Translate

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Cash Poor, Creativity Rich: The No-Money Manifesto...


By Esther B. Robinson
These days, anybody with a film production blog is calling for a revolution. The call to arms takes many forms. Some strident, some prescriptive. All are calling for big, big change.
But to my mind, a revolution can be pretty simple. It can start with just a simple change of perspective — or even a mantra. Here’s mine:
There’s No Money.
I know, I know, this is not news. Thanks to blogs, Twitter feeds, and other social media, we’re inundated with musings about the independent film apocalypse and the poverty of our filmmaking class.
But clearly, the individual’s lack of pay doesn’t spell the end of an industry.
In fact, the current (awful-to-nonexistent) rate of pay mostly stems from the fact that there’s a supply-side market glut. There is a productive film industry, and we are part of it. And while we as filmmakers are sure delivering the goods, we aren’t thriving. In fact, we’re broke, we’re toiling, and we’re giving it away for too little, over and over again.
Yes, there is “profit” in the indie-world, but that profit is reaped by others and is derived from our hard work and the low wages associated with it. We are art-serfs, working hard, indebted and giving our precious potatoes to the distributors-du-jour.
It strikes me, then, that until we get the wage piece solved or the supply side curtailed, the first line of business is to just get real. Because we’re going to keep doing this, right? We know it’s insane to make films … yet over and over we step back up to the madness and sign on. We can’t stop; it’s what we do. But if we’re going to keep making work within the current economic realities, we need to clearly understand the attendant risks and rewards.
And to get to that reality we first need to bust through some deeply problematic herd thinking and industry misconceptions. We have to own up to the lies we tell ourselves and stop telling them.
Here are the Top 5 filmmaker security blankets — the myths we need to kill.
Myth One.

The Big Deal is Coming.

Why does everyone think this will happen? At any damn filmmaker party (doc or narrative), at any random coffee shop, there’s always someone deliriously confident that a distributor is going to become his or her rainmaker with an offer that includes an advance that will recoup investors, cover deferments, pay for deliverables, and maybe even provide some back-end. Fact is, even high-profile films are winding up with pretty crappy deals these days. (Let’s hear it for the “no advance and X percentage of the nonexistent back-end” deal. Or what about the “$30,000 advance for all rights in all territories for perpetuity deal?”) Even with a prestigious distributor on board, filmmakers can be left tapping out credit cards to simply cover delivery costs.
Myth Two.

Talent Always Wins Out/Experience Leads to Pay.

This is the year award-winning, critically acclaimed director John Sayles says in a major publication that he’s making less money than he ever has, and his day job (spec screenwriting) will likely be how he finances his work going forward. And the year award-winning producer Ted Hope announced that he’s producing “for love,” not money, while he takes a job heading up digital streaming service Fandor.
When so many folks with chops as good or better than yours are competing for a slice of the same pie, either the slices get smaller, or some people go without pie. And if talent and experience no longer ensure a living wage, your best hedge against risk is a diversified income (something John and Ted are both doing).
Myth Three.

The Money Savior is Coming.

There are two potential saviors in this myth: the individual and the grant. Neither lives up to the easy money fairy tale.
Any individual willing to give you big cash generally wants something big in return. That’s OK if the deal you’ve offered them includes a healthy salary for you and your collaborators. But too many filmmakers agree to work for free while giving investors first dollar and the majority of the profits. So this warning isn’t to recommend avoiding investment; it’s just to say that, unless you’re smart about it, that investment may rescue your film but it probably won’t rescue you — or even give you the smidgen of financial security you need to embark on your next project.
As for being saved by a grant…If you’ve diligently researched grants, and you’ve run out of leads, chances are you found them all. There’s no leprechaun hoard of secret money out there; most grants for film are pretty straightforward to locate. Of those grants, most won’t be right for what you’re doing. And the odds of scoring one of the few that do match your project? Those odds are tough and the money, once won, is smaller than is generally helpful. At best, they’re a random assortment of helpful mini-patches to plug your movie’s cash production budget — but rarely are they big enough to include your salary.
Myth Four.

Working for Yourself or the Industry is A Smart Plan.

