Translate

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Templar Knights vs. Predator: An Epic Fan Short Film...



By Scott Beggs

If the Predator has been hunting down Earthlings for centuries, how did 11th century knights handle the invisible bad ass without guns or Schwarzenegger-sized muscles?


This fan short film from James Bushe imagines those incredibly one-sided battles. The crowdfunded Predator: Dark Ages has a little low-budget wonkiness to it, but it’s a fun What If that echoes the teamwork (and slaughter) of the franchise. The second best element is that the film doesn’t hang on special effects. The ones that are present are passable, and the production team is more than aware of the limitation, building a story based on the hunt instead of on the spectacle. In that sense, it also stays true to the character — featuring a Predator who is methodical, sporting enough to make his kill streak more challenging and obsessed with trophies.


The best element is how something like the Predator could easily become a living myth in the era and the treatment that concept gets here. Forget dragons. Yautja are far more dangerous.


Overall, it’s a capsule version of a longer Predator movie where each of the team members get backstories and more time to cohere as a group.






"True Detective" Delivers that Big Shock You've Been Waiting For...

 True Detective: Night Finds You


By Matthew Monagle

Spoiler warning: This article contains talk of the events within True Detective season 2, episode 2, “Night Finds You.” If you haven’t watched the episode, go do that first and come back.

Like any other internet-based baseball fan, I spend part of each morning reading recaps of the previous evening’s game. Most beat writers and bloggers are upfront about their habit of beginning recaps early; should their team be shut out for seven consecutive innings, they may write a few paragraphs highlighting the team’s struggles at the plate and tease it into a full recap when the game is over. When the game sees a late-inning flurry of activity, however, the writer may have to trash their early draft and start again from scratch.

So, yeah. Baseball writers of America, tonight I feel your pain.

“Night Finds You,” the second episode in this season of True Detective, takes another move from their expansive L.A. Confidential playbook by shooting the top-billed actor in the chest far earlier than we expected. Is Ray Velcoro truly dead? The scene certainly doesn’t leave much room for ambiguity. Velcoro is knocked off his feet by a shotgun blast and then shot again at point-blank range. As the camera slowly pulls back from the house, no additional shots are heard, meaning one character was unable to shoot and the other (for whatever reason) decided not to. Granted, this is a series where Matthew McConaughey’s Rust Cohle was disemboweled only a few minutes before turning up fine in a hospital bed, but Pizzolatto has never been the sort to resort to cliffhangers to keep his audience engaged. If I were a betting man, I’d put all my chips on blood red.

This is a huge risk. Regardless of whether you like the actor or not – where you might place him on a hypothetical scale from Winter’s Tale to In Bruges – Farrell is the member of the cast best equated with gritty prestige drama. Rachel McAdams is playing against type; Taylor Kitsch is one wrong role away from Jai Courtney jokes; Vince Vaughn is the epitome of a veteran playing for his next contract. If you are a skeptic of what Pizzolatto can do without Cary Fukunaga, or if you worry about the writer’s ability to create three-dimensional female characters, then the first few scenes of dialogue between Velcoro and Bezzerides likely went a long way towards restoring your faith. Now we face the potential of six episodes of Kitsch and McAdams trading barbs in a car. It’s anybody’s guess.

If Velcoro is dead, this also brings an abrupt halt to the competing investigations, a great bit of parallel storytelling that promised tense dialogue going forward. State police offer Woodrugh a clean record if he’ll collect information on the city of Vinci; they also appeal to Bezzerides’s sense of honor and ask her to keep an eye on Velcoro throughout the investigation. Meanwhile, Velcoro is pressured by the Mayor of Vinci not to let anything about the city slide, and then reminded by Semyon that he is at heart a detective, not a sheriff, and one being paid handsomely to find the killer. It was this morass of ulterior motives that made the dialogue between Velcoro and Bezzerides shine; like Saint Christopher once said, everything becomes a game of show and tell, with each character trying to show nothing but say anything. Velcoro makes note of the many knives Bezzerides hides on her person; Bezzerides lets Velcoro know that she lives comfortably with the pressure of being a woman in law enforcement. Audiences learning about characters as they banter in cars is now and always will be Pizzolatto at his very best.

