “we go to air in three minutes” – these are numbers that needed to be real in actuality.

Directorially I needed to be clear what was going on both inside and outside of the house at all times and not just when the script dictated what we were seeing, because we were shooting each location in long blocks of action and not scene by scene. You could say that we needed two feature scripts!

Was the script written for specific actors? If so, how does that work?

PHIL: I have a group of actors that I love to work with in different ways. Jessica Blake, Dan Morgan, Sarah Whitham, Alvin Addo-Quaye and Chris Hannon were actors that I’ve cast in different films and commercials. I wanted to ensure that we wrote for their strengths but also to show a side of them that an audience hasn’t seen before.

For example, Jessica Blake played this troubled teenager in my 2nd film The Butterfly Tattoo, whereas in Being Sold she’s playing a strong, confident woman. She’s almost the villain in some ways. It’s exciting for me and for the actors to work with them in different ways. Aidan and I involved Jess and Dan in the writing process and gave them early drafts of the characters to comment on. We also allowed a lot of improvisation on the shoot days which gave them even more control to make the characters their own.

You also co-produced Being Sold. How did you juggle that with your directing duties?

PHIL: It’s easy when you have other great co-producers backing you up! There were four producers on this. Two solely taking care of the production challenges, my DoP was also a producer taking care of the technical side of the production and myself. We all made decisions on the project as a team and then went off and looked after our own areas. It worked really well.

What's the biggest skill you've learned as a commercial director that helps you when you direct a movie?

PHIL: Hmm… the best advice I’ve ever been given as a director is to be ‘cool under pressure.’ That definitely came into play on this production. Everyone believed it to be possible but looked to me to see exactly how a feature film could be shot in two days and we all pulled it off.

I think working in commercials has given me a really instinctive eye for the frame and for detail. It’s almost 2nd nature now… I’ll find myself rushing into a scene before a take to tweak something very small but important which I wouldn’t have done before I directed commercials. It’s really helped add that layer of detail.

Do you rehearse with the actors ahead of shooting -- what is your rehearsal process?

PHIL: I always try to rehearse as much as possible. We had to do extensive rehearsal on Being Sold because we were shooting 15 minute long scenes and had to block it accordingly. However because I was working with busy actors some only had a few days to do what should have taken a few weeks! Eva Pope didn’t have any rehearsal because she was working the week of our rehearsals so just walked onto set and did it!

My rehearsal process tends to change depending on the production. Being Sold isn’t a film about ‘look’, it’s all about the actors. I needed to allow enough time in order to give the cast the freedom to explore the scenes and find the characters! I knew if we didn’t make sure the performances – and the comedy, obviously – were solid we didn’t have a movie.

Because a lot of the film was going to be improvisation, we did a lot of work on the characters, understanding who they were and why they were there on the day. I didn’t want to block the actors too much because I wanted the film to feel real, almost documentary style.

What is your process of working with your editor?

PHIL: I actually had two editors on this film! I cut my two previous features myself so it was a real departure for me to actually have editors but they were brilliant. They actually started cutting by location – one cut the inside (emotional heart) of the house and the other cut the external (media, news) stories. It was really interesting stylistically because they felt quite different.

Paul Gordon (who also was an operator on the shoot) assembled the film, whilst Paul Griffiths-Davies brought the pieces together and refined the film. It was a very unique approach but really paid off in terms of style.

And finally, what's next?

PHIL: Shooting a film in one day! No, I’m kidding! I’ve got a few projects in the pipeline. An action thriller, another comedy drama, a psychological thriller (which I’m actually trying to write myself!) and I’m also adapting a best seller with Aidan… hopefully I’ll be shooting one of them soon!

You can watch the feature film and one hour documentary ‘How did they shoot a feature film in two days?’ from the website at http://www.beingsoldthemovie.com/

Julie Reichert on "Warrior Woman"

2011-07-14T03:50:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Warrior Woman?

JULIE: Eons ago I co-wrote the script for Breakin’ 2 is Electric Boogaloo, then life took me on a different path and brought me to New Mexico. Ten years ago, inspired by a project a friend of mine was working on, I realized that you could make a short movie just like you could write a short story instead of a novel, and that it would be possible to get out there and do it oneself. What a concept! I proceeded to make three no-budget shorts over the next three years. Meanwhile, I had written the screenplay for Warrior Woman, which everybody liked and nobody produced. After doing the three shorts, I decided I could just do a feature myself, too.

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

JULIE: The story, though not autobiographical, is grounded in experience, both my own as a breast cancer survivor and that of other people I know. I’ve always been interested in dreams and the ways the unconscious mind often knows more than we know consciously, or at least knows things differently. So I mixed bits of experience with chunks of imagination to create the story. I wrote the first draft of the script about fifteen years ago, so it’s hard to remember the details about the actual writing, except that it came fairly easily.

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

JULIE: I begged, borrowed and deferred. Actually, my two fellow producers and I went through a rather long legal process to prepare a fundraising prospectus, planning to seek investors, but by the time we got it together we were deep in the throes of pre-production and none of us had time to talk to anyone. So I wound up financing the film myself, with money that I had and money that I borrowed. Some people were very gracious about deferring their pay or services. Plus we’re getting a 25% tax rebate from the state of New Mexico as part of their film incentive program.

We are hoping to recoup the budget by finding a distributor, creating partnerships with cancer organizations, and even four-walling the film ourselves. I had assumed I could always go door-to-door selling DVD’s, but I’m told that everyone is now streaming and the DVD is soon to be obsolete. But I’m sure there are dinosaurs like me out there who still go the old-fashioned route. We’ll see. We are just at the beginning of the marketing/distribution road, and are submitting to film festivals even as we speak.

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

JULIE: We primarily used the Red, supplementing with the Canon 5D for night exteriors to save on lighting (plus our DP had one). We were trying to get as close to a film look as we could, and the Red gave us the range and flexibility we were looking for, while the Canon offered the speed we needed outside at night. No real downside to the Red. The Canon gave us less range to work with in post, but the results blended well with the footage from the Red.

How did you and your DP achieve the look of the movie?

JULIE: My DP, Corey Weintraub, had shot my three short movies, so we already had a good working relationship before we began. We talked a lot about the script, and how to achieve distinct looks for each of the three intertwined story elements – real time, flashbacks, and dream time. We watched movies together to show each other what inspired us. Partially for esthetic reasons and partly due to budget constraints, we were interested in seeing what we could do with a stationary camera and some medium and longer shots.

Corey is a talented artist as well as fine cinematographer, so he drew the storyboards as we talked over each shot of each scene. In the actual locations, which sometimes differed wildly from what we had envisioned, we of course had to adapt to local conditions and often had to change our original concept for a given scene. Still, the storyboards gave us a strong foundation and kept us on track for a unified look.

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

JULIE: The smartest thing I did was pick great people to work with, from our lead actor, Karen Young, to our amazing editor, Sterling Grant. We had wonderful ADs, terrific DP and Production Designer, and many other people who gave their all to the project. In general, I like to find good people and turn them loose to do what they do best.

The dumbest thing was making a complex movie (lots of locations, lots of actors) on a miniscule budget, which led to various near disasters regarding locations, botched essentials, and the blind leading the blind. I’m told that the disasters come just as thick and fast on a big-budget project, they’re just about different things, and I hope to get a chance to see whether that’s true.