Sometimes this is true. Working for yourself can mean flexibility and staying true to a singular vision. And you can learn a lot in an industry job; climbing the ladder can teach you more than film school. But other times both routes can become giant traps, like when you’re your own assistant, and your assistant is unpaid. Or when that industry job pays poorly and leaves zero time to make your own work, and you’re learning nothing that helps your work. In both cases, a better-paying or more time-flexible unrelated day job might be a better choice, so you can own the time to keep working.
Myth Five.

You Have to Work Full Time at Being a Filmmaker or Artist.

This is the biggest myth of all. If you make films, you’re a filmmaker. No matter how many hours a day, month, or year you do it. The act of doing it makes it so. For most of us, the “act of doing” means having a side job, or two, or more. You’ll make more work, and be more of a filmmaker by accepting that a lot of the work that supports your career won’t happen behind a camera.
OK, Myths Shattered: What Now?
First Step.

Make It Original And Make It Count. 

It seems obvious. If choosing a career in independent film means not getting paid, you should at least be making great, original, important work that only you can make. But be honest — can you accept that bargain? It’s a hard road. Don’t choose it unless you’re committed to making unique, extraordinary movies that won’t get made any other way — and unless seeing that vision on screen is so important that you’ll keep doing it whether or not it pays.
If all you want is to make movies — any movies — that’s fine. You can save yourself a ton of trouble by just getting a gig in the mainstream system. Frankly you’ll get paid way better — as long as you’re happy delivering the same old messages the same old way. (Hello, white boy mafia movies, romcoms, and poor kid contest docs.)
Otherwise, commit to making amazing work. Commit to taking risks and maybe failing. Part of making great work is to keep failing until it succeeds. The point is to keep working — if the goal is to make something original, then you actually have to practice your craft. The beauty of your position is that financial failure isn’t one of your worries. If you’ve really killed your myths, you aren’t relying on your work for financial success anyway. You’re doing what you need to do to get the work made; the point is for the work to matter.
Often events conspire, schedules and priorities shift, and/or the need for cash intervenes and the output is less than great. So commit to slowing down, changing scope, or even chucking a project if it isn’t great. Just keep working. Even if it takes longer than you wanted, even if the day job takes up more of your life than you want it to, even when your big dreams run head-on into your financial reality.
Which brings us to:
Second Step.

Cheap As Hell.

Your relationship to money is going to be crucial throughout your career. When you are learning your craft or waiting for the world to connect with your originality or even, dare I say it, having a super-successful run but are still broke, you must perfect the act of living cheap as hell.
But it’s also important to remember that there is only so cheap you can get without making your life pretty sucky. So in addition to searching out ways to live cheaply, you must also be equally diligent about generating enough cash to cover your filmmaking habit. This means generate enough cash so that you have savings.
1. Save money so you can afford to do what you love for near-free. How do you do this? See No. 2.
2. Love the day job. Instead of thinking of it as the thing that’s in the way, start thinking of it as the cash cow that makes the work possible. Maybe you’re patching together your income through diversified freelance work. If so, you’re in the vanguard of American workers. So while it feels hard and it will likely be confusing to your parents, it is the future for most people. You’re actually ahead of the game. And being a flexible problem solver who can function on little sleep will only help your filmmaking.
3. Slow down or work intensely but episodically….
Unless your subject really must be captured in real time, your work can benefit from slowing down or working intensely in bursts. You can use the down time to replenish the budget, but you can also use the time to deepen the connection you have to your script or your subjects or the place where you shoot. You can use time as an alternate investment to cash. You know the slow food movement? We could use a slow film movement.
4. Work the home advantage. Move where renting or owning is cheap. Cities across the country — and the globe — have low rents, abundant artists, and cultural output at the highest level: Berlin, New Orleans, Austin, to name a few. Choosing a location wisely allows you keep your cost of living low and still access vital, thriving film communities.
While you are working hard to make all of these near-impossible things fit together, you need to practice Step Four.
Third Step.

Gratitude.