While this may have been an episode tilted towards character development, important bits of information about the town and the competing organizations also slip out. The season premiere had been surprisingly light on information about Vinci, with most of our insight into the corruption of the city coming from articles describing its real-life inspiration. This episode taught us that Vinci has a listed population of 95 residents and a booming influx of illegal day-laborers; it also taught us that Bezzerides’s childhood in the proto-Panticapaeum Institute involved a total of five children, two of whom ended up in jail and two of whom are now dead.  This last piece may accidentally introduce a meta-game into the rest of the True Detective season. Which powerful and affluent characters may have ties to Bezzerides’s father and his potential cult? Certainly, the shrink knows more about the Institute than he lets on, but Vinci’s boozy mayor also hints at the past use of heavy narcotics as a way to expand their minds. Either way, the Institute looms heavy in the background of the show, just looking for an opportunity to give audience members the dash of the occult they’ve so impatiently been asking after. If there ends up being no connection between Panticapaeum and shotgun-wielding sex owls, I’ll eat my hat.

“Night Finds You” also addresses some of the criticisms of the first episode, suggesting that Pizzolatto and company worry aren’t particularly worried about our armchair quarterbacking and will get down to business in their own time. Vince Vaughn, who struggled so mightily at times with Pizzolatto’s dialogue in the season premiere, finds it much easier to play mobster than businessman after the death of the Vinci city manager. For all the moments that occur throughout the episode, Seymon’s excitement at being able to give a police-type lead to Velcoro during their meeting at the bar is perhaps the show’s best. And while both Bezzerides and Woodrugh are given moments that bring their sexual identities into question – with Woodrugh in particular spouting homophobic trash that will be discussed throughout the week – these are things to flag for future consideration, not necessarily to be used as weapons against the show.

The farther we get into season two, though, the easier it is to leave season one behind. I can’t blame anyone for taking an episode to adjust; even those ready to follow Pizzolatto down his newest rabbit hole might miss some of the location-specific Gothic horror of True Detective‘s first season. Now that we’re getting into the rhythm of season two – starting to see the pockets of darkness in a sea of highways and sunshine – we’re ready to start judging it on its own merits and new questions emerge. Since Justin Lin was only attached for the first two episodes, will True Detective suffer or benefit from its first in-season director change? Will Velcoro appear in flashbacks even if his character is truly dead in the current timeline? And, perhaps most importantly, does the potential death of Velcoro mean no more haunting performances by Lera Lynn? Because it’s never too early to start asking for a Lynn and bartender Felicia partnership in #TrueDetectiveSeason3.





 http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/true-detective-season-2-episode-2-shock.php

Werner Herzog Offers 24 Pieces of Filmmaking & Life Advice...

640px-Werner_Herzog_Bruxelles_02

By Jonathan Crow
There are few filmmakers alive today who have the mystique of Werner Herzog. His feature films and his documentaries are brilliant and messy, depicting both the ecstasies and the agonies of life in a chaotic and fundamentally hostile universe. And his movies seem very much to reflect his personality – uncompromising, enigmatic and quite possibly crazy. How else can you explain his willingness to risk life and limb to shoot in such forbidding places as the Amazonian rain forest or Antarctica?
In perhaps his greatest film, Fitzcarraldo — which is about a dreamer who hatches a scheme to drag a riverboat over a mountain — Herzog decides, for the purposes of realism, to actually drag a boat over a mountain. No special effects. No studios. In the middle of the Peruvian jungle. The production, perhaps the most miserable in the history of film, is the subject of the documentary The Burden of Dreams. After six punishing months, a weary-looking Herzog described his surroundings:
I see it more full of obscenity. It’s just – Nature here is vile and base. I wouldn’t see anything erotical here. I would see fornication and asphyxiation and choking and fighting for survival and… growing and… just rotting away. Of course, there’s a lot of misery. But it is the same misery that is all around us. The trees here are in misery, and the birds are in misery. I don’t think they – they sing. They just screech in pain. […] But when I say this, I say this all full of admiration for the jungle. It is not that I hate it, I love it. I love it very much. But I love it against my better judgment.
His worldview brims with a heroic pessimism that is pulled straight out of the German Romantic poets. Nature is not some harmonious anthropomorphized playground. It is instead nothing but “chaos, hostility and murder.” For those sick of the cynical dishonesty of Hollywood’s current crop of Award-ready fare (hello, The Imitation Game), Herzog comes as a bracing tonic. An icon of what independent cinema should be rather than what it has largely become.
Below is Herzog’s list of advice for filmmakers, found on the back of his latest bookWerner Herzog – A Guide for the Perplexed. (Hat tip goes to Jason Kottke for bringing it to our attention.) Some maxims are pretty specific to the world of moviemaking – “That roll of unexposed celluloid you have in your hand might be the last in existence, so do something impressive with it.” Other points are just plain good lessons for life — “Always take the initiative,” “Learn to live with your mistakes.” Read along and you can almost hear Herzog’s malevolent Teutonic lilt.
1. Always take the initiative.
2. There is nothing wrong with spending a night in jail if it means getting the shot you need.
3. Send out all your dogs and one might return with prey.
4. Never wallow in your troubles; despair must be kept private and brief.
5. Learn to live with your mistakes.
6. Expand your knowledge and understanding of music and literature, old and modern.
7. That roll of unexposed celluloid you have in your hand might be the last in existence, so do something impressive with it.
8. There is never an excuse not to finish a film.
9. Carry bolt cutters everywhere.
10. Thwart institutional cowardice.
11. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
12. Take your fate into your own hands.
13. Learn to read the inner essence of a landscape.
14. Ignite the fire within and explore unknown territory.
15. Walk straight ahead, never detour.
16. Manoeuvre and mislead, but always deliver.
17. Don’t be fearful of rejection.
18. Develop your own voice.
19. Day one is the point of no return.
20. A badge of honor is to fail a film theory class.
21. Chance is the lifeblood of cinema.
22. Guerrilla tactics are best.
23. Take revenge if need be.
24. Get used to the bear behind you.





