Shooting Film on a Budget: panel discussion

Tribeca Film Festival Talk 2011, SVA-2 Theater, April 28, 2:30pm, sponsored by Kodak, (from left to right) with Joaquin Baca-Asay, Michael Cuesta, Frank Demarco, Karin Chien and hosted by Joshua Zeman

HTC G2 Image by Wen Wen Lin 2011
 p.s. all the above speakers are firm believers of 35 mm-- for now, at least.

(1) Shooting on film (16mm or 35mm) vs. shooting on HD:  though digital are the most affordable format (free), in comparison to film-- but for professional footage, they should still be shot on film.  35mm film, if converted, equals to have 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the lens, and other shooting conditions.   And HD(1920 x 1080) has 2 million pixels.  There is no comparison, in terms of quality, depth of field, whole range of light and color(bright to dark), certain subtlety, etc.  Shooting on film is costly-- so those who shot on film will strive to makes the shoot more DISCIPLINED-- on all levels-- from the producers, to directors, to actors, to everyone who is involved in the production project.  Discipline raises the bar of creativity, and concentration level on every shoot.  Think and think and think first, before roll and roll, and roll which only end up with a lot of footage that is useless, and wasted so much time and cost more in post production--  

image source: wikipedia,
Vector Video Standards

(2) digital HD is great for independent aspiring film makers-- or even film like District 9, or The Celebration, which intends to have the effect that digital HD characteristic.    Docu film usually shot on digital.  it is very hard to get funding for film to shoot docu.  Only when the movie has to look certain way, then go with the film.  The industry is very forgiving also of docu film project and its imperfect shots, as long as it tells a moving and compelling story, and tells it with maximum expression and minimum bloat, it will still be taken seriously.  Unlike before 1990, if the movie was not shot in 35 mm, it did not stand any chance.

The Celebration (1998): directed by Thomas Vinterberg
one of the few narrative films that is shot with digital and done fantastic.

 

(3) the right look and the mood:  the first thing before the production begins is to consider which format is the best for in order to maintain and faithful to the creativity side of the movie, and how to tell a story in a meaningful visual way.  Every project has its organic form, and to obliged to the demand to maintain that integrity, and respect of that organic form, the format is chosen, be it on film or on HD digital, if funding is not the issue.

District 9: directed by Neil Blomkamp (2009)
successfully shot with digital for its raw, documentary film effect

One last thing i do want to point out before slipping you off to goddess of dream is:  as a docu-film enthusiast/film maker, i am quite relieved that i do not have to run around to raise money to shoot my work in film.  The big part of why i do docu is because of the thrill of catching the moment, which would be very hard to do in film.   And i am a believer of digital HD-- one day it will be better than 35mm, or even match up to 70 mm-- who knows?  until then----

have a good night sleep first!  thank you for reading.  adiós y buenas noches.....

wen wen da neuvo yorku

useful link:
http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm

The Business of Entertainment:

Tribeca Film Festival Talk 2011, SVA-2 Theater, April 27, 2:30pm, sponsored by Bloomberg, with Charlie Rose one on one conversation with Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, and legendary Hollywood producer, director & studio head Joe Roth, about the future of entertainment business

Today's talk is actually a great one to attend-- Charlie Rose could not have chosen  guests who have as diverse difference than these two-- one is all Ivy League B School multi-degree earner, looking 3,000 feet above, and the other is a high school drop out, looking 2 feet ahead of his floor, completely working on his own instinct using street smart, work his way through day by day.  But the result are the same, when it comes to success-- they are both most successful leader in their own field.  You would ask-- there are so many ivy-leaguers, and high-school -drop-outs-- The common denominator of these two for success are hard working plus dumb luck. 

Charlie Rose with Jeff Bewkes, CEO Time Warner
photography: wen wen lin 2011

Charlie Rose with Jeff Bewkes:

(1) digital revolution:  reinventing and restoring Time Warner-- HBO went digital 20 yrs ago, at HBO created original movies of their own to meet the challenge at that time, when VCR and DVD were threats to their existence.  HBO started to produce their own shows and movies, such as Soprano and now Entourage, which gain them great success.  The cable and HBO are going head on this time with digital revolution (streaming ) challenge, facing so many fierce competitor such as Netflix, which was not taken seriously as a threat at first a few yrs ago.

(2) POD vs free TV: active audience instead of passive audience:  when the TV is completely free, the audience was not free, in terms of choice.  The viewers were under the control of the TV station, they couldn't choose what they wanted to watch at the time they want to.  The TV and channel station acted as connector from the audience to the advertisement.  The world is going to the direction for the freedom of choice of the viewers-- the viewers decide when to watch, what and where.  So POD is the future.