Another dumb thing was to schedule a six-day work week for the five-week shoot. It may have been the only way to get this done, but it was grueling for everyone.

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

JULIE: I deepened my understanding that the two primary goals of a director are to work with the actors and to hold the core of the story. The film has its own momentum, and you have to be able to give yourself up to it at the same time you’re holding on to the vital essence of what you’re doing.

If you’re the writer, you have certain ideas in your head about who the characters are and how they look and behave. The second you cast someone, your ideas are changed. Then, on the set, everything changes again, because the actors bring themselves to the roles. So you have to find the time and space in a crazy, chaotic environment both to hold what needs to happen in a given scene in terms of the larger context of the movie, and to listen to what the actors are bringing with them in the moment.

The lesson is to know when to let go of some original concept or vision in favor of something that might work better, and when to hold on tight to what has to be – when to adapt, and when to insist. Holding on to the things you need at the same time you let yourself be open.

http://warriorwomanfilm.com/

Carter Ferguson on "Fast Romance"

2011-07-07T03:50:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before Fast Romance?

CARTER: I have been working in film and TV in Scotland as an actor at first and then mostly as a fight director since 1995. This has given me the opportunity to work with and observe some great actors, directors and crew up close.

In 2007 I produced a short film directed by Colin Ross Smith of Foghorn Films for a Battlestar Galactica short film competition run by scifi.com. Colin had been making very low budget stuff for a while, but which has a real quality to it. I directed my first film, another fan piece put out on YouTube in 3 episodes called The Rage. This was made for a bit of fun just about the same time the nazi zombie movie Outpost was being shot (I’ve just finished working as FD on Outpost 2 btw!). The Rage’s episodes have been viewed over 800,000 times now. I made another couple of more conventional short films before moving on to Fast Romance in 2009.

How did you get connected to the project and how did you work with the screenwriters?

CARTER: The project is my own. The executive producer title is not an honorary one in this instance. I had work shopped the concept of a romcom with 7 actors as early as 2006, but it wasn’t until 2008 when talking with my friend Ross Gerry (The DOP) that we decided to move the concept to production.

I simply had been too busy to develop it further but Ross’s friend James McCreadie was suggested as a writer and we met with him in October to pitch the idea. As a writer I knew from River City (A BBC Scotland soap opera I had been an actor in) I was happy to hand over the reins. James brought his wife Debbie on board and script writing began at that point, from “an idea by” Carter Ferguson or words to that effect. The actors I had originally worked with were credited and paid as “consultants,” and I even offered the parts that they’d helped to create to them when we were casting. Derek Munn who plays Kenny, Lynn McKelvey who plays Fiona and Lawrence Crawford who plays Spence were part of the original 2006 workshop team. A few others appear in smaller roles.

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

CARTER: We raised the micro budget through private finance. Most of it went into fees for cast and crew. Raising the money was a time consuming task led by the producer Amanda Verlaque, who had come on board during the scripting process. Amanda tirelessly sought out potential investors.

In addition, through a series of money raising events organised by the Ickleflix team, we were able to bring the film to completion. We planned to raise £50,000 in this manner and by the time we completed principal photography the film had cost us just £41,000.

The planned pickups, which happened in March of 2010 brought the budget up to £50,000. Recouping costs is the tricky bit of course as we now need to sell the film. We go into cinemas in Scotland on the 1st July 2011 which will be the start, we hope, of money beginning to flow the other way. We plan to release the film on multiple platforms in multiple territories following the Cineworld release.

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

CARTER: We used a JVC HDY 251e which is a tape based HDV camera. It shoots natively in 720p. It wasn’t our first choice of camera but it’s what we had at hand and was quality-wise at least up to the job. Our cash flow early on was so poor that we had to shoot with what we actually owned and this was Ross Gerry the DOP’s own camera which he uses for event work.

I personally loved the fact that it was tape based. I knew that at the very least each day our rushes were safely secured on tapes. This also removed the need for a work flow person on the shoot days. If I were to choose something to hate it would be that the entire film is shot on one lens. In order to get the filmic soft focus thing on background and foreground we had to pull the camera right back and zoom in whenever possible. In tight locations this just wasn’t possible and resulted in some scenes that feel somewhat flat photography wise.

It’s worth noting that we bought a second hand camera, which was a lower end JVC of a similar type from the forums on Shooting People in order to cross shoot and utilise as a tape deck. This camera was filled with problems, had dead pixels and a number of other serious issues, and in short we got conned and lost a couple of grand and a lot of time and emotional energy on trying to resolve the issue. Lesson here – Don’t buy second hand kit off forums if you can avoid it. This was one of our worst experiences of the whole film.

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

CARTER: The smartest thing I did was to find locations that were within a stones throw, whenever possible, of my own home. That way my own home could be used as a unit base to get folks ready for shooting. It was also the location for Spence’s house. A high percentage of the locations utilised in the production are within one mile of a line between my own and Ross Gerry’s home. This saved a lot of time and money but did leave me personally to cover the costs of two broken picture frames, a broken tap and a broken toilet… so maybe that was also the dumbest ;-)

This whole project has been like a mini film school and I most definitely have regrets. To choose one thing I would do differently is more than a little difficult, but I think I’ll say that even the mistakes I have made had to happen in order that I could learn from them, so it’s all good.
What did you learn from the film that you have taken on to other projects?

CARTER: To be honest I’m still utterly entwined in Fast Romance and it’s production admin that I’ve not got any other projects on the go. Something however I will take on is in regard to contracts. Reading the fine print and taking care of contracts personally is no bad thing. We have recently done a huge review of contracts and this was time well spent.

Manuel Da Silva on “The Unleashed”

2011-06-30T03:51:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making The Unleashed?

MANNY: I took some courses in the mid 90's regarding film technique, but I’ve always felt that working on set and with actors to be very intrinsic. It’s about practice and having a clear vision of what you’re looking for. Watching a lot of movies also helps! To this day however, I have always come back to three books as being very useful in the creative process: Acting for the Camera by Tony Barr, Film Directing: Shot by Shot by Steven D. Katz, and Directing by Michael Rabiger.

How did you work with the screenwriter to get the script ready to shoot?

MANNY: I like to be involved in all aspects of the creation process, so I worked very closely with the screenwriter on The Unleashed. Even before starting the writing process, I had a clear vision for a scene I liked to call “The Piano Scene,” and this provided grounding for the writers and me. We shaped the story together. Ultimately, I had them on set everyday in order to have the film remain as faithful to our original vision as possible.

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

MANNY: Haha… a good director never reveals all his secrets! I will tell you this though: having a great team who is willing to work hard and work together is invaluable.

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

MANNY: The entire film was shot on the Red-One Camera. It’s the same camera that was used to shoot the new Pirates of the Caribbean film and others like Wanted and The Social Network. I love the quality of the camera. It has five times the resolution of an HD camera, and in my opinion, is right up there with 35mm. The only downside I found about using it was that the lens and light setup is a lot longer.

Can you talk about the sound design for the movie and how you achieved it?