http://www.openculture.com/2015/01/werner-herzogs-24-pieces-of-filmmaking-life-advice.html

Mark Duplass: "There's No Excuse Not to Make Films on Weekends with Friends"...

Director and actor Mark Duplass speaks at SXSW.

One half of the Duplass brothers used his SXSW keynote speech to promote grassroots film-making and offer a how-to for underground directors.

By Lanre Bakare
The key to becoming a successful and fulfilled independent filmmaker is shooting films on your mobile phone for $3 and never giving in to the temptation of studio schmaltz, according to Mark Duplass, the co-creator of Togetherness.
In his keynote speech at SXSW in Austin, the filmmaker outlined his step-by-step survival guide for young directors who don’t want to compromise in order to get their films made.
“The first step is the $3 short film,” he said. “We’re in a place now where technology is so cheap that there’s no excuse for you not to be making films on the weekends with your friends, shot on your iPhone – we had a feature film at Sundance this year that was shot entirely on iPhones and it did really well.”
He explained that along with his brother Jay, he had lived in Austin, working as an editor, before saving enough money to make their first feature film, Vince Del Rio, which cost $65,000 and was, in his words, “a steaming pile of dog diarrhea”.
Despite the film tanking, the brothers decided to take a lo-fi approach with their next film, The New Brad, which was shot on their parents’ dysfunctional video camera, cost $3 and ended up at SXSW and Sundance.
“It changed everything for us,” said Duplass. “Because it really doesn’t matter what your movie looks like – because if you have a voice and something interesting to say they will like you and they will program you.”
He recommended making a $3 film every weekend with “your smartest group of friends”, made up of four or five people including a charismatic lead actor. Detailing his approach further, he said the film should be one scene, five minutes, ideally comedic and/or short – “because they program well at festivals” – and he warned filmmakers to be prepared for failure. Despite that, he insisted that being myopic and inward-looking when making one’s first films was definitely a good thing.
“At the risk of saying you should make a self-indulgent film for your first movie: you should make a self-indulgent film for your first movie.”
Other advice for would-be filmmakers included having a really strong day job (he recommended being a Spanish or Mandarin translator because of the demand and high pay), and saving money in order to travel and submit short films to film festivals.
Turning down money offered by agents – “to avoid being stuck in development for five years” – shooting on mobile devices and asking friends and colleagues for favors were all recommended by Duplass, who called his approach “the available materials school of filmmaking”.
Duplass, along with his brother Jay, became known for a string of lo-fi, neurosis-laden comedies including The Puffy Chair and Cyrus before they landed roles in television shows such as The Mindy Project, The League and Transparent. He said that transitioning from film to television was another smart move for up-and-coming filmmakers.
“As the death of the middle class of film has happened, it has been re-birthed in television,” he said. “The way you used to make really awesome $5m movies that didn’t have movie stars in them and had really great, cool original content, that’s happening in cable TV right now.”
The Duplass brothers followed their own rules to land their HBO show Togetherness, which focuses on the anxieties of a group of 30 somethings as they cope with growing into middle age. The show was renewed for a second seasonand the brothers recently signed a four-film deal with Netflix at Sundance.


Do-It-Yourself Digital Distribution Platforms...


Posted on POV
When you don't want to work with a traditional distributor -- or when they don't want to work with you -- digital self-distribution is an option for sharing your finished film with the world.
Expect each of the DIY services below to take a cut of your streaming or download revenue, but the math isn't always simple, so we asked each company direct questions about their business and why a documentary filmmaker would want to use their service over all the others.
Note: This list is limited to services with no curation process — it does not include Netflix, Vodo, Indieflix, Indiepix and many others that require approval. If you know of a DIY distribution site that is not listed here, email us at filmmakers[at]pov.org.
Need help building a campaign for your finished film? See our list of "engagement strategists".

