Archive for "CREATIVE COLLABORATION"

Collaboration: Figuring out a way to secure our future

It’s an interesting time to be a filmmaker. Technically we could all make a film, build a website, make a DVD, have our film seen by tens of millions of people and sell enough DVD’s online to make our money back and earn enough to make another film. But as we all know this is what could “potentially” happen and unfortunately not what “actually” happens.
There’s a few problems.

Exposure; trying to stand out in a sea of thousands of other films.

Profit; now that most films can be easily streamed or downloaded for free, it seems dumb to even ask for a dollar.

Share; if filmmakers do get traditional distribution the shares are too small to support their future films.

Sustainability; how can I continue making films if I can’t even pay off the last one?

In a time with so much potential, many sites are quickly figuring out ways to profit off of our films through their distribution outlets. The problem with that is the filmmakers share is too small to support their future films. Hulu is one example that acquires films and streams them on their site for free (yeaaaa!). The films are broken up with commercial breaks (boooo!) so the site can make a little money off advertising and the audience can view the hard to find film for free.

Now I don’t know this but I’m guessing those films aren’t getting a cut off of each stream. They probably got a moderate buyout which is great but it won’t continue to bring in money to fund future work. (Anyone out there who has a film on Hulu please fill me in on the details.)

The time is now for filmmakers to collaborate on a strategy, structure and system to profit from our work while making it available to our fans for free. If we don’t figure this out someone else will and filmmakers will continue to be starving artists. The time is now for independent filmmakers to figure out a way to secure our own future.

The goal here is to get feedback from other filmmakers and begin to build this structure and system that will help us maintain our independence.

At the most basic level what we want is a platform where fans can easily find our work, watch it for free and we (the filmmakers) can make a little money out of it per viewing. Right?

Example # 1

What if filmmakers joined forces and created a “Co-op” website where fans could download/stream/VOD all of our movies at the highest quality possible for free, knowing that IF they watch a free film on our “Co-op” site that the filmmakers somehow gets paid. The site could also have links to everyone’s individual sites where they could buy the DVD or poster or whatever and there could also be a rating system so the site could suggest other movies/filmmakers you might enjoy.

So, how do the filmmakers get paid if the fans aren’t paying to view it?
The only ideas I have now is through banner ads, pay per click, sponsorships or commercials. I’m not an expert in this field but would love to hear from someone who is.

Would fans be willing to sit through commercials at the beginning of a free film (not cut into the film like Hulu) in order to help out the filmmaker?

If fans knew that simply by clicking on our “Co-op” site they are helping the filmmaker come one small step closer to funding their next project would they do it?

Would you?

How do you get exposure if everyone puts their film on a comon “Co-op” site?
There has to be some sort of quality control to gain credibility and respectability for the filmmaker. Who says what stays and what goes? I don’t know, maybe there is a rotating jury by filmmakers already on the site. Maybe it has to get into a certain amount of festivals? Maybe there is some type of recommendation system?

What do you think?

I don’t have all the answers but we must start figuring out how to gain control of our future. Only then can we, as a group, create a solution using the latest technology to benefit independent filmmakers and our fans.

This is a call to arms to all independent filmmakers. If we don’t act now to establish a path for true independence then when will we?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

CHANGES IN THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF CINEMA

I wrote this in response to a recent blog post from Filmmaker Magazine editor Scott Macaulay, after our NEW BREED panel on ‘Creative Collaboration’ at DIY DAYS Philadelphia. He wrote: “what would filmmaking that’s specifically designated as “collaborative” look like. How would its power relationships shift? How would its production practices change? And how would the final project be different?” He added in a tweet: “I didn’t ask panelists to define it. Isn’t all filmmaking collab? What’s diff now?” The following is offered to continue the dialogue:

CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF COLLABORATION IN FILMMAKING

There are presently several ascending levels to degrees in which creative collaboration occurs in the making of a film. On one end of the spectrum, collaboration could mean a Director communicates his/her vision and the Cinematographer adjusts to make the visuals resonate. It could be a Director and Composer in a booth changing rhythms of music. It could mean an Actor suggesting a line on-set. These old-school forms of collaboration are obvious to all – and this is one level of collaboration. Great films, and incredible moments in cinema have been created this way, and until recently – it perhaps only this way.

Then there is, on the other end of the spectrum – something radically different and altogether new – what I would consider a higher level of collaboration in creating cinema. To understand this new form of interdependent collaboration, you have to step back a moment and look at how far we’ve come technologically, and more specifically, how technology has shaped and empowered the next generation of young creative collaborators.