MANNY: A company called Eggplant Music and Sound Design here in Toronto did all the sound design. It was a rigorous process to get all the sound right, with the producers and myself getting together to add and test different sound layers. In the end though, this is the work that needs to be put into a film to make sure everything is as it should be. We started around January 2011 and finished late April, early May.

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

MANNY: I always tell everyone who asks, the smartest thing a director can do on set is to keep a fun atmosphere and make sure the cast and crew are having a good time. It makes for a great experience, and if everyone is happy, the project will ultimately turn out better. I would have to say the biggest mistake I made on set was keeping everyone working 27 hours straight one day. I’ll never do that again… haha.

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

MANNY: Always fight to make the film as good as it possibly can be. Never settle became the motto for this project, and I feel that it definitely shows having watched the end result.

Joseph Dorman on "Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness"

2011-06-23T04:51:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness?

JOE: I’ve been in the business for a bit more than 25 years, first working in public television(which I continue to do). In 1998, I completed my first theatrically released documentary, Arguing the World, about the tumultuous and influential careers of four New York political intellectuals. Since then I’ve split my time between producing and writing films for others and my own work.

What attracted you to this project?

JOE: The project really fell into my lap. A friend, the Yiddish scholar Jeffrey Shandler suggested making a movie about Sholem Aleichem’s failed immigration to America (he came twice and died here; both experiences were disastrous for him). I really didn’t know much about the writer, except that his Tevye stories had been made into Fiddler on the Roof. To the degree I had any idea about him, I thought he was a musty Jewish humorist.

But the more I read his stories, the more I realized just how ignorant I had been. His stories are brilliant and powerful pieces of literature, using humor to examine to explore both the follies and tragedies of life. They’re also perhaps the single greatest witness to the Jewish transition from the traditional to the modern world. Of course that’s a disorienting journey that all cultures have made or are making even today. That’s why Fiddler proved to be an international hit and that’s why Sholem Aleichem’s life and work remains enormously relevant today for Jews and non-Jews alike.

And of course there’s the fact that his stories are side-splittingly hilarious and he’s probably the father of American Jewish humor, which has given us everyone from Henny Youngman and George Burns to Woody Allen and Jerry Seinfeld.

What was your process for finding and securing archival footage?

JOE: Locating archival material is always a process of discovery which is both anxiety-provoking and incredibly exciting. One always starts with certain archives and libraries that are in plain sight. And then there are those collections and their treasures that spring up from nowhere. There are moments of great despair when you can’t find the kind of images you need and then those thrilling moments when you come across photos or pieces of footage that open a lost world. I was finding new material almost to the last day of making the film.

How did you budget for securing archival footage?

JOE: There’s no magic formula. There are ranges of rates for footage and photos. You make an educated guess as to how many minutes or images you’ll need, do a bit of multiplying and then stand back in shock as the number of dollars emerge. Sometimes that number grows as you make the film, sometimes it turns out to decrease. Along the way, you negotiate, and plead and ultimately beg.
What tips would you offer to a filmmaker thinking of tackling an historical subject?

JOE: This is a hard one. I don’t think the rules are actually so different for historical films as they are for contemporary ones. Assuming that one has good archival material to illustrate, or a convincing approach toward visual recreations if necessary, the key is finding people to interview who don’t just know the topic, but feel passionately connected to it. Films are about conveying emotions, not just ideas.

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

JOE: Well, I’m still working on that! It’s different for every film. In this case, like most documentary filmmakers, I raised smaller and larger sums over the years from foundations and interested individuals.
Did you create a structure for the film before you shot the interviews ... or did the interviews drive the structure?

JOE: When you’re working on a historical subject, I think its crucial to have a structure. At the same time, you know that things will change along the way as you interview people and learn new things. But I find that over all, if you have a good structure it will probably survive in its essentials through the course of making the film. Without it, one would be lost in the interview process.

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

JOE: Not sure about the smartest, but I’m always kicking myself along the way for one thing or another, forgetting to ask a question of an interview subject, or deciding to shoot some scene or event that’s never used and in the end seemed like a ridiculous idea to begin with. But that’s always hindsight at the end of the process. And for those that really were dumb even at the beginning, well that’s what scotch and self-recrimination are for.

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

JOE: I don’t know if there’s one thing that I could point to. Filmmaking, like anything else, is a constant process of learning from your successes and your mistakes. You try your damnedest to repeat the former and not the latter. Sometimes that actually happens…

Kevin Chenault on "Young Islands"

2011-06-16T03:51:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Young Islands?

KEVIN: Skateboarding. This might sound fluffed, but skateboarding introduced me to everything that I find important today. Music, Art, and Filmmaking. We started making skate videos when I was 12, my parents gave us (me and my friends) an RCA Hi8 camcorder that was really nice at the time and we immediately sat it on the ground and tried to ollie over it. My parents were really great about it they just handed me the camcorder and said "have fun" and we took their advice.

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

KEVIN: It is a bit strange and I normally don't remember things like this, but my girlfriend and I were watching Hedwig and the Angry Inch. I stopped the film and ran for a piece of paper. I think it had to do with one of the flashbacks in the film about young Hedwig. The idea was something that happened to me as a kid and the writing was really fun and fast after that first idea.

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

KEVIN: Canon xl2, with a ps technic 35mm adapter that allowed us to use prime lenses. I loved the look of the camera and adapter together. We traveled to Nashville to test it out at AC Inc. and it was exactly what I wanted the film to look like. I didn't hate anything about it; I sometimes didn't like my lack of knowledge of the adapter and camera.

What sort of sound system did you record on and why did you choose not go directly into the camera?

KEVIN: We used a Roland r44, I think. I let a friend borrow it for a film he's shooting right now so I don't have it in front of me. We wanted to have more control of the audio and if we hooked it straight into camera we wouldn't have had any of the mixing ability.

Why did you decide on black and white?

KEVIN: Black and white was one of the last things that happened during editing. The film was shot with color in mind. An influence for the film is Stephen Shames (photographer) and especially his black and white photography of inner city kids. There were actually scenes that were staged like some of his photographs that didn't make it in the final cut. Black and white felt right.

What role does music play in the success of the movie and how did you get your score?

KEVIN: I don't know about success, but I love all the bands in the film. The Gizmos, Hugh Cornwell (The Stranglers), Angel Corpus Christi, and Bon Vivants. The music that holds everything together is by Jesse Gallamore.

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

KEVIN: The smartest thing was to make films with friends, which isn't a new or original idea.

The dumbest things would probably take up too much time to list and would have to be given by Jill Nellis or Tabitha Timmons (producers) because I seem to have suppressed them.

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

KEVIN: Don't talk as much. We'll see if I can even do that on the next project, Different Drum, which we will begin filming soon.

Billy Clift on “Baby Jane?”

2011-06-09T03:50:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Baby Jane?

BILLY: I was a hair and make-up man in the industry, working on Music videos, commercials, runway and print for 20 years..

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

BILLY: I saw a stage play called Christmas with The Crawfords. A silly little farce about Joan Crawford’s radio show on Christmas eve. Matthew Martin was playing the maid as Baby Jane Hudson. I was in awe at his ability to play it real “so to speak” and not over the top. I was sitting in the front row and watching every little nuance he made and quipped to myself, “He should be caught on film”

After a feature film that I had been shopping around Hollywood fell through, I said to myself, “What could I do at a very low budget and have a lot of fun and really get my feet wet with my first feature?”