Distributor/SiteFilmmaker CutDescription (From Official Site)
YouTubeVaries based on Google adsBecoming a YouTube partner allows you to monetize your videos on your channel and make money from the revenue earned.
CreateSpace (Amazon)50%Make your film available as a high-quality download on Amazon Instant Video. Your customers can choose from Download to Own or Download to Rent purchasing options while you earn royalties from each sale.Q&A with POV »
Distribber50%-70% after setup fee ($0-$1595 per aggregator)Distribber was created to help rights holders maximize the payback from their work and investment. Enter some information about your film, click through the agreement and payment, deliver your master -- we'll do the rest!
Distrify70%-90% depending on pricing plan. Free = 70% + 10% from sharing, others up to 90%Distrify turns film sharing into sales and your fans into a community. Distrify is a toolset that turns the entire internet into a viral distribution platform.Q&A with POV »
IndieReign70% (not including 3% PayPal charges)IndieReign is an independent film marketplace where filmmakers connect directly with their audience, and film fans discover a world of rewarding cinematic experiences.Q&A with POV »
Pivotshare70%We help you sell premium video directly to your audience. Our digital distribution tools help you leverage an existing audience or grow a new one. It's easy and it works across a ton of devices.Q&A with POV »
Reelhouse94%Reelhouse is an online video platform where creators can distribute their content directly to viewers, with the freedom to share, sell, or raise support through their videos.Q&A with POV »
VHX90%VHX is a developing platform that believes artists should make more money from their work. Distribute your film online, directly to your audience. They are still in the process of launching, so contact them for more information.
Vimeo On Demand83%-96%Vimeo On Demand, a totally open platform that enables you to sell your work directly to your audience. If you're a Vimeo PRO member, you can distribute your work the way you want, with all the power of Vimeo's HD player, easy-to-use tools, and wildly passionate audience. You keep 90% of revenue after transaction fees, and we cover all delivery costs. Your work is available online, as well as on mobile devices, tablets, and connected TVs, all in gorgeous HD quality. You can completely personalize your Vimeo On Demand page to match your work and bring it to life. Sell films, episodes, and more at the price you want, anywhere in the world you want -- including on your own website.Read more at POV's Documentary Blog »
Watchbox50%The Watchbox was created because great talent is everywhere, but often goes undiscovered. Watchbox knows firsthand the frustration of putting your heart and soul into a project and seeing it fail to reach its audience. The team created The Watchbox to provide a community for talented filmmakers to showcase their works and an opportunity to recoup the blood, sweat, and tears they invested in their project. At The Watchbox, they let the films speak for themselves. No need to get connections in Hollywood, all you need to do is upload your content and set your rental price. There are no politics, favorites, or gimmicks.
FetchApp100%, plans range $5-$500/monthFetchApp allows you to sell and digitally deliver downloadable goods We seamlessly integrate with popular payment systems like Shopify, Wordpress, Bigcommerce, Goodsie, PayPal and many others. We help automate delivery for customers with no need to install or download anything. And of course, we promise to keep your files securely hosted.
FLM.TV100%FLM.TV is a Video OnDemand company for Independent Films, dedicated to the delivery, distribution, marketing and social experience of ad supported independent films and trailers OnDemand.
Gathr100%Gathr democratizes theatrical distribution by allowing the movie-goer to 'pull' movies to local theatres, instead of being stuck with what few options are currently playing. Art Houses/Community Theaters can screen films, often the first viewing, if they can gather enough support online and build an audience. Gathr screenings can only happen if a minimum number of people reserve tickets before a screening request expires. // You have all rights, they pay $20,000 for theatrical rights if you get the needed support for a screening
Gumroad95%, minus an additional 25¢ per transaction)Without the hassle and cost of selling within a marketplace, Gumroad enables you to sell directly to your audience -- just like you talk to them. It's quick to integrate Gumroad onto your website, sell on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, and through your own email newsletter. And it's even faster to buy.
IntelVideo70%-80% + fees, $49/yr / $249/yrThe process of selling videos with InteliVideo is very simple. You just signup for an account, upload the videos you'd like to sell. Set a price tag on them; and start selling.
KinoNation80%Kinonation is based in Santa Monica, CA. We're committed to give any content owner easy access to worldwide VOD in any format, language and territory.
Mobcaster95%Mobcaster is the first crowd-funded online TV channel; a new platform focused completely on finding, funding and broadcasting independent television online.
NoBudge100%, submission fee $25-75NoBudge is an online screening venue for new indie films. It was started in February 2011 by filmmaker Kentucker Audley to premiere and compile indie films online. There is a submission fee of $25-75, but NoBudge takes 0% of profits.
OpenIndie100%, submission fee $25-75OpenIndie is a theatrical distribution platform for independent film. Filmmakers add their films. Fans discover new films and request local screenings. Next we hope to turn audience demand into screenings by digitally delivering films to venues.
Seed&Spark80%On our platform, we give viewers the opportunity to follow a film from its earliest stages of development. Our Studio is full of incubating films viewers can help hatch by ontributing funds, loaning or gifting production items, or simply signing up to follow a project as it progresses. Viewers earn rewards points that they can spend to watch finished films of exceptional quality, because Seed&Spark is about more than simply making movies. We exist not just to facilitate funding, but to make sure audiences can see those films when they're done. Watch incredible, truly independent films in our Cinema--knowing the creators keep 80% of that streaming revenue.
Simple Machine100%Browsing our films is, and always will be, free. Listing a film is, and always will be, free. This is a site for programmers finding films for a festival, theater, pop-up event, or county fair. See what films are currently playing other festivals, read quotes, watch trailers, and get screeners.
Slated100%Slated helps you find the people you need to get your film packaged, financed, represented and distributed. The Slated community includes high net worth individuals and institutional investors in film, as well as sales agents and distributors looking for emerging film projects. There are no fees directly on the site--it just provides a platform to connect industry professionals, investors, and filmmakers. All of the monetary transactions occur offline.
TopspinYou pay $9.99/mo / $49.99/mo / $99.99/mo and keep all proceedsTopspin Media is a direct-to-fan sales and marketing platform chosen by creative professionals who want to promote and sell films, albums, merch, tickets and more.