(3) Is Cable on the way to decline, when facing digital internet live streaming challenge?  Time Warner Cable revenue is up 30%, when all other business is down 20% the past 2 yrs--  and Time Warner stocks are up more than 100% last yr--  it says so far, there is still so much demand, and the structure is so immense, it is hard to replace it right away.  MY question is:  what about 5 yrs from now?  Netflix is already in 25 million homes, and will be in 75 million homes in 3 yrs.  The future of cable seems doomed, if they do not invent anything and reinvent themselves soon.  The recent success is just a flip back from the bottom because it dived too fast down 2 yrs ago in the world economic crisis.  Dead cat bounce, maybe.  They would have to face the reality that is going to set in....  It is those who can see the future, and do something about it wins....

(4) indies on cable:  conventional venues, and structure are very unforgiving when it comes to indies film.  But when it is on cable, it gets to be seen 10 times more than the conventional theater release-- so cable is a encouragement to indies film.

(5) here is a great idea for 3D  film-- 3D porn!  Ha. envision it!   :)))

Charlie Rose with Joe Roth, legendary independent producer
photography: wen wen lin 2011 

Charlie Rose with Joe Roth:

(1) Alice in Wonderland:  the producer is Joe Roth-- who has no degree, completely relying on his 6th sense to decide which is a good script, and to what degree it is going to be produced, and in what budge.    The film gross 1 billion, and is the 6th largest gross ever in film history.  When he started, 25 yrs ago, he made his first film with $35,000, and with no where to distribute it, and he had to rely on a porn outlet to do it, and the result is that the film gross 1 million.  Joe Roth will follow this model for his future film: do a classic all time story that moves all different generations of all ages, but retell the story with extreme new digital technology-- sort of dressing the old with new.  And it is proven to be a good formula for success, at least for Alice In Wonderland!

Alice in Wonderland, directed by Tim Burton, Produced by Joe Roth, 2010

(2) the new way for producing: A producer's job is the first man in to see potential, follow the whole way through, and the last man out to promote the film.  The time is tough now, so the weak links got cast out, those who made bad films, or so so films would not get any fundings, and actually it leaves the best better chance than before to produce.

The Sixth Sense, directed by M. Night Shyamalan, Produced by Joe Roth, 1999

(3) the future of theater:  95% of what a movie makes relies on the first 30days release in the theater-- The film maker and the producer have zero control over how long the film is going to stay in the theater.  The conventional way of distribution is stiff and do not have much flexibility.  A film has about 3 weeks' life span in a theater, followed by 4 months frozen in cold (that's when the pirate version comes out), and then it is released to DVD or POD.  If the production company actually owns the theater-- they could decide what to and what not to, and maybe to have it as POD the second week after release???  it would change the whole business if the production company actually own the theater.

(4) funding for indies:  it is impossible to raise capital in the studio for docu film.  However, there is a worldwide audience for low budget art-film, the most recent success is King's Speech, and Black Swan.  Target 40 yrs and up more sophisticated audience.

Home Alone, directed by Chris Columbus, Produced by Joe Roth, 1990

i hope that you enjoy the talk as much as i do-- in that case....

I Shall Be Back...

goodnight and good sleep

from wen wen da neuvo yorku

Digital by Design-- panel discussion

Tribecca Film Festival Talk 2011, SVA-2 Theater, April 26, 2:30pm, from left to right with John Sloss(founder of Cinetic Media), Michael Lang(CEO of Miramax), Tom Lesinski(President of Paramount Digital Entertainment), Eugene Hernandez(Film Society of Lincoln Center), Trevor Kaufman (CEO of Possible Worldwide),  and hosted by Richard Whittington(Media and Entertainment of SAP)

HTC G2 Image by Wen Wen Lin 

p.s. shhhh----This is the ALL MALE BIG NAME panel-- would be nice to see a female top executive in this industry in the panel!  maybe in the near future?  

Today's discussion is about: how the digital age aids today's filmmaker in three key areas: Funding models, intellectual property management, and distribution channels. 

(1) the trend: this is an indie world!!! art is about truth, and entertainment is about story telling, than other superficial techniques or big fancy studio video equipment.  Quality individual movies have no limits – they can achieve anything. If they can just get made.  And also, most indies are doomed to fail before the camera even rolls, if they only follows the footsteps of the major studio, and don't even try to be different.

funding for film:  Hollywood VS Indies:  two of the major studios will be sold or consolidated by 2015, the studio is making less films now, so a lot of big name hollywood stars are starring in indi films.  In Sundance 2010, 80% of the films are made in this model.    The highend specialized market is dwindling.  Traditional film business is not growing for 5 yrs already.