Writing it came very easy to me. I knew I wanted to make this a very different parody, a dark moody twisted parody. Growing up with directors like Ken Russell and David Lynch as my idols, I knew exactly what I wanted to do with these two twisted sisters.

Did you look into getting the rights to the original, or do you feel protected under the parody/satire protection of the copyright laws?

BILLY: No I didn't, I did a lot of research on the parody law and stayed true to that.

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

BILLY: We used an Canon Xl-2. It’s what we had available for no money… and my DP John Lore said its not the camera, it’s how you light it and work with it that makes the film. And so we went forth.

On a related note, how did you achieve the black and white look and what were the difficulties (if any) that made it a hard look to achieve?

BILLY: It was easy. We lit for black and white and our on-set monitor was in black and white; in post I was able to easily punch up the blacks and make it feel a little like a cross between an old black and white TV show and the original.

How did you get your music score for the movie?

BILLY: The music was all loops that our music guy had. They’re used on such shows as South Park and so many others. He put them together brilliantly to set the tone of the period.

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

BILLY: The smartest thing I did was get some really good actors. This to me is crucial... (don’t use friends… lol). You can only do so much in editing ...lol. They may have all been mostly stage actors but it was amazing on how they showed up, lines memorized and enthusiastic.

The dumbest was just taking on too much… and being such a perfectionist that I always wanted to get my hands into everything. I don’t know really if it was that dumb because on my second feature (I Want To Get Married), I did the same thing.

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

BILLY: I found that I learned more and more to trust my instincts... It always turned out to be the one that really worked. On my second feature I really honed that and really made stuff up on the fly. When I could tell what I had storyboarded or shot listed wasn’t going to work with this actor or I could feel it needed to go a different direction. To take chances. Don’t always be safe.

Jon Favreau on "Swingers"

2011-06-02T03:39:00.000-07:00

After you'd written Swingers, why did you decide to try to make the film and not just sell the script?

JON FAVREAU: By keeping the script, you maintain control over every aspect of the movie.

Creativity, you're giving up final cut usually right off the bat. When you're making it yourself, it's up to you and only you what ends up in the movie and what compromises you want to make creatively. So, for some nominal fee, they're really getting a lot of leverage over you, both creatively and financially.

A lot of changes were asked of me: changing certain characters to women, making the characters more likeable, changing things that interfered of what my vision for the piece was.

In defense of those people, they're used to developing scripts, they're looking for clues in the material, they don't know what the overall vision of the piece is, so the best thing to do is to not take any of that upfront money.

Was Swingers based on your life?

JON FAVREAU: It wasn't a true story, but it was definitely based on people and places and inspired by events that I had experienced.

When you write from that, you're incorporating a lot of things that are very real and well understood by you. And the script inherits a certain sincerity and a certain subconscious vision that you might not even be aware of when you're doing your first script, if it's a personal one. It becomes much more difficult later on to do that.

But if you stick to things that you know and understand and people that you know, it allows a very true voice and you tend to come off as a better writer than really are, because you're incorporating so much of reality into your piece.

Did you write it for you and Vince Vaughn?

JON FAVREAU: I wrote things that I knew that they could do well. But at that time, Vince had not really played a character like the persona that was presented in Swingers, even though it was based very closely on him. The characters that he had played never really played into his rapid-fire delivery or his sense of humor. He was always playing it much more straight as an actor. I don't think he saw himself as a comic actor as much as a good-looking, leading man type.

So I was tapping into something I knew he could do, from knowing him so well, but I didn't really know whether or not he could deliver, because he hadn't done it before. It's good to have those touchstones.

What really got us there was that we had done so many staged readings of it, to try and raise money, that it served as almost a rehearsal period. So that by the time we got to the set, where we didn't have a lot of time and we were shooting a lot of pages a day, we had already gone through the material so much and had chemistry from our relationship in our personal life, and that certainly made things easier. There was no learning curve in the relationship by two actors that are cast opposite each other. Everybody already had a level of familiarity that helped to keep the process a little more streamlined.

When did you realize how much fun audiences would have with the phone message scene?

JON FAVREAU: Not on the set. The crew was not very entertained by it. We shot all the apartment stuff in a day and a half, so about a quarter of the movie was shot in a day and a half on paper. So that was one of those things that was crammed into a very crowded day at that location.

And there were concerns. Doug Liman (the director) was concerned that it was too many messages. But I felt pretty strongly about it, having read it in front of audiences live, at staged readings.

It wasn't until the whole movie was cut together and the significance of that moment, where it fell in the story, it was definitely a pivotal point in the film. And because you were so emotionally involved in that moment in the movie, the audience was engaged with the film. And had they not been engaged with the character, that scene would not have been as funny or as poignant. It was because of the work that had been done by everybody involved up until then that it was funny.

Now I think people enjoy it alone, because they remember the movie. But had that just been done as a sketch, it might have been a clever thing, but I don't think it would have had the impact that it does in the context of the film.

It all goes to emotion. If you're emotionally engaged, everything is going to be funnier, more satisfying, scarier, everything. It's that emotional connection that you feel with these guys. And the reason you feel that is because the story was so personal and sincere, and that's a very hard thing to maintain as you do bigger and bigger movies.

It's the one thing that you really have going for you in a small movie, that you're doing something that's so really and usually so personal that you have a level of emotional engagement that you will not get in a high-budget, high-concept movie.

Ty Hodges on “Miles from Home”

2011-05-26T03:50:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Miles From Home?

TY: Miles From Home was my first filmmaking experience. Before I was just witnessing productions from an Actor perspective but I was always fascinated by the art of filmmaking.

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

TY: It was inspired by the growing issues of teenage prostitution and young people that are being raised by society and finding their identity in it. I also felt like from an Actor perspective, roles are not reflecting what is going on in the world.

What's the secret to making a successful low-budget movie?

TY: I think patience and having a great team full of resources. When you don't have a huge budget you have to be supported by a greater purpose.

You wore a lot of hats on this production: writer, director, producer. How did you juggle all those balls at once?

TY: My Faith. It's important to me to be very clear when you're creating. I love being involved wearing all hats because I feel completely invested and selfless. It's a beautiful process.

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

TY: DVX 100. I think as long as you have a great story and great DP, that’s what it's all about. Big ups to Todd Segal.

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

TY: It did but I think that’s true with every film. I think it was about managing the tone. With this film dealing with serious issues, we had to make sure there was a balance. You want to keep your audience in mind when editing. I want them to enjoy the experience but also to give them the respect of being an intelligent film viewer.

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

TY: The smartest thing was to hire a amazing cast and crew that was relentless. To be honest I don't believe in "the dumbest" things... I believe you learn from everything. Especially when making films, the more you experience the process the more you find your craft.

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

TY: Patience. And, making sure your team is about the project and never the ego.

Annie Howell and Lisa Robinson on "Small, Beautifully Moving Parts”

2011-05-19T03:49:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Small, Beautifully Moving Parts?