Sunday, June 28, 2015

Here's the Movie That Gave Us Quentin Tarantino's Career...

By Greg Cwik

Nearly 30 years ago, "City on Fire" became a milestone of modern Hong Kong cinema. But its greater achievement is the impact it had on another filmmaker.

In 1987, up-and-coming Hong Kong filmmaker Ringo Lam directed a squalid crime film rife with violence and nebulous morality. "City on Fire," which isscreening as part of the New York Asian Film Festival's special tribute to Lam, stars Chow Yun-fat and Danny Lee as an undercover cop and murderous thief who get chummy during the planning, execution, and fallout of a botched heist during which Chow kills an innocent person. In the end, Chow tells Lee the truth, and Lee shoots Chow in the head. (Moral of the story: don't be honest.)
"City on Fire"
"City on Fire"
Two years later, John Woo released "The Killer," a milestone of Hong Kong cinema that reinvented action movies and introduced the world to a new way of rendering violence — with almost loving intimacy, without dulling the impact. Woo became an international sensation, Lam helmed a Jean-Claude Van Damme film that bombed, and western audiences forgot "City on Fire."
But Quentin Tarantino didn't forget. The motor-mouthed progenitor of the VHS generation of filmmakers seemed to have studied the film with fawning assiduousness, absorbing its visceral punch ("BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM," to quote Michael Madsen's Mr. Blonde) and crimson-colored soul, manipulating and contorting them to fit his own devious vision of honor among lowlifes. His debut feature, "Reservoir Dogs," not only set the precedent for Tarantino's whiplash-inducing dialogue and abrupt bloodshed, but, for sharp-eyed moviegoers, also marked the first instance of the filmmaker's flare for lifting shots, scenes, and ideas from his pulpy influences and suturing them into his own creation, like Victor Frankenstein's culturally-savvy cousin.
On its own terms, Lam's ragged film is pretty good, but not remarkable. As a sordid action flick -- what the kids today call "gritty" -- it stands in stark contrast to the smooth poetic style of John Woo's "The Killer," in which Chow and Lee reverse roles, with Chow playing the killer and Lee the cop. Woo, who helped change Hong Kong cinema with "A Better Tomorrow" and the one-two wallop of "The Killer" and "Hardboiled," depicts the allure and unspoken moral code of Hong Kong's underworld and neon-steeped back rooms with the sincerity of a Greek tragedy. He presents violence as an innate human quality, something people can turn to as a career as well as a means of self-expression. The various gangsters and low-lifes and law enforcement agents deal in death the way writers use words.
"Reservoir Dogs"
Miramax"Reservoir Dogs"
"City on Fire," still Lam's best film (and his only good one, unless you really dig "Simon Sez"), doesn't have the mark of an auteur like "The Killer" or "Reservoir Dogs." It almost feels ripe for salvage, a series of cool moments strewn about a messy narrative kept bearable by the inherent excitement of the endlessly watchable Chow Yun-fat shooting people, as well as Yun-fat's chemistry with Danny Lee. The moments exhumed by Tarantino are pretty obvious, but he repurposes them deftly. The botched heist around which both films revolve, Yun-fat/Tim Roth taking a bullet to the belly, and the fatal Mexican standoff with which both end are the most obvious echoes, while other parts, notably a scene of Harvey Keitel/Danny Lee unloading a pair of pistols into a cop car's windshield are lifted just because they're really cool.
Tarantino laces Lam's basic plot with his penchant for Snap! Crackle! Pop!culture references and impeccable sense of rhythm. Lam's films moves in jerks and fits, a burst of violence here, some exposition there, the sad sax score looming like a drunkard before a super-duper '80s synth comes rollicking in. Tarantino has never tried to hide his love for '70s cinema, and this is part of what makes his take on "City on Fire" so interesting. The visual and aural style bears little semblance to Lam's, or any other Hong Kong filmmaker for that matter. From the soundtrack to the roving widescreen compositions, Tarantino riffs on De Palma, Scorsese, and "The Taking of Pelham One Two Three," while his lacerating dialogue (some of which admittedly feels achingly clunky compared to his subsequent films) channels the noirs of the 1950s ("Kansas City Confidential,"  "The Big Combo").