Yes, this is hard. Yes, we are working our butts off. But so is most everybody else. Most people work long hours for low pay and that’s it — that’s all they get.
They do this without the extraordinary reward of making work and belonging to a community of makers. And that difference matters. Every time you make a film, every time you engage a community of people to join you to either make or celebrate work, your life is elevated and enviable. It is crucial to start building in the recognition that this life also brings great joy and connection. These rewards are also free. But ultimately they are the most valuable.
A life filled with meaningful work and a community of talented peers. It might not make us rich, but it has a shot at making us happy and fulfilled if it’s built right. So let’s just build it right, starting right now. ...


The Hard Truth: Filmmaking is Not a Job...


By Ted Hope
Unfortunately if I sought to get compensated for the work I do, my movies would not get made. If I sought to get paid like normal people are, I never would have been able to produce any of my films.
I have been fortunate enough to have made about sixty films in about twenty years. I am not foolish enough to think I was the deciding factor in bringing good ideas into cinematic being, but I do know that certain practices of mine, have helped significantly.  Yes, it is also true that good work begets other good work, and a track record certainly helps — particularly a track record of profitability — but generally all of my films depend on two things to get made: 1) superior quality of the material, and 2) the willingness of the collaborators to make great sacrifices.
There’s more though on why these films have happened; there have been commonalities amongst all the films that have helped significantly in their getting made.  I have to repeatedly go out on the limb, believing in the film and the filmmaker for years on end, with no remuneration, pushing to make the project better, figuring out how in the hell to bring more “value” to it, shopping it, strategizing and the like.
I am highly selective in my choices to get involved with a project and as a result some of my movies get made and it usually only takes 3 years of my unpaid labor to do so. And then generally after we get the films financed, and the budget locked, I far too often have to make further sacrifices with my fees and “perqs”.  I am not complaining; these are my choices.  My eyes are open.  But when I talk to other producers, particularly new ones, often they don’t believe it.  Being a film producer requires abandoning the concept that you work for a living.
My first five or six years in the business I had jobs.  I exchanged my labor, ideas, and relationships for the ability to survive.  I came from very modest means, put myself through film school, and sacrificed most things so I could get the movies I wanted to see done (cue violins please). And yes, occasionally along the way, I did some things generally to pay the bills or support my company.  If I had pursued a job or security initially though, none of it would not have gotten done.  If I had pursued money over responsibility and knowledge, my life would have taken a much different path.

Life's Many Intersections
Life’s Many Intersections

We live to work, we should not have to work to live — but we do & maybe it is because most don’t realize part one.  Reading in The New York Times how 37% of Americans between the ages of 18 -29 are not in the work force, makes me wonder if they are all becoming producers.  I have not had the guarantee of a salary since generous overhead deals for producers went by the wayside.  This is also not a complaint.  This is my choice to use my labor to build the culture that I want.
I state all of this now because filmmakers of different sorts have also stated to me that they don’t want to do certain things when they are not getting paid for it.  Unfortunately I think that means, at least in terms of today, that their movies will not be getting made.  Well, maybe not so for those few true geniuses out there, but what are the rest of us to do?  Stop making movies?  I have watched movies not happen because of small budget discrepancies.  I have made errors seeking too much money for my films, and witnessed their death as a result.
I am not endorsing the practice of exploiting people for their labor.  Yet, I support people making the choice of using their labor, albeit not at it’s proper value, to deliver the culture they want.
Yes it would be great if there were some support structures in America beyond academic institutions that helped those that did not dabble in the most commercial of creative choices to support themselves.  Although, when I get to travel to the different countries, some of which have had film cultures benefit greatly, from the subsidies to the arts, I often find cultures with more rigid rules than ours as to what is “finance-able” film.  I have seen how subsidies may provide for employment across all categories, but also how they diminish the will for many to invest their labor for the sake of  growth or supporting an artist they believe in.
Still though it would be nice to get a little help or acknowledgement beyond the marketplace that your work matters.  Maybe first though, all of us need to demonstrate that we value and want a diverse and dynamic culture.  Maybe we need to work a little harder letting those values be known.  We need to show that there are communities throughout this land that love ambitious film and will vote with their time, labor, and dollars to bring it to their friends and neighbors.  Paying artists directly for their work will go a long way to making filmmaking a legitimate option when it comes to choosing how to earn a living in this country.
And in the meantime, we all have to continue to make real sacrifices to get our work done. Either that or take a real job.