Crowd sourcing way for fund raising is a way to do it, but very difficult, unless someone who has a lot of following outside of the immediate relatives and friend.  Social network is a good way to attract and manage big crowd supporters, and maybe even real investors who is looking for return for their investment.  If one has enough followers on the social net work, then that person does not need to work the studio.  SVOD(subscription video on demand) might be a way to monetize shorts.

Maria My Love: directed by Jasmine McGlade Chazelle

(2) piracy:  a lot of piracy becomes easier in the internet, even worse than DVD piracy.  Ppl could easily watch films for free by one click.  at some point the government might have to get involved to set the law.

(3) web video migrating TV???: at the present, Miramax spending 25% of the budget on the international market development, and it will expand to 50% in the future.   Currently, 70% of revenue for cable network comes from cable subscription.   The other 30% coming from advertisement, and other marketing venues.  Cable TV will find a way to sustain its way of functioning and maintain its way of operation.  We do not yet know, what the digital market is going to be like.  But it should not be one or the other-- it should be a way where every form can work together to constitute the whole.

the future of film:  Curation Nation by Steven Rosenbaum

(4) do the buyers have all the right to decide the content:  in the past, the viewer can buy content and own it-- owning it still is a big desire in human nature--  i do not think it is necessary for anyone to own any content, especially when one turns on the computer/internet, it is already there-- ppl are used to get it for free on the internet, why would they want to own it?  owning is a product of fears-- fears of lacking in the future.  No lacking, no owning, is my view.  We are a curation nation: content creation is going to continue to grow exponentially - film audiences are going to need to find new ways to filter the deluge of new content, and new ways to find and filter have the potential to create new audiences and new economics.

(5) could branding movie be done? is it a viable way to raise money?-- yes, in a way, as long as the movie is done in the way to entertain the viewers, then sneak in a few seconds of brand promotions wouldn't hurt, e.g. burger king's movie-- if movie is not successful, it would back fire on the brand.

Jesus Henry Christ: by Dennis Lee

(6) question for the future: would players who are dominant now work to co-operate in the future?  how the development of the video in social network going to be in the future?  would cable company and government come to intervene the digital distribution in the future, e.g. netflix?

Shhhhh-- it is past midnight, if you read this far and did not fall asleep on the business side of film making, i commemorate you....

good night and sweet dream.  and hail to indies spirits!

wen wen da nuevo yorku

useful links for film makers:

http://www.indiewire.com/#

Writing The Documentary panel discussion

Tribeca Film Festival Talk 2011, Barnes and Noble, April 25, 1:00pm, from left to right with Maria Ramstrom (Love Always, Carolyn), Mila Turajlic (Cinema Komunisto), & David Gelb(Jiro Dreams of Sushi ), hosted by David Rooney(far right) 

image by wen wen lin 2011

Does documentary film need a script?  it sounds weird!  doesn't documentary film "Just follow" the event or a character, as the events develop as they are?  does the audience feel cheated if a documentary film involved great deal of writing which shows great degree of the film maker's control and "will" it to happen the way they want to film it?

Documentary film is the same as any film, it starts with an idea, and a blank pc of paper.  The Writer/film maker has to turn that idea into a film.  There is the initial script, and the blue print that the film is based on; and in every shoot, a pre-shoot script, and post shoot script , and when all the shots are taken, hrs of footage seem formless, the writer/film maker has to write a second script to organizes the  footage, find the shape, and line of development to see if there is a film yet. There is "real life", and there is "reel life"-- what happen in real life, a good writer can use them, and WILL them to create emotions and meaning at the "reel life" time.  Docu film can be fluid and organic, and at the meantime has the structure of a dramatic narrative film that appeals to the viewers.

There are a few quality that seems so essential (for the film maker )in making a good docu film:
(1) playing the detective:  It is more like a playing detective/investigative reporter, digging into information, material, fiercely and passionately, finding clues to solve the mystery, as David Gelb, director of Jiro Dreams of Sushi recounting his experience in making the film.  Life is stranger than fiction a lot of the time.

Jiro Dreams of Sushi, directed by David Gelb-- Sushi chefs line up

                                             http://jiromovie.com/


(2) be stubborn with a lot of perseverance:  be persistent especially with the characters who does not want to be interviewed.  keep on knocking on the door.  Cannot be a reject-phobiac.   Take rejection as viable as drinking water.  Mila Turajlic, director of Cinema Komunisto, has to endure a lot of indifference in people when looking for archival materials for the film, and sometimes one request, it takes multiples of trying and yrs of waiting for the right thing to happen.  

Cinema Komunisto directed by Mila Turajlic

                                    http://www.cinemakomunisto.com/


(3) passive waiting type vs. the active creating type-- which kind of docu film maker are you? :)) or, somewhere in between?

Love Always, Carolyn: directed by Maria Ramstrom

                                 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856037/

good night.  sweet dreams on this heavenly pleasant spring day.

wen wen

Are documentary films changing the world?

Tribeca Film Festival Talk, SVA-2, April 24, 2:30pm, with Michael Collins(Give Up Tomorrow), & Abigail Disney

Panel discussion @SVA-2 Theater
HTC G2 Image by Wen Wen Lin 

This is absolutely a very exciting week-- with so many inspiring talks by the sharpest heads in the industry in different venues in Manhattan.  I am sooooooooooo immersed!!! :))  Today's talk that i went to is about documentary film, social activism, and social transformation.

Give Up Tomorrow: directed by Michael Collins
http://www.pacodocu.com/

(1) do you want to change the world?  make a documentary film:  make a film that is more than a film-- There are numerous examples of how a successful documentary film change how people think, and subsequently change the world, all through grass root marketing.  e.g, The Inconvenient Truth; No Impact Man; Hell and Back Again, etc., and some even impact the community while filming or before the film is finished, e.g., The Bully Project.  Today's documentary film makers set out to raise important issues, challenge assumptions, and able to compel action after the audience watch the movie, followed by productive discussion.   A new film group has been created: the co-operation of film makers with NGOs and community groups has created a new distribution model--for social change, for the greater, and better.... WORLD.

Directed by Lee Hirsch, http://www.thebullyproject.com/the-film.html

(2) Be a good story teller:  this one is for the documentary film maker.  Don't bore your audience with mere FACTS:  no matter what type of film it is-- be fiction, or based on truth story, or documentary film, happens as it goes along-- the film maker have to make sure that it is as good as a film can be, as persuasive as to tell a good story, use the strategy and story telling skill, and as "politically driven, but as aesthetically dressed as possible." Then the film can impact the audience more, than the action of change will take place.  The EMOTIONAL STORY LINE has to touch ppl, have to resonate with them enough to arouse reaction and action.

Thank you for reading, good night, and be well-- sogno d'oro......
Wen Wen da Neuvo Yorku 

Directed by Vicki Abeles; http://www.racetonowhere.com/

there are so many further readings on this topic: just to list a few:
against bullying and teaches kid to place kindness above malice:
http://www.kindnessabovemalice.org/

Documentary film and social change:
https://webspace.utexas.edu/cherwitz/www/ie/samples/aguayo.pdf

Global change film festival:
http://www.socialchangefilmfestival.org 

The Bang Bang Club-- Tribecca Film Festivals 2011

Based On True Events: held on 4/23, 1pm, Barnes and Noble Union Square:  Steven Silver, screenwriter/director of the Bang Bang Club, w. Greg Marinovich, photographer and co-author.

The Bang-Bang Club was a name that is associated with 4 photographers, between 1990 and 1994, in South Africa, during apartheid period: Kevin Carter (a South African, September 13, 1960 --July 27, 1994), Greg Marinovich( a South African 1962- ), Ken Oosterbroek (February 14, 1963- April 18, 1994), and João Silva (August 9, 1966--Portugal) were the four associated with the name.  The first 2 are award winning photographers, while Carter commited suicide in 1994 after Oosterbroek was killed on duty photographing the war.

Tribecca Film Festivals 2011, panel discussion, Barnes and Noble
HTC G2 Image by Wen Wen Lin

(1) The Truth Be Told?:  This is an interesting talk to attend for a docu-enthusiast like me.  It has always been a question as to where the true story ends and fiction begins.  Sometimes, the truth has its own destiny, and may not seem to be that interesting for the audience to watch.  and the fiction, the story itself, kind of get off on its own to dictate the story, the classic frankenstein, the created grow life and intelligence of it own.   For s story based on true event, the writer/film maker would have to abide by a big majority of the facts to tell the story-- is it the writer's responsibility to completely follow the source materials?

"wanting a meal"-- image by Kevin Carter(1960-1994); "the war does not determine who is right, the war determine who is left." Bertrand Russell (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970)

(2)  What to dramatize and what to omit?: it come down to be a subjective choice by the writer/film maker.  The source materials, and the truth sometimes could have 5 legs, and go into all directions-- the audience is the writers/film maker's responsibility-- not the random truth, but the chosen truth to present them to the audience, to whatever make the sense of it all.  and others are omitted.  It is a narrative film.

photography by Greg Marinovich

(3) the chosen truth and documentary-- so here is my question,  for docu film, is the truth more dominant than a narrative film, based on true events, and how so?
thank you for reading the blog.  good night.
wen wen da' nuevo yorku

interview of Bang Bang Club:

http://1worldcinema.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/the-bang-bang-club-by-steven-silver-staring-ryan-phillippe/