Tarantino laces Lam's basic plot with his penchant for Snap! Crackle! Pop! culture references and impeccable sense of rhythm.
Tarantino drew influence from a bunch of films, as is his wont (and artistry), for "Reservoir Dogs." He's been most vocal about his debt to Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing," probably because "The Killing" is a classic and Kubrick a genius. But "City on Fire" isn't "The Killing," and Ringo Lam isn't Stanley Kubrick (though Lam does have a cool name). Doing an homage to a film that you end up bettering is kind of weird, but by now Tarantino has made a career of it. Western audiences wouldn't remember Lam's film had Tarantino not extrapolated its better moments for his own.
"City on Fire" is a strange milestone in Hong Kong cinema, but not because it's a masterpiece (it's not), not because it's unique or wholly original (it's not), not because it's the work of a great filmmaker (it's not), and not because it engendered a new film movement (it didn't). "City on Fire" is an important piece of Hong Kong cinema because it deeply inspired Tarantino, who drew inspiration and created one of the most important American films of all time (and the one that lionized indie films, to the chagrin of some). Lam, by way of Tarantino, helped bring a Hong Kong influence to American indies.
Also worth noting is that "City on Fire" remains one of the final films of its kind -- sloppy, frantic Hong Kong action movie of cops and killers shooting it out on the streets and shouting blunt exposition with an exclamation point -- before John Woo changed everything. It has a strange place in history, at once the seed from which an American film movement was cultivated, yet also a fairly forgettable example of '80s Hong Kong action in the final fleeting moments before its reinvention.
Reservoir Dogs
"Reservoir Dogs" has entered the pop-culture canon, and Tarantino became the face of a new vivacious breed of movie directors. He remains the most-studied filmmaker in Europe and Asia, even over the filmmakers from whom he draws inspiration. Though way too many people continue to inaccurately talk about his films as sadistically violent action movies, he's as well-known among casual moviegoers as Steven Spielberg. "The Killer" is now considered a classic by cinephiles, and helped bring Hong Kong films to western audiences. "City on Fire," of course, lacks these accolades, its legacy now little more than fodder for movie trivia nights. That's a shame: Tarantino found the elements of greatness in "City on Fire," and for that it deserves lasting respect.


5 Tips on Graduating No-Budget Filmmaking...



By Tom Wilton

As a filmmaker, you always start out with an optimism that, at some undefined point in your life, you’re going to graduate from shooting no-budget movies to the big leagues. Filmmakers such as Richard Linklater and Steven Soderbergh (along with many other Hollywood luminaries) have emerged from the world of zero-budget to light up Planet Oscars. 

But that transition is not necessarily an easy one. 

A budget, producers, stars - all of these elements require new skills to navigate correctly. But, here are a few ideas on just how to deal with that often jarring shift.

1. Know why you’re doing it.

Checking in with yourself, asking just why you’re making a project is always important - no matter what the budget. 

But when there’s a sudden influx of money, that inevitably means other people also - and everybody is going to have their own agenda - which is often not just about profit. 

From the kudos of working with a certain actor, to the potential of awards, in most situations, producers on a film have much of the same aspirations as you do. But that also means they’ll have their own ideas on how to make it happen - and if you’re not prepared to take on board their way of thinking, you might not be ready to make this project. Or at least, not in this way.