A BREIF HISTORY OF KIDS WITH CAMERAS

Sabi Pictures co-founder Zak Forsman and started making films with the first generation VHS camcorders at 12. We worked together with kids in the neighborhood and our families - taking ideas from everyone and each other – and created the movies mostly as we went along ‘in-camera’. After us, came a micro-generation of self-taught filmmakers who had access to video cameras as a grade-school toy. Now, they’re cutting features on their laptops complete with graphics and special effects. Using the technology, they’ve learned from their mistakes and they’ve learned how to tell artistic stories. They make movies organically and without a lot of money. Their film school is watching independent and foreign films, hours of DVD bonus features, the occasional class – but primarily, the act of doing. They are of any age.

MULTI-HYPHENATES: THE NEW COLLABORATORS

This intelligent, empowered new generation of young artist/filmmakers are the new collaborators. They understand intrinsically how to tell stories, and make movies organically – and how to make them engaging and real despite their budget limitations. They collaborate interdependently rather than independently – they work with each other, not ‘for’. Their power relationships are shifted in a way that fosters a creative spirit among all. Any one member’s contribution to whole would be greatly affected if they were not a part of the project. They are all empowered by the directors/producers – and quite often, they are all friends (or become friends). This collaborative filmmaking team has learned together by doing – and doing everything together – and no one would dare suggest a particular task is ‘not my job.’

This generation of filmmakers (emerging everywhere) feels deeply entitled to more than whatever job they apply for. They quit jobs that do not engage them – or lose interest in films that they cannot be fully invested in. They are all, each and every one – a potential motion picture studio unto themselves – but they work together. For the greater picture of the Arts vs. Commerce – this is a great victory for the Arts, for these emerging artists are not hampered by anything or anyone. With the internet as an avenue for distribution, those with the clearest and most original voices – finally have a chance.

These serious writer/director/producer/editor/shooters understand that creative collaboration is actually working with other multi-hyphenate filmmakers to tell a story – and to share an ever-changing organic experience that is greater than any one person’s vision. Despite their smaller crews, homegrown style, and simplified locations - this next generation of creative collaborators work together in a radically new and exceptionally creative way. By listening to each other, and allowing the possibility of improvisation to occur on set (be it dramatic or comedic) – the new collaborators of today foster a spirit of creativity and free expression from all involved with the project, from the D.P. to sound mixer to the stars. There is a greater sense of shared pride on projects of this sort, and the results are often more engaging and honest.

Collaborators on the set of White Knuckles

Collaborators on the set of White Knuckles

CREATIVE INTERDEPENDENCE

The only way I can describe this method of collaboration is to call it Interdependent Filmmaking. The way in which interdependent filmmakers work is to tell their film with each other – despite antiquated models of hierarchy on-set. In fact the entire model of above the line and below the line breaks-down fundamentally when collaborating on this high level. Everyone’s contributions are equally important and under the guidance and vision of a director (whose mission is to explore character, and tell the best story possible with input from the cast and crew) and a producer (whose mission it is to be flexible to change and to create a safe atmosphere where creativity is fostered) and their interdependent team. Everyone has their roles, but everyone’s contributions are important and valued. The relationship between the director and the actors are emboldened by these new production practices, and there is a process of mutual discovery during the experience of making the film.

These new highly collaborative artist/filmmakers are too smart for one role, and one role is far beneath them – they need to be a part of the crafting experience of the film, they have a tremendous amount to offer it tapped as a resource rather than just a helping hand. These creative collaborators are empowered by their prior experience and knowledge (regardless of age), and by creating with/for each other. They seek surprises on-set, they strive for honesty and deep emotion on screen, and ‘real’ performances. In fact, the new stories we see emerging were always written with the intention of being made (and revised to make things possible) . The characters are conceived with—and fleshed out by—the actors that were always intended to play them. Creativity is happening on-set while the production is on its feet - not just in the darkness of the writer’s room or editing bay.

EMPOWERED BY SCARCITY

Using social networks and the internet as an inexpensive testing and meeting ground for ideas and publicity, this New Sustainable Cinema trend of smaller, more collaborative films is fully empowered by scarcity in funding rather than hampered by it. This is an amazing thing and different than experiences of the past. Our limitations are forcing us to tell better, more inventive, more impactful stories. Producers arrange to shoot guerilla, with DSLR cameras. Directors and Composers that have never met in person, score an entire film online. Actors that really care about their craft, seek out collaborative directors that could push their creative boundaries based on seeing their work online. These nano-budget films are not only being created collaboratively, they are marketed to communities online, with the cast and crew interacting with fans to get the film out there. It’s from start to finish and entirely interdependent effort.

And what has been the result of this changing nature of collaboration? Nothing short of a resurgence of beautifully executed, meaningful cinematic stories. These films are emerging everywhere – and without any debate or controversy over who gets the ‘film by’ credit.