We’ve both been filmmakers for a while now – about ten years. We’ve each made a number of short films that have played the festival circuit from Telluride to SXSW to Cannes to Newport.

A few years ago, we starting making a web series together – SPARKS – which has subsequently been licensed by The Sundance Channel.

In addition, we both work as screenwriters and film professors … and before that? We studied at NYU’s M.F.A. in Film program – that’s where we became friends.

Where did the idea come from and what was the writing process like -- how did you share the writing responsibilities?

A few years ago, we began a conversation about technology – and in particular the ways in which people have become attached to and have begun to treat small machines – their computers, phones, printers – with the same emotions reserved for human relationships, love, hatred, disgust.

We began to make our series, SPARKS, that explored both what was funny and poignant about the technological landscape, and created a protagonist who loved machines so much that she goes into business counseling clients on how to better relate to them. After we’d completed six episodes of the series, we wanted to go further with these ideas and characters, and spin something more complex emotionally. So we gave Sarah Sparks, the protagonist, a pregnancy – an unexpected pregnancy – within a happy relationship, but we also filled her with ambivalence about becoming a parent as her own mother had left her at a young age.

So she decides to hit the road and visit her family, looking for answers about parenthood; looking for her mom, who is now living off the grid. As far as writing responsibilities, we basically split the duties tag-team, wherein one person works on one section and then gives it to the other for comments and improvement, and vice versa.

How did you share directing duties and what's the plus side -- and the minus side -- to working that way?

We basically shared the directing in a way that was so free flowing we can barely analyze it. On the most basic level, we would trade off, one person being more or less on shot construction while the other worked with the actors. Sometimes we’d switch after a day, sometimes after a few hours. We would both be watching everything and check in constantly on all decisions.

The plus side is having two brains on every challenge.

The minus? That the crew and cast have to form two relationships instead of one. Sometimes that’s just more work.

What camera package did you use for production and what did you like -- and not like -- about it?

We used the Canon 7D – we’re part of the DSLR revolution. We had a great set of lenses and a great DP. We love the soft look, the way in which this camera makes everything look beautiful. We also loved that we did not draw much attention with this rig, which was very helpful for us as we have a documentary interview element in our film.

We didn’t like that it wasn’t exactly made for filmmaking – so for instance it constantly auto-power-saves after extended use, and did not have the greatest of monitoring options.

What's the secret to doing a "road picture" on a small budget?

Stay small! We fit everything into one van -- we were a “movie-in-a-van.” That vehicle also served as our picture car. We had all crew and equipment expertly packed inside, then in each city, we would add crew and actors to the equation. When we were done shooting in a given location, we’d hop back in the van, downsized to our original small family.

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

The smartest thing we did in production was surround ourselves with incredibly talented people. The dumbest thing was to leave a bottle of champagne in the bottom of the van in 110 degree heat. And … we didn’t take enough time off.

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

Well, we haven’t made any additional projects yet … but we imagine the following:

- Coverage is key – we were able to really shape character arcs due to having great coverage and a range of performances from the cast. This included getting a LOT of “b-roll” out the window … if you happen to be making a road movie.

- Location, location, location – our landscapes became a character. Write for location. It’s the key to enhancing drama.

- Keep everything light on set and at your film’s premiere. Focus on fun. Otherwise the entire enterprise is just too stressful.

Roland Tec on “All the Rage”

2011-05-13T03:48:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making All the Rage?

ROLAND: Before I made All the Rage I had made one short film called Hooking Up, which was a 13-min. riff on the language of the one-night stand. I was lucky in that I completed that short in 1995, which was a very good year for small indie gay film. Suddenly I was being invited to film festivals all over the world. By screening Hooking Up here and there, I came into contact with many of the people who would encourage me to make a feature film, some of whom actually put their money where their mouth was and invested. Cash. Something I still feel grateful for. It's always a huge risk putting money into a film of any kind. Putting money into one directed by a newbie, even more so.

Before making Hooking Up I'd gotten the film bug when I was invited by filmmaker Marian Chang to score her short operatic film, An Ego Floats in the Secretarial Pool, which was a wonderful experience for me. Marian was incredibly generous and I learned a lot from her on set.

The other major source of learning support for me when I was just starting out were two organizations that sadly no longer exist: BFVF (Boston Film & Video Foundation) and AIVF (The Association of Independent Video & Film in NYC). I took many workshops for very little money, got to volunteer on other folks' films and learned that way.

Those types of organizations served a vital purpose: providing training and artistic community for fledgling filmmakers who didn't have the money or the inclination to commit to film school. I went to graduate school for music composition and I never considered going to film school. By the time I started making films, I was a bit tired of formal graduate programs. I needed to be more independent.

I understand that you adapted the script from a play you had written. What was the adaptation process like and how did the story change from stage to screen?

ROLAND: I worked very, very hard to translate what had been a one-man two-act play into a fully-realized screenplay so I was especially gratified when Kevin Thomas acknowledged as much in his Los Angeles Times review, by remarking that one would never in a million years have guessed the film had been adapted from a play.

Beyond the obvious expected adjustments one might make in terms of "opening it up" to actually let us see the cast of characters that we had only heard about in the play, there was a major key difference between the two and that was in the ending. Part of the dynamic of the play is a relationship between the main character, Christopher Bedford, and the audience, in whom he confides his deepest darkest secrets... something he cannot seem to do with the actual people who populate his world.

This element couldn't really exist in the same way on film. And in the play, the end of the play has a lot to do with that relationship. With Christopher acknowledging some of his own flaws and yearning for growth and in a way (subtle, I hope) acknowledging the role the audience has played in getting him there. None of that would have worked on film. So I had to start from scratch and ask myself some tough questions about what the audience might want from this story as a satisfying ending.

It's funny to put it in those terms now because, of course, the ending I came up with was most controversial. In fact, without giving it away, I got a lot of flack from the gay community about the rage that appears (seemingly out of left field) in the final 6 minutes of screen time. But, honestly, I think if you go back and view the film carefully, the seeds of that anger are inside our main character from the very beginning. They just need the perfect catalyst to bring them out.

One more note on the end: I had more than one distributor pass on the film specifically because of the ending. It’s a brutal way to end an otherwise fun and sexy little film and most distributors were afraid of that. Keep in mind, this was 1998, when we were at the height of the Queer Indie Film Movement, when distributors had just discovered how hungry gay and lesbian audiences were for queer storytelling. Few suspected that the community was ready to embrace some darker stuff. Of course, that was not (as it rarely is) in fact true. Many dark films did succeed with the gay audiences, including All the Rage.

What are three key requirements -- in your mind -- for making a successful movie for a small budget?

ROLAND: Why three? Hmm. Okay, let me see. Well, I think actually the first one that comes to mind is key to making any successful movie, regardless of budget. And that is: having a core producing team of smart people that you trust with your life. This is so crucial. Making a film is like running a marathon or climbing a mountain. There's a lot of stress. There are always bumps in the road. When you know that the 2 or 3 core producers have your back, it's a lot easier to focus on what needs to be done and to effectively problem-solve.