You see, everybody talks about compromise in filmmaking, but when you’re used to working alone, you don't even think about the alternative ways to get things in the can. Sure, you might have been broke doing it - struggling to feed your crew, but much of the decision making was expedited because there was just you and a handful of others in your brain-trust. Things happened with little friction, because you didn't have money-people (and money-people problems) jamming up the joint. 


But of course, that move-fast pace is one of the first things you’ll likely surrender when working at a new scale. 

Suddenly, your film relies on the decisions of a lot more people - and they'll all have their own opinions and ideas to bring to the table, so you'd better develop a thick skin. 

From investors to cinematographers, producers to actors, everybody else’s voices need to be heard for them to feel confident in the project. And if you’re not ready for the experience of being surrounded by all these pro’s, telling you exactly what they think, it can very quickly knock your confidence, making you feel like you’re treading water whilst being surrounded by sharks.

So before you bring these faces aboard, take a beat - consider the film - is this really the right one to go to bat for over and over? Because if you want to see it made, you will most likely have to. And all the time knowing that your story might take a beating on the way. 


If this project (or indeed you) are not ready for the going-over it's going to receive, shoot it yourself in much the same way you've always done. When you ask people for money, they don't just give it to you. That's just not how the industry works. People will ask about their ROI (return on investment) prospects, or insist that you take a screenwriter credit so they can attract a bigger name director, all in order to secure that finance. All of this (and more) will likely come up, so you'd better be sure this is the journey you want to go on. If it's not, then go make your movie in the same old way you always have - by hook or by crook.

If, however, you’re tired of that process, and know that you're ready to graduate from the no-budget world, then make sure you have something brilliant, something will be worth the battles and will be impossible for even the most cynical producer to walk away from. If you've got that, then you have a fighting chance of getting it made. 

2. Trust your voice, but learn to listen.

You're in the room for a reason, so you have something to say, but so will everyone else. 

Something that took me by surprise when I first started to work within these bounds was how similar I actually was to everybody else - at least in terms of goals, ambition and resourcefulness.

People get to where they are for a number of reasons. If you're sat in front of them, chances are they've often been in your shoes, on a similar journey as you. Sure the details may be different, but they'll recognize that naïvety and the hunger. Remember, everybody starts somewhere. And while your similar experiences are invaluable, so are your differences. They will have experiences and access that is new to you, but you'll have the hunger that they may have long forgot. Finding harmony in your working relationship is invaluable, and it comes from listening and trusting each other.

One last key thing when it comes to talking about what you've achieved already is recognizing your own false wisdom. Of course there's the temptation to say ‘I know how to do this for no money,’ especially if negotiations get tense. But remember,  doing it on a sizable budget, that’s what these guys know how to do, and so nobody really cares if you can work for nothing - that just simply doesn't scale.

3. Get ready for the rewrites.

On my very first experience of working with producers on a budget projected north of a million dollars, I was naïve. When they told me that they loved draft two (essentially draft one, but with most of the typos nixed), I thought that was it. Here I was, ready to board the train to an easy life as a filmmaker, dreaming of alwayshaving projects financed, not a care in the world. But by draft 13, I was about finished, tired of the constant, ‘I think we'll be there on the next one’ lip service.

Rewrites are hard. Really hard. Being asked to go back into the pages over and over, to redress a line here, a sentence there - or worse - a whole act, it's mind-numbing. Sure, the first few times you'll be geared up for it, but to keep reopening the laptop, hacking away over and again, it can be miserable work for a writer. 

Additionally, if you're working with multiple producers, you'll nearly always get conflicting notes - some telling you to save the cat, others telling you to let the thing drown. Sometimes, simply knowing what is the right thing to do is, well, it's not that simple.

And of course, who is to say that any of the changes will actually make the end film better? Nobody knows - it’s all guess work and ego-huffing, and that's just something you have to accept.

Still, developing some tools to deal with script meetings and notes before the fact can definitely make life easier.

Personally, I always wait to see if the same note comes up twice. That might be difficult to gauge if you're doing an in-the-room meet, rather than getting point-by-point written notes, but listen out for it. 

If one producer says that you need to change what happens in scene two, and somebody else says that your protagonist needs to be more interesting within the opening beats, that’s probably the same note, just expressed differently. Of course, it could just as easily be misinterpreted as such, and so it's helpful to stop people and ask for clarity. Then when you’re sure of what they're saying, don't be afraid to challenge them. They might be right of course, but it’s worth verbally running the note back, especially if you know it’ll have some consequence on the story further down the line. Explain clearly if you see something that they haven't already and you might just be saving a whole other round of notes.