How to Steer Clear of the Pitfalls of Guerrilla Filmmaking...


By V Renee
Chances are if you look back on the films you've created thus far in your career, the first ones were probably an assortment of run and gun guerrilla films. For those who are just starting out, though, the lack of planning, time, money, and resources can decrease the production value of your project fast, so knowing the issues that are sure to arise during production will help you make your film look better as well as maintain your sanity. Film Riot's Ryan Connolly shares some tips on how to bulletproof your run and gun projects. Check out the video after the break.
Guillermo Del Toro is quoted as saying, "The saddest journey in the world is the one that follows a precise itinerary. Then you’re not a traveler. You’re a fucking tourist." This describes guerrilla filmmaking. Run and gun filmmaking is a journey -- it's spontaneous, you have to think on your feet and fly by the seat of your pants. It's not that you don't prepare, plan, or have tools at your disposal, it's just that these projects tend to be less structured than others, so you have to get creative with what you've got.
Connolly looks back on his short film Losses, which he and his team wrote and shot in 10 days.He breaks down the three things that he "hates" about the film: the location, casting, and wardrobe.
Clearly, if you're out making films guerrilla style, meaning you're working with little or no budget, a tiny crew, and utilizing anything and everything you can get your hands on for props, set dressing, and gear, chances are you don't have a whole lot of time/money for planning or options on certain important factors (like location, casting, and wardrobe.)
But, you can avoid making your film look thrown together by paying closer attention to what you put in it and where. For instance, be sure that each of your actors is age appropriate for the character they're playing. Nothing says amateur like a 20-year-old frat boy playing a Police Chief. Sometimes you have to write your films according to what you have; I've written several scripts set in a warehouse, because I had access to one.
The video from Film Riot lays out more valuable tips below:

So, it's important to be aware of the pitfalls of shooting movies in this way. You may not have a whole lot of latitude when it comes to where you shoot, who's in your movie, and what your actors wear, but if you do have a little wiggle room, focusing on getting these things just right (or at least a tiny bit better than terrible) will pay dividends to the production value of your film later.


Friday, May 29, 2015

10 Romantic Movies From France You Should Watch...

By Anahit Behrooz


From its enchanting cities to its lilting love songs, France has long been considered the ultimate source of romance and love. It is therefore little surprise that the country's outstanding film industry has produced some of the most beautiful and honest depictions of love on the silver screen. From the whimsical to the tragic, we review some of France's most unmissable romantic films.


Amélie

One of the most popular and successful French films in recent years, Amélie (2001) has done much to raise the profile of French cinema in the international film industry. The film tells the story of the naïve and shy Amélie Poulain (Audrey Tautou), who determines to improve the lives of surrounding friends and strangers through secret and often quite complicated acts of kindness. Through her adventures, she encounters Nino Quincampoix, a kindred spirit and fellow dreamer, and attempts to overcome her reclusive nature and confess her love. Quirky and whimsical, Amélie is a charming portrayal of the awkward, sweet nature of first love and, more broadly, of the down-to-earth beauty of human relationships.

Amour

Amour (2012) is a devastatingly beautiful exploration of the realities of love and marriage beyond typical Hollywood ideas of romance and attraction. The film centers on Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) and Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant), an old married couple in their eighties whose lives become suddenly complicated after Anne suffers a sudden stroke. A quietly challenging film, Amour does not shy away from reflecting the tragedy of watching a loved one suffer, yet remains ultimately uplifting in its depiction of love as a powerful force which transcends illness, unhappiness and mortality. Amour was critically acclaimed, winning the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

The Artist

Set against the advent of talkies in 1920s Hollywood, The Artist (2011) - itself a black-and-white silent film - depicts the relationship between the famous George Valentin, a silent actor who struggles to make his way in the changing face of the film industry, and Peppy Miller, an aspiring actress and dancer who gains success even as Valentin's career fails. As a silent film, Dujardin and Bejo's chemistry cannot rest on charming speeches but must rather rely on an intense yet restrained physicality which heightens the romantic tension: through shy, flirtatious smiles, stolen glances and standing longingly a little too close to each other, Dujardin and Bejo are a throwback to the palpable chemistry of Old Hollywood leading actors.