END RESULT: FILMS OF VALUE AND MEANING (PAST & FUTURE)

In a way, it’s a throwback to films that were made in an earlier time in the history of cinema where the filmmakers themselves determined which films were made (though present interdependent cinema is comprised of films radically smaller in budget, size and scope). At the time, most everyone understood that a good film was good because it was at once entertaining, artistic and meaningful. People went to the movies for different reasons entirely, and as an art form – it was still discovering its voice. The films that are being polished in the editing bays of many young filmmakers all over the country continue that search. These are filmmakers making projects that couldn’t have been possible without the help of everyone involved. The motivating factor is to create a good story and tell it well – and by any means necessary. And their ideal – is to put the final work in front of audiences and fans in the hopes they someday make another.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Ideas for DIYDAYS from Mike Hedge

IMG_0920cuIMG_1912m

I got to be part of the DIYDAYS events in 2008 in LA and San Francisco. This year, I couldn’t join the DIYDAYS in Philly, so I made a video. Arin Crumley and Zak Forsman, among others are doing a neat panel called: Changes in Creative Collaboration. Here is the video I made which is part of the New Breed project from The Workbook Project.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Creative Collaboration: What We’ve Learned

When I heard that the next topic of discussion for the New Breed group was going to be collaboration, I sat down with my co-writer/co-director, Alec Boehm, and we sketched out some of the thoughts that we’ve had about it, both when doing our own projects, and when working with other people on theirs.

Most of these were very obvious — though sometimes hard to accomplish:

• Communicate constantly, and if there are problems, address them immediately. Problems almost never heal themselves, so don’t let resentments and issues build up in the unlikely hope that they’ll go away.

• You don’t have to like your collaborators, but you do have to respect them. I actually believe that if you don’t respect someone, you shouldn’t work with them — (though of course that’s a problem if you stop respecting them part way through the project…).

• Stay flexible and open to new ideas. The thing that makes great collaborations so transcendent is the unexpected chemistry that happens when different people combine their ideas, then come up with something totally new as a result. (The most sublime example of this is being a writer/director and working with an actor on your own material — somewhere between the two of you, a character takes shape that’s neither you nor them.)

• If you make mistakes, take responsibility and try to remedy them. Don’t throw other people under the bus.

• Collaborations are like a romance — there’s a chemistry or there isn’t. The good in a relationship will outweigh the bad, or it won’t. And sometimes, you have to accept that it’s just not going to work (for whatever reason, no blame attached) and cut bait as early as possible.

• At the same time, a good collaboration can sometimes be really contentious. But that can still work — if the fights are good fights, if the attacks aren’t personal, if both sides can work that way. (Personally, I don’t like to — I much prefer the happy, calm, grounded kinds of collaborations. But I admit to my bafflement that several of my most pivotal, life-changing working relationships have been of the fight-all-the-time variety.)

I will admit that I found collaboration the most challenging part of making our feature, the thing that I’ve kept going back to in my mind over and over, trying to sort out what we did right and what we did wrong.

During production, we were surrounded by the largest crew we’d ever worked with, and we learned to accept that and to collaborate. But for most of post-production, Alec and I contracted into a very small unit of two; I believe we under-collaborated during post, didn’t reach out for enough help. Maybe it was financial, or maybe it was our need as fledgling directors to do as much of the work ourselves as we could, to wring every last lesson out of making the movie.

I think we also became very protective of our vision of the movie. There came a time during post when we felt we were getting barraged with comments that were not in keeping with the movie we wanted to make. For a while, to keep peace with people around us, we tried out some of those suggestions, only to feel that the movie we set out to make was slipping out of our grasp. We realized that we were sawing through the thin rope that tied us to our movie, and that if we cut that rope entirely, it would become in essence an outside project, where we could no longer tell what was good or bad in the very world we had created. So we undid all the changes and restored the movie to the one we set out to make. Whether that was the best choice — whether the movie would have been better if we’d followed the other roads — is impossible to say.

The other challenge was trying to speak the language of the people we were working with. Despite the fact that Alec and I had both spent years playing music, I don’t think we ever managed to communicate what we wanted from the composers we spoke to. And I wonder, what could we have done or said differently to get our ideas across more clearly?

But enough of words: for this round of New Breed conversation, it was strongly suggested that we filmmakers try to act like filmmakers and get out our cameras. So Alec and I tried to coalesce our ideas about collaboration and come up with something we could shoot that would get across a little of what we’ve come to believe.

The following is the result: Collaboration, as seen by three thieves from The Red Machine: Bad-Eye Bedrosian (Jon Amirkhan), Frankie “The Finger” Dexter (played by Mike Rock) and the Impeccably-Dressed Mauricio Delano (Nicholas Tucci). We wrote it last Saturday, shot it on Wednesday night, and finished it by Friday — a new personal best!