Of course, the key to successful script meetings is they're not meant to be passive. If you go in believing simply the ‘producer knows best’, and you walk away quietly to make those changes, you're cheating yourself and everybody else. You're the screenwriter. You know this story better than anyone else, so it's vital that you show up with your knowledge and understanding, ready to listen and share.

Again, a good producer will have the same goals as you, and so this process can often be a very creative one. But if you're not already sure of what the producer's goals for the movie are, now is the time to ask. If they want to put a shootout scene in the third act, it might be that it's vital to selling the film to a certain demographic, rather than strengthening your story. You need to know what the thinking is in order to best deal with the idea, and so understanding why they want to make this script means that you can better deliver on it.

Lastly, on the actual physical process of rewrites, be sure you've got all your ducks in a row. 

Usually, rewrites are a part of a writer's contract - especially if you're working on a union gig. This means you get paid to do write not only the initial screenplay, but also subsequent rewrites. Ensure that it's in your contract, and that you know what the compensation is. Pages take time, so be sure that you're being compensated for the process.

Of course, like any job, there will be performance expectations on you - most notably a delivery time. This is where having your voice and intentions clear in the script meetings really matters; you need to be sure you can absorb the changes and give an honest delivery time. It might be days or weeks, but either way, you know how long it'll take, so be clear. There's always a temptation to people-please of course, but if it's a month you need, but they're asking for a week, be honest and reach for a compromise. This approach will always pay dividends, especially if you do end up pushing 15 drafts.

4. Be patient.

Again, you know you could shoot this in two weeks, but they're forecasting six. It can seem insane of course, but often, it’s for good reason. Folks who've been in the business for years are often some of the best talent you'll find. They'll also likely be in unions, and that brings it's own set of restrictions and requirements.

Setting up a film - even after the financing is in place - takes time. Contracts need to be negotiated, schedules chalked out. When you bring on talent, usually, you're working on their timeline, and so everything has to balance around that. 

In this business of personal relationships and complicated networks, deals are done over lunch, actors are signed over drinks. It moves gently because anything can break, and nobody wants that to happen.

For an outsider stepping in, patience is what you're going to need. That, and the ability to sustain the hunger. It's not easy of course - filmmaking is an itch that needs to be scratched - but staying safe in the knowledge that the end result will be worth it, that's what keeps so many of us moving. 

Of course, waiting can be anxiety-breeding, and every time your screenplay goes to a new actor, you have to really sustain your patience. 

A week or two of shot nerves and big hope, crossed fingers and the giddy realization that a huge star is reading your screenplay - it's exhausting. You try not to get woozy on the idea that they know your name (even if it is by proxy), and worse, that there’s a tiny, tiny chance that you'll be taking selfies on set together someday soon. And indeed, how the hell do you not post about it on Facebook?

I get it. Creating a film that is about more than just you and some friends going away for a week can be, quite simply, a mad/intense experience. But you have to keep checking in with the reality that these people just want to work and also to be recognized - just the same as you. 

So try to detach a little from the heart-pounding fear elements (what if they hate it? What if they hate you for writing it?) and laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Trust me, it’s healthy to disengage from the intensity, especially when you have a long wait ahead.

5. It’s OK if everything falls apart.

Here’s the sobering truth - most films fall apart when they're trying to get made. The reasons are long and varying of course, but when you have so many moving parts (and often-inflated egos), it's a miracle that anything gets made. Money is hard to secure, interest is difficult to sustain.

And if your film collapses under the weight of it all, that’s OK! It’ll be joining some of the best missed opportunities the world has never seen, and don't forget, development hell is filled with some of the finest movie scripts yet to be shot.

The truth is, if a movie collapses (as happened to me in fact), you get to soak up the experience of it all. Despite the best laid plans, it just didn't work. Maybe that was you, the script or simply those around you, whatever it was, you just got the best lesson in how the movie business works - one they can't teach you at film school. Sometimes, things just don't go the way you planned, even with the greatest team around you.

It'll burn if it happens (I hope it doesn't of course). But instead of letting it drag you under, be resourceful. Either bring the project to someone else (working off the movie's cache so far), or do it on your own. Again, by hook or by crook, right? 

And if you do find yourself starting over, lining up a shoot on a meagre budget, take the knowledge you've gleaned, leveraging it to shortcut around your prior mistakes and be clear about what you want. 

Sure, it sucks to have to go back to lugging cameras when you had dreams of being limo-driven to the red carpet, but remember, none of it is real unless you make it happen. It’s better to resuscitate your own project, reestablishing it on clearer terms, than it is to make a film you eventually despise. 

Besides, a resourceful filmmaker always finds fresh opportunities instead of wasting energy on the dead ends.