Blue Is the Warmest Color

Another unflinching portrayal of the reality of love and relationships, Blue Is the Warmest Color (2013) tracks the relationship between two women, Adèle (Adèle Exarchopolous) and Emma (Léa Seydoux), from the passionate and the sensual, to the gritty and heartbreaking. Through the women's evolving romance, writer and director Abdellatif Kechiche explores the intersection between love and a myriad of contemporary social issues, including class, sexuality, ambition and freedom. Blue Is the Warmest Color is also notable for being the first film to have the Palme d'Or presented to both director and leading actors at the Cannes Film Festival.

Children of Paradise

A classic, poignant love story, Children of Paradise (1945) tells the tale of the beautiful courtesan Garance (Arletty) and her tangled, doomed love affairs with four different men, a mime (Jean-Louis Barrault), an actor (Pierre Brasseur), a thief Pierre François Lacenaire, and an aristocrat (Louis Salou). The film is notable not only for its portrayal of violent, tragic passions and tormented love, but also for the extraordinary conditions under which it was made; filmed during the German occupation of France in the 1940s, the film had to contend with censorship, time limits imposed by the Vichy government, budget constraints, and the concealment of several Jewish crew members.

The Girl on the Bridge

A twist on the typical boy-meets-girl Hollywood love story, The Girl on the Bridge (1999) features a unique and memorable meet-cute: Adèle (Vanessa Paradis) is prevented from committing suicide by Gabor (Daniel Auteuil), who persuades her instead to join his circus and become part of his knife-throwing act. Their work together is reflected in their romantic relationship; at times charming, at times daring, and full of erotic, unfulfilled tension. Paradis and Auteuil have a sizzling chemistry which sparks off the screen, and the poetry and magic of the romance is complemented by the film's old-fashioned black-and-white cinematography and fantastic direction.

Jules and Jim

A classic of the French New Wave, Jules and Jim (1962) is the story of two friends united by a shared love of art, beauty and the same woman. Catherine, played bewitchingly by Jeanne Moreau, catches the eye of both men, yet her impulsive, Bohemian nature sparks off passions and tensions between the three characters which culminate in a dramatic ending. Directed by François Truffaut, Jules and Jim is emblematic of many of the New Wave's innovative techniques of storytelling, including freeze frames, jump cuts, and voice over narration, and is thus the perfect film for both the romantic and the cinephile.

Love Me If You Dare

Starring Marion Cotillard and Guillaume Canet in their breakthrough roles, Love Me If You Dare (2003) tells a very surreal story of love, passion, and the cruel innocence of childhood - and beyond. Sophie (Cotillard) and Julien (Canet) are childhood friends who take turns challenging each other with outrageous dares; as they grow older and gradually fall in love, they find themselves unable to leave old habits behind, putting their love and happiness at risk for the sake of the game. Cotillard and Canet, who began their own romantic relationship on the set of this film, have undeniable chemistry, and bring this strange whimsical tale vividly to life. By turns shocking and charming, vicious and romantic, this beautiful film will not easily be forgotten.

The Story of Adele H.

Based on the diaries of Adèle Hugo, the daughter of Victor Hugo, The Story of Adele H.(1975) depicts the tragedy of Adèle's (Isabelle Adjani) unrequited love for a military officer. Having previously been in a relationship with the officer, Adèle is unable to let him go, pursuing her love for him to the point of obsession and insanity. Masterfully directed by François Truffaut, one of the leaders of the French Nouvelle Vague, the film depicts Adèle's love as an all-consuming force, and as a self-destructive yet self-made decision which encompasses all of Adèle's character to the point of tragedy.

The Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Much like the film as a whole, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg's (1964) depiction of love is exuberant and colorful. Through its style, the film seeks to elevate the small, everyday details of life: the cinematography features bright, saturated colors and the costume and set design is vivid and charming, and every line of dialogue is sung by the characters, lending the film a grand, cinematic feel. The love story between the two main characters is thus transformed from a typical romance between two young lovers to a beautiful, dramatic relationship which lights up the screen. Starring a young Catherine Deneuve in one of her most famous roles, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is unmissable for its unique and uplifting portrayal of love.