That's why I feel so lucky to have worked with wonderful producers like: Kelly Lawman, Catherine Burns, Darren Chilton, Chris Arruda... the list goes on and on. I think also, when I worked on Ed Zwick's film, Defiance, I was fortunate to learn a lot about producing just by watching Pieter Jan Brugge. The most impressive thing I observed was that the moment there was even a hint of something going wrong, Pieter Jan was right on top of the problem. Making sure it didn't get bigger. That's key.

Other things I think made the production of All the Rage possible was goodwill from the local community. We got so much stuff donated simply because the gay community and the local South End neighborhood businesses (where we largely shot) were proud that we were making a feature film about them. So, I guess that would be the second element I'd say is essential: connection to your community. It's just too hard to make a feature on a limited budget without strong community support. It makes such a huge difference.

The third thing I'd say is you need producers who are shameless about stretching the budget as far as it will go. By that I mean, people who enjoy the challenge of being told they only have $100 to pay for something that ordinarily would cost $1,000. People who love figuring out how to get stuff discounted and/or donated are essential.

Okay, I know you said three things but I have to add one more because it's probably the most important of all and I can't believe I didn't mention it first. You have to have a good script. Too many indie filmmakers I meet have not taken the time necessary to make sure the script is really working. Now what do I mean by that? Basically it comes down to a few basic things, but just because they're basic doesn't mean they're easy to achieve, by any means.

You have to have believable characters, characters written in a way that feels honest and doesn't feel "manufactured." And you need some coherent shape to the thing. A story with a beginning, a middle, and an end. In essence, a journey. Obviously this can take myriad forms, but without those things, the whole project is doomed from the start and there's just too many dollars, days and lives at stake to not do the necessary homework refining the script. The script is the blueprint. If it's shoddy. The whole structure will collapse.

You and your team made a really professional-looking movie for a small budget -- how did you achieve that level of "gloss" for so little?

ROLAND: We had a wonderfully talented and resourceful team of designers. That's how. It really is as simple as that.

Our Production Designer, Louis Ashman, someone I'd known for years to be a brilliant interior decorator, but new to filmmaking, did a marvelous job of making every location look like a million bucks on a dime. And of course our Director of Photography, Gretchen Widmer did the same. I mean, she worked very well with our Gaffer, Evans Brown, to give the film a high-gloss look.

Actually there were three distinct looks they were going for depending on the scene. And they were sharply contrasting in terms of color palette, lighting style, camera movement, lens and angle, etc. etc. Our Costume Designer, Sarah Pfeiffer did the same. She went to designers and got unbelievable clothes on loan to the production in exchange for screen credit. So the boys looked stunning in their Hugo Boss suits and Merle Perkins was never seen on screen in the same outfit twice.

One final note on shooting on a shoestring. One area where you need to spend money up front and you cannot afford to cut corners: Sound. We hired the best Sound Mixer working in Boston at that time, a guy by the name of John Garrett. And he delivered 99% pristine sound. This made our Post-Production experience far easier. If you haven't captured good sound, i.e. where you can hear every line of dialogue clearly in order to tell your story in the editing room, you're in for a lot of headaches and a lot of unnecessary spending in Post.

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

ROLAND: Absolutely! And I believe every film does. Every film must. Because filmmaking... I mean the actual construction of it, really does take place in the editing room. Jon Altschuler, my editor, and I worked for weeks juggling scenes here and there. Cutting this, trimming that. Putting that back in.

There are a few cuts we made in the final weeks that I still regret, but I'm told by other filmmakers that I'm not alone in that. It's just so hard when you're so close to something to have a clear sense of what might be dull or tedious to someone watching the picture for the first time. That's why I am a strong believer in screening rough cuts for friends and colleagues early and often in your process, if you can. That can be a huge help.

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

ROLAND: The smartest thing I did was surround myself with people who knew a lot more about their various areas of expertise than I did.

Dumbest thing I did? Probably, allow the casting process to be rushed. There were a couple of choices that were made in haste and looking back I think if I had it to do again, I should have insisted on a few more weeks of casting in New York to get the perfect cast. But, again, this is not as simple as I make it sound. When you have investors committing large sums and schedules and locations are being hammered out, the possibility of delaying the start of Principal Photography has huge implications... most of which inevitably will end up costing the production extra money. And we certainly didn't have much of that.

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

ROLAND: The biggest lesson I learned on All the Rage was that of all the things a director does on set, the most important thing he or she should never forget, is to carve out a calm and quiet space in which the actors can do their work. In other words, everyone on a film set is rushing because time is money, right? Lighting team is rushing to put up the lights. Sound, to wire for sound. Art Director to dress the set. Etc. etc. A film shoot is really a race to the finish line. You've got a real tight schedule and you need to complete as many pages each day as possible so as not to go over budget.

However, the moment the actors walk onto the set and are ready to start shooting, the director must slow everyone down and insist that the entire crew take a deep breath and make a space. Without that, actors cannot breathe and cannot be creative in bringing their characters to life authentically.

This is something I learned DURING the shooting of All the Rage. So if you really pay close attention to the performances, and you have a bit of experience in this sort of thing, you can almost sort out which scenes were shot early in our schedule and which were shot later. Now that I've learned that, though, I'll never forget it. And it's something I'm most rigid about on set when I direct. I will not start shooting a scene until every actor is comfortable that he or she has had the needed time and space to get focused and centered.

The other big lesson I learned is that although we are directors and we do have to steer the ship, there is a certain degree to which a film will find itself in the process of its being made. In other words, the film you end up with cannot and should not be exactly the film you imagined on Day One.

Understanding that and paying attention to the little signs is essential to allowing the film to find its organic truth. This is something that seems to get easier the older I get. I'm less afraid of not knowing exactly how everything is going to sort itself out.

Roger Nygard on "Suckers"

2011-05-05T03:38:00.000-07:00

What was going on with you before you started Suckers?

ROGER NYGARD: At that time I had made three movies. My first film was a one-man show, one-room comedy, written by and starring Steve Odenkirk. We made that film for about $350,000. Then my second film was a $2 million dollar action picture, for a company called Overseas Film Group. Their films are primarily foreign-sales driven.

I remember seeing that movie. There was a lot of action.

ROGER NYGARD: You've got to have five action set pieces, that's the rule for those sort of movies. That's what's expected from the foreign buyers to make their foreign sales. I know we had at least five; we might have had six. But five is the minimum requirement.

The third movie was Trekkies, my first documentary, about Star Trek fans.

In doing Suckers, I was coming off of those three films, which were all very different and driving my agents crazy, because they didn't know what I was. Was I the documentary guy, am I the action guy, am I the comedy guy? So Suckers was a new thing, a sort of grisly dramatic comedy, I guess, with some action.

I had been writing that script with my co-writer, Joe Yannetty, while shooting Trekkies, because you always have to be thinking three movies ahead and have several projects percolating.

Joe had written a one-man show about his experiences selling cars. I read portions of that and he told me some of the stories, and I said, "You've got to make a movie about this. These stories are incredible." So that's where it started.

Joe and I worked together writing the script, based on his experiences, which is a process for me as a screenwriting that I have works best. I almost always work with a writing partner, and the reason is that I grew up in Minnesota, pretty average background. Went to college. Moved to California to seek my fortune in the film business. I never got a job as a CIA agent, never went into the marines, never became a fireman or a cop, didn't go on the road and get arrested or sell cars. You can't write about life experiences that you haven't personally lived, unless you research them extensively or partner up with someone who has lived those experiences.