(Incidentally, the actors are themselves an example of a great ongoing collaboration — three very different individuals who found an instant chemistry on the feature and who willingly stepped back into their 1930s personas for us just do this little featurette.)

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Creative Collaboration on Play With Fire

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

CREATIVE COLLABORATION: WORKING WITH FOCUS GROUPS TO SHAPE THE EDIT

Jamie (my editor) and I are shaping my first film, a largely improvised feature shot at the end of 2007, called HEART OF NOW. She has done an amazing job of rediscovering the film within the material we shot. Our first cut was 150+ minutes and not long ago did she find the key that let us jettison 45 minutes.

Now with a 103 minute cut, Jamie made the point that we have taken the film as far as we could go on our own. And that we needed the fresh perspectives of trusted collaborators and colleagues to help fill in the blindspots we may have developed by being so familiar with the material.

At Sabi Pictures, we incorporate collaboration into as many aspects of our productions as we can. Editing, however, remains one component that requires the single mind of an editor to delve into the material and re-discover the film. Lately, we have found a way to reintroduce collaboration into the shaping of the film by enlisting the audience.

This latest New Breed video, shot and edited by HEART OF NOW’s producer Kevin K. Shah, documents our first test screening and focus group.

The best way for me to give advice is simply to relate what we’ve been doing with our own film. Keep in mind, I used to work for an evil corporation that held test screenings for all the major studio films. So I learned how the studios do it first hand, and have adapted that for indies.

To prepare for the screening, I booked a theater — the Downtown Independent in LA is probably the greatest, most indie-friendly, venue in all of Los Angeles. It has state of the art picture and sound, 238 stadium seats, and you can book it for less than the cost of most 40 seat screening rooms elsewhere in the city. It only cost me $300 to get feedback in a theatrical setting.

We made comment cards that asked:

• Would you recommend this movie to a friend?

• What is your overall reaction to the film? Did this story resonate with you emotionally?

• How do you feel about the character Amber, played by Marion Kerr?

• How do you feel about the character Gabe, played by Kelly McKracken?

• Were you confused about any of the character’s relationships? How they knew each other? Or how they were introduced?

• What were your favorite scenes?

• What were your least favorite scenes?

• Do you have a favorite character? Why?

• Did you have a least favorite character? Why?

• Were there any scenes, shots, transitions or cuts that jarred you out of the story?

• Were you aware of the music switching from diegetic (sound in the characters’ world) to non-diegetic (score)? And did that affect your enjoyment in any way?

• Any other thoughts you’d like to add that were not addressed in the previous questions?

That first question is how the studios rank a film, quick and dirty. If more than 80% say they will definitely recommend the film, they’ll leave it alone. If not, they’ll tinker. I think it’s different for indies, unless you can enlist a purely “indie niche” test audience. Because if your film is like most, it appeals to a niche. So the answer here is more often than not, “it depends on the friend”.

The above are all valuable questions but only intended to get the gut reaction. Because much more important than this is the conversation held afterward. For that, I have the following advice.

• Protect the anonymous nature of filling out the comment cards by having someone other than the director or producer collect them. And don’t read them before you have the conversation. Do that in private afterwards.

• Make sure you invite people who know how to watch a rough cut. Picture and sound will likely be unfinished. Many people are simply not equipped to see beyond that.

• DO NOT answer any questions by defending or explaining why you made a choice. It doesn’t matter what you intended, only how they reacted to it. And explaining it, negates the purpose having a fresh perspective on it.

• Turn questions about meaning or intent back on the audience. Ask them “why they think it might be that way”. Sometimes they are afraid to offer an interpretation out of fear of being “wrong”. A little nudge can open a floodgate to some great insights.

• Record the conversation. And review it. Memory is not perfect, at least mine isn’t. And often my perception of what was discussed and what was important… changes over time. So it’s good to go back and refresh your understanding of what people really had to say.

Now taking this info into the edit bay and handling it properly is the most important part. It is your decision what you choose to address, and what you don’t. Just understand that much critical feedback will point to specific scenes as “where it hurts”, but that is not necessarily what is “causing the pain”. Take a macro approach to the feedback and address it in the micro.

And it should go without saying, but check in with each person two weeks later to see how the film has settled with them. Most of us develop new appreciations and shed biases toward a film after letting some time pass.

Despite the natural fears one has about sharing a film for the first time, the feedback and encouragement we received left us energized with a renewed focus. We’re grateful to the test audience for helping us and thankful that anything we choose to address in the edit, is addressable.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark