December 1 at 11:00am

More On How It Feels From The Front

, , , ,

Brent Chesanek continues his reflections on the NYC DIY Days Dinner:

I see Stephen Rafael’s point when he said “Make a good film.” I think you do too while you acknowledged the trouble with that statement. I also agree with what you said about the The Pool. But I think everyone at that table has the resources and could contact Chris Smith directly, or invite him and the handful of other directors of the movies you loved this year to a private roundtable. But why did you shoot this and put the video on the web for everyone to see it? (I know why, but hypothetically.) The people who are accessing this video are just as likely to be making bad films. I feel like, if someone makes a worthwhile film and has the necessary industry awareness, they can get it to you or Raphael or Jay van Hoy and Lars or someone else who can help them formulate their distribution models and make connections.

I know the distro process must be democratized, and I know that in the scenario above, you and the other guys listed are also gatekeepers who would essentially dictate a filmmaker’s ability to reach an audience, but does this make sense? If all 4950 films that didn’t get into Sundance or any other festival or aren’t distributed were as good as The Pool, then everyone would just be watching this DIY Dinner video to find out what to do next and there’d still be a glut in the market. But most of them should be focusing on where they’ve taken missteps earlier on.

This discussion was feeling a bit like: find an audience, then make a film to profit off them by giving them what they say they want, regardless of whether or not you’re making a film that has any merit or personal distinction. So many of the bad films that actually do get distributed are rehashes and remakes, unoriginal but based on successful formulas (essentially, they’re crowd-tested). Here, I know the discussion is about distribution, but so much of it just leads right into: Here’s how to harness an audience to make money off of regardless of the quality of your film. And I think what Rafael may have been thinking was that this discussion was often putting the cart before the horse–more geared as a way to get exposure to the glut of films that aren’t distributed regardless of quality, because that is still the problem–most films are indeed not worthy. But the ones that are worthy are having trouble. This needs to be stressed more and more until it becomes a given. I think there is common ground between your point and Rafael’s point: First make the good films. You picked up on that later in the video talking about the lesbian film. (I originally thought you were talking about Working Girls, but that was about prostitutes).

All Facebook pages look the same. After 3 years, so many films will be Twittering it will be total overload and audiences on Twitter and Facebook will not see a difference in these methods, they won’t pay attention to what’s being said in any of them, and the mechanisms themselves won’t be any newer or more special than television commercials or trailers, and certainly no more effective (Twitter is less invasive–a short text message–so it requires an active audience to respond to it. But how can one in fifty of them from different films be effective when the content drives the audience to the film? At least a trailer offers a glimpse of the actual film that can hook a passive audience member). So we will have an over-crowded marketplace of bad films that are Twittering and crowd-sourcing and all this stuff, and again, like Lance Hammer asks Arin, “How do you cut through the noise?”

So much of the talk about social networking and going viral and doing all this stuff ignores the notion that you have to really really really kill yourself making a distinct film first. The glut of films out there is a problem first of quality in development and production, not distribution. Quality, not execution of the methods. That’s what’s scary. You mentioned on some blog somewhere that despite digital video and computer-based editing, there is still the same number of new voices emerging as there was 20 years ago. Will a glut of new distribution models really bring about new voices? [I think you know the answer is more about salvaging the new voices, preserving and exposing them to audiences via new methods, but this point mustn't be under-stressed.] We need to focus on nurturing the voices.

Share
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • brentley
    Anonymous from the top: I think I still do agree with you. I agree there should be different films for different people--I just want to make sure these talks don't phase out the type of film Stephen Raphael and I have stressed loving.

    These new distro discussions are about opening doors for filmmakers to prove that all film audiences needn't be categorized into one broad definition at any level, something I think we all can agree to some extent that the distributors of films of all types and budgets may have excessively adopted in their models (although doing so in honest efforts to cover overhead and ensure company viability). I sensed a tendency in parts of the dinner discussion to assume the new type of filmgoer is one who only has a certain kind of un-malleable taste--that of being an active participant in the making of the film–something I don't agree accept as a sweeping statement. I want to see that we don't all assume films must fight for one type of audience when I believe there are many audiences to reach for. I am weary of any notion that says a film will reach a mass-consumptive/multi-tasking attention span only by morphing itself at the development and production level into candy to that mindset rather than offering an attempt at counterprogramming to it. This is where some talks of the death of the feature length art film lean to.

    I agree with your advice about the genre films as well. I am definitely more open than I used to be, but if I came across as someone who doesn't see a use for or have an appreciation of genre films then I clearly have much work to do in expressing myself. I will say that it was only when I discovered independent and foreign films did my love for movies come about, which seems contrary to the normal acclimation to film most people have. As a child or teen, I was never obsessed with Hollywood or genre movies--it was only upon learning of an alternative cinema that things became truly interesting for me.

    I have a general aversion to pigeonholing that often hinders my thought process–this fact I do recognize. So I certainly don't claim to have a fully-tuned film knowledge appreciation--my mind has work to be done still, it seems in a reverse-trajectory of the standard path.

    And I think to further my point about genre films, I'd venture that the ones that are indeed great, according to whomever deems them as such, offer something new, distinct, well-executed, or refined to their respective genres, or maybe expand beyond those genres, or do a bit of both. But I have a sense that there are many many films in which there is no ambition or intent to reach those feats but rather to just add to the stack whether it's for the betterment of the careers of those involved or due to a belief that an audience won't accept or understand something new and different.