My writing style is that I tend to write with people who have had interesting life experiences, but don't necessarily have the desire or the fortitude or the persistence to bring it to the screen.

Most screenwriters hate it when someone comes up to them and says, "My life would make a great movie," but it sounds like, depending on the person, you might sit down and talk to them.

ROGER NYGARD: That's how I operate. I think everybody has one good screenplay in them, based on their own life. And that's often the first place to start and the best place to start for a screenwriter is your own life, because that's what you know -- as long as you're willing to rip open your soul. You have to bare yourself to the world in order to write something that other people will be interested in reading and perhaps making as a movie.

It's not easy. It's hard. You've got to write things that you wouldn't even tell your shrink. Those are the screenplays that really stand out.

So when I say that everybody has one good screenplay in them, it's if they're willing to bare their soul and write about those skeletons in the closet, those experiences.

How did you come up with the idea of setting the story on four consecutive Saturdays?

ROGER NYGARD: That was because that's how the car business runs. Every Saturday there's a sales meeting. It's an inspirational meeting, a motivational meeting. It's a time for everybody to gauge where they are against everyone else, because there's always that competitive aspect. So that's how we broke it down, because the industry that we were writing about breaks itself down monthly and weekly. Every month they start over, the cycle begins again. They zero out everybody's totals and start again on Monday at the beginning of every new month. The structure suggested itself to us because the arena we were writing about was based on a monthly structure.

How nervous were you about setting the whole first act in that first sales meeting?

ROGER NYGARD: You know, we broke a lot of structural rules with Suckers. And, in hindsight, there is a lot I would do differently, having learned what I've learned since then and having seen how that experiment worked, where it worked and where it failed.

Part of the excitement of filmmaking is taking chances sometimes. Sometimes you're going to fail spectacularly. And we took a big chance structuring the first act that way. But I don't think it was the biggest chance we took.

What was the biggest chance?

ROGER NYGARD: The biggest chance in the script was doing a genre shift from the second to the third act, which many people disconcerting. Audiences are not used to -- and don't like -- when you shift from one genre to another in a movie.

Quentin Tarantino did it also in From Dusk 'Til Dawn. It starts out as kind of a crime caper/road chase, and then shifts into a monster movie, which threw a lot of people. I think that film was less successful than it might have been also, because people just don't like genre shifts. They want to know what the genre is from the beginning of the movie, what's the level of reality of the story, and then you have to stick to it.

If you don't, then you're taking a chance or doing an art film.

Did you consider other possible climaxes and endings?

ROGER NYGARD: I wish we had considered more, but as soon as we unearthed that story, it felt right to us while we were writing the script. Again, looking back, yeah, I think we could have finished the movie just as engagingly and kept it in the car sales realm, without having to go into the crime and drug-trafficking realm.

But then you would have lost the opportunity to have many of the film's character all shoot each other simultaneously in a small room.

ROGER NYGARD: Yes, and we would have lost my favorite line of the movie: "You're so beyond fucked, you couldn't catch a bus back to fucked."

You kind of fall in love with some things, but in the editing room you spend time killing your babies, that's the term for it. Sometimes you have to cut out the things you're in love with for the good of the whole.

When you did your research at the car dealership, did they know what you were up to?

ROGER NYGARD: Oh, yeah, and they were excited to talk about what they do. I rarely find people unwilling to talk, whether I'm making documentaries or researching characters for a narrative screenplay. It's harder to get them to shut up, actually, then to get them started.

I went to several dealerships with my tape recorder and talked to people and asked them to tell me stories. People love to talk about themselves.

What was the biggest lesson you took away from Suckers?

ROGER NYGARD: The biggest one we already discussed, which is not to violate the rules so dramatically, which we did with the genre shift. That was my biggest lesson.

The corollary was to keep writing, always be writing. Like ABC from Glengarry Glen Ross-- ABC, Always Be Closing. ABW -- Always Be Writing.

The script I'm working on right now is something where I hatched the idea for it about three or four years ago, but I didn't know what to do with it. And it took three or four years of gestating within my brain before it started to form into a shape. It was an idea I told to one of my writing partners and he really sparked to it, and so it moved itself to the top of the pile.

That's why you need to have a lot of ideas and a lot of projects and a lot of things going, because I think your subconscious is working on these projects at different paces. The more you've got going, the more likely one of them is going to sprout.

Robert Alaniz on “D.I.N.K.S.”

2011-04-28T03:48:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making D.I.N.K.S?

ROBERT: I wrote, directed and produced four feature films prior to D.I.N.K.s (Double Income No Kids). One of these films, Barrymore's Dream, won Best Feature at the Springfield, Illinois Route 66 Film Festival in 2007. I studied film in Chicago in the late 70's and early 80's, producing short films and a few feature length indie films until, due to financial reasons, I was forced to abandon my filmmaking ambitions. I returned to making feature films in 2002.

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

ROBERT: My wife and I don't have children, never really wanted them and through the years have experienced a lot of discrimination from people with kids because of it. We live in a community that is dominated with parents and family values and we have never fit in. So, when it came time for me to write my next script, I decided to do a dark comedy on that subject. Being that most of the script is loosely based on personal experiences, it was a very enjoyable script to write.

What are the three key requirements -- in your mind -- for making a successful movie for a small budget?

ROBERT: First, know your audience. Make a film that will appeal to as many people as possible. Vanity projects are best left to successful Hollywood Directors with nothing to lose.

Second, never direct or write a film about a subject matter you know nothing about.

Third, keep your film within the limitations of your budget. Never include expensive elements that force you to go the cheap route to produce.

What's your advice for working with actors on a low-budget project?

ROBERT: Find actors that share your vision and understand the limitations of a low-budget and are willing to push those limits creatively to achieve big-budget results.

What kind of camera did you use and what are the pros -- and cons -- of using that system?

ROBERT: My more recent films were shot with the Canon XL2. I like the "vintage movie" feel of the picture. Not too sharp, not too dull. I don't mind shooting in HD as long as the picture doesn't resemble a live sports event. I think that takes away from the cinematic feel of a movie, which in itself depends on the subject matter and style of the film it's used in.

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

ROBERT: The smartest thing I have done, and try to do during a production, is always try to get spontaneous shots that aren't planned in the shoot but that I think might greatly benefit the film during the editing process. I learned this over the years and it has always proved to be rewarding. The dumbest thing: trusting the wrong people.

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

ROBERT: I learned that going with my gut feelings during a production usually pays off. Especially when it comes to comedy.

Ignatius Fischer on “Lisl and the Lorlok”

2011-04-21T03:54:00.000-07:00

What was your filmmaking background before making Lisl and the Lorlok?

IGNATIUS: In 1995, I started working in the special effects industry, fabricating miniatures for movies like The Fifth Element, Dante's Peak, Titanic, HBO's From The Earth To The Moon, etc.

I was always a writer at heart, writing short stories, attempting a novel, etc. Once in the film industry, I began toying with screenplay format. I wrote and helped produce the indy sci-fi/horror feature The Men Who Fell in 2004. It was shot in Tucson utilizing miniatures, greenscreen and digital effects. It sold overseas and served as the best film school ever (I have no formal training in film production).

I got my first digital camera in 2004 as well and began taking pictures, which I liked, a LOT. So eventually it became a no-brainer that I'd want to write and direct my own film, which is what Lisl is, my directorial debut.

What was the inspiration for the script ... and what was the writing process like?

IGNATIUS: My grandmother-in-law passed away one year (Alzheimer's) and left her walled-in family estate empty. This location is twenty minutes from my house and we (my wife and daughter) used to sort of check up on the place, we'd use the pool in the summer, etc. I realized it was the perfect location to support a film, from both a logistical and creative point-of-view; the main house interior is completely wallpapered, which provided a ton of production design right up front. It has a unique layout, is two-story and has a guest house (which eventually housed cast and crew as well as served as an additional set piece). So with minimal decoration, the place could look great on-camera.

I have always read a lot, and I love suspense stories and fantasies and science fiction, etc. I used to read comic books (Neil Gaiman is one of my favorite authors in the graphic novel realm, at that time specifically Sandman was a huge title). I had written a hefty short story, almost a "novella", called Queen Of Heads (pub 1998 online in The Harrow) in which I explored this sort of twisted Alice-In-Wonderland nightmare space; one classic element was the monster that came out from under the bed and dragged people down to nightmare land. It was this particular scene - the monster under the bed - that intrigued me as far as making a small independent movie.

I knew it (the film) would have to be set almost entirely at this estate location and that the budget would be almost non-existent, so it had to be a "contained" story ... but the stories I'd like to tell on-screen are huge, always! Most of all, I wanted a unique story that hadn't necessarily been done to death before. So I went to my in-laws and asked if I could shoot a film on their property there in Hemet, CA.

I had recently met (on the set of his own short film) Brian Dillon, a local filmmaker that was primarily a writer. He was also assistant directing for other filmmakers I knew and he was extremely organized and driven. We worked on a couple of short films together and got to know each other a bit and when I'd read a couple of his screenplays, I asked him if he'd join me in writing a no-budget fantasy feature. I brought him to the estate and we walked around and began discussing what kind of a story I wanted to do and what kind of a story would fit in that location.

The classic "fairy tale" and the "monster under the bed" became the two themes powering the script ideas. We went through lots of ideas and eventually settled on a little girl stuck in a large house with a creature. We eventually went on to further stylize it as a fairy tale and created an allegory (addiction as seen through the eyes of a child).

Our writing process was interesting to develop because neither of us had collaborated as writers before (Brian is credited solely as screenwriter and we share story credit). So we drafted a treatment by hammering out rough points together and then Brian went off and wrote the first draft. I took that draft and wrote a new treatment that incorporated some of that first draft and a collage of ideas that came back from some of our previous notes.

Brian then wrote a second draft that was much closer to the final version, and from that point, we would literally email pages back and forth writing new stuff and re-writing each other until we had the script boiled down to what we felt was a tight, unique, not-seen-before story (which certainly has moments inspired by all kinds of literature and other films of course).

You wore a lot of hats on this project -- writer, producer, director, editor, etc. -- what's the upside and the downside to doing that?

IGNATIUS: There are three upsides to wearing all those hats:
1) You learn what it takes to do each different job on-set, so that in the future you can have conversations with the heads of all major departments in a real-world fashion.
2) Your aesthetic is guaranteed to get on-screen (for better or worse).
3) You are absolutely responsible for the life of the film (again, for better or worse).

The largest downside to wearing all the hats is the fractionation of your time and attention - none of the "hat" roles are actually performed at 100% potential when you have to do them simultaneously. I have a strong desire to be able to direct my next feature without having to line produce at the same time.

What type of camera did you use to shoot the film and what did you like about it .... and hate about it?

IGNATIUS: We shot on the Panasonic HPX500, shooting in DVCPROHD 720/24p. My camera operator had just purchased that camera, otherwise, we'd have been shooting on an HVX200 or something similar.

The 500 is a very nice camera; I was not (and still may not be) skilled enough to actually get out of the camera all it could do. We had very limited lighting resources and time, which continuously worked against us in creating our images. Currently I shoot with a Canon 7D and have some experience with the Red, both of which I really like and plan to shoot my next feature with - the only thing I didn't like about the 500 compared to the cams I was used to using (prosumer models like the DVX100) was the physical size of the thing. It's a broadcast form-factor camera, and I like to put cameras where human eyes don't comfortably fit, and that could be a tiny bit frustrating when you don't have fly-away walls to accommodate such particular camera angles.

What was the biggest obstacle you had to overcome to make this movie ... and how did you overcome it?

IGNATIUS: The largest obstacle was having hired a professional creature effects fabricator - whom I'd worked with on other professional productions - paying him to create a 1:1 scale puppet of the Lorlok (the titular creature) and then 10 days prior to our shoot date, having him vanish. He stopped returning phone calls and literally disappeared. So we were out the sum we'd paid (which was almost 20% of our budget) and we had no monster.

My plan, coming from a practical miniatures and fx background, was to shoot the creature in-camera with actors in real time because I specifically wanted to have the film "in-the-can" when we were done. At this point, I had already asked Brian if he'd co-produce with me, and now we had to make a pretty scary decision - do we scrap the shoot, all of our prep work, everything, to go find another creature fabricator and find the money to pay him, or do we smash ahead and shoot the movie with the hopes that we could somehow create a CG creature in post. We did the latter, of course, and it took a year to find an animator with chops that could afford to do the creature for points and experience.

A friend of mine, Sohail Wasif, designed and sculpted the Lorlok in a 3D software that I eventually discovered could be ported to Blender, an open-source (free) downloadable 3D animation package. So 18 months after filming, I was resolved to sit down and animate the creature myself in Blender. I went to the official Blender site and posted one question on there, something like "Hey, I need to animate a creature for my feature, I have the 3D model but no idea how to use Blender, could someone help me out with some pointers?" Immediately Roger Wickes responded, asking for the script and could he see other materials, etc. I sent him the script and he came back with, essentially, "I like this story! I'll do it for you." Holy cow, that was a pinnacle moment for sure! Turns out Roger does the tutorials on how to use Blender!

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

IGNATIUS: The smartest thing we did during production was give ourselves ample pre-production time - and use it, which we did. Brian and I dressed the location, walked through all the scenes with lighting tests, etc. for weeks before shooting. That is by far the most important part of any production - no prep, no flick.

I suppose the dumbest thing I did was pay that fx guy his budget entirely up front. Other than that, I think we were very responsible in making the film. I hit every one of our shooting days, we never went over budget or production time and I'm very proud of that.

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

IGNATIUS: I learned pretty much everything - it was an "all-hats" film school for sure. I will take the experience of making this film forever with me into larger budget productions.

I think the biggest, most important thing to realize is an actual philosophy, one that I tried to ingrain in my cast and crew: you have to be water, you have to flow around all obstacles. Because making a film is nothing more than solving a sequential stack of problems.

We just won Best Feature and Best Actor (Ivan Borntrager, Harrison) at the Idyllwild Independent Festival of Cinema! This was our first fest, and these awards are really incredible to have.