    For what it's worth to the discussion, I do wish to note that this all comes from me in my current state, one that includes a desire to learn from everyone by putting my thoughts out there to be challenged. As scary as the thought of publishing this essay was to me, I hope some good will come about because of it.
  • Anonymous
    Brentley-

    This is anonymous from the top. I agree with most of what you say, but I always get annoyed when people talk about quality because it's a snobbish way of speaking. There's a crowd of people in the know right now who consider the "mumblecore" films high quality, and I think they suck - and I'm a film snob. It's like they watched every film from the 70's I did and learned the opposite thing that I did. But good for them. I'm sure you live in the same world I do, among friends who don't live and breathe film, who say things like "I don't want to see a dark film because it depresses me," or "Titanic is my favorite movie". I'm sure they would have a different opinion about how great "Woman in the Dunes" is, or "The Leopard". And they're right. There should be different films for different people. The trouble is that Hollywood dominates the distribution channels and there's no room for anything else.

    I agree 100% that it would be great if filmmakers actually had a reason to make a film besides a paycheck or a blowjob fest. I can't stand filmmakers like Tarantino who have encyclopedias of film in their brains and nothing interesting to say at all. Even if they don't go to film school, they should go to college.

    As a side not, you should be a little more open to genre films. Some of the most interesting filmmakers in the world - especially in Japan and Korea - are making genre films. Sure 90% of them suck, but that would apply to the general population of film too, don't you think?
  • brentley
    Pericles:
    Your first sentence confuses me–are you saying that the glut will be created as films reach their audiences? I think the consensus is that the glut of films is in their production when these films are not reaching an audience. For instance, if the world suddenly stopped buying green beans, then there would be a glut of green beans sitting around grocery stores uneaten. But since people do buy green beans, there's no glut. The glut is in the supply, but only if the demand is not there, right? So if these films are all reaching their audience, then demand is met: audiences are happy, filmmakers are happy, no glut but perhaps a "wealth" of films.

    The gatekeepers remark wasn't a negative reaction but more a counterpoint to my proposal about sending the film to Ted or Jay and Lars or Stephen--that practice is essentially still against the culture (although much less so) that these discussions are seeking to help us circumvent--right now, the reason a filmmaker needs to develop his or her marketing strategy and distribution plan is because otherwise they're subjecting themselves to the gatekeepers of the distro business--the IFC's, Sony PC's Magnolias, etc. Nothing against those companies, but it's the honest reality that it's a gatekeeper's culture they operate in and filmmakers must now break down. Sending a film to the folks mentioned is essentially still complying with a gatekeeping mentality, because one of them would have to love it a certain amount to get on board to get it seen, just like with the distro companies.
  • brentley
    Anonymous Dec. 1, 943 AM: I agree no one sets out to make a crappy film. I think I was more reacting to the fact that there seem to be many films being made that don't strive to distinguish themselves as iconoclastic works but rather to prove the writer/director/actor/producer/etc. can function safely in the filmmaking industry--this person knows the basic languages, structures, genres and procedures but doesn't reach for much beyond that--I'm reacting to a glut of genre films or resume films I'll propose, films that are made to be part of something pre-existing rather than to better it. Still though, it's not like I see most of these films. But through blogs like Hammer To Nail and The House Next Door (more so early on) we can find aid in finding the ones that break out of those traditions. I agree though, throwing around the word quality is too subjective to be effective.

    I think it's preferable that this discussion interest primarily the cinephiles and autuers–those producing remarkable films at this budget level will do so because of their cinephilia, embracing of the artistic freedom these budgets provide, and own personal interest in the form, content, and style of their films. That's the bulk of my essay and they're who I'm reaching out to and hoping to connect with and make sure these discussions protect. The filmmakers doing low-budget films for practice or resume work–doing so to break into bigger films will move on with success or change gears when facing trouble. The cinephiles are the ones who will make the more impressive artist-driven films on ultra low budgets and strive to make them truly distinct by embracing their restrictions. So my thinking is if the discussion nurtures this notion that the way to succeed and flourish in the ultra-low budget world is to be a very strong artist, I think we all benefit. We very well could be in agreement here.

    Discussion is just what that dinner, this blog, and my comments set out to spark. In writing and allowing Ted to post it, I do harbor the hope that all of our ideas, including my own, will be better augmented with counterpoints to my claims--that I can learn from others and others can learn from me, even if it's only that perhaps others harbor similar reactions and these reactions must be dealt with somehow in order to get people on board with the changes the industry must take. I do not exist outside of self-interest so I don't want to throw down platitudes but rather a document about my current state of mind. Hoping to learn from this.
  • Anonymous
    I had very similar reactions following watching the DIY dinner and in the discussions on this blog and elsewhere. There is an essential, fundamental problem with the artistic development of young filmmakers, nurturing to a place of making great films instead of merely getting the few that are made to as large an audience as possible (although obviously that's a noble goal too).

    I graduated from film school last May and spent a year in Los Angeles toiling away at industry jobs before I decided to move to New York and get into the more "noble" part of the industry, where I can barely pay the rent, let alone find the time to find money that creates time to make more films and develop my voice. I was getting better every day at film school but my growth as a filmmaker was halted by the realities of the industry and the "real world," the need to make money any way possible just to fund my existence (and a film degree doesn't exactly help me get a job anywhere else). And I'm a middle class kid with tons of resources at my disposal. What of kids less fortunate than me who have all the talent and drive in the world but probably can barely afford the outrageous film school tuition (or take out crushing loans), yet alone afford what it takes to proceed from there?

    Fiction writers develop their voices through short stories. Oftentimes they write a hundred short stories before a novel, maybe even before they're asked to write a novel by someone who has been following that talent. Young filmmakers are asked to have one great short from film school and a feature script ready if they want to reach their goals. How is that enough to reach towards better films, stronger voices? How is that enough to become good, or great?

    We need a farm system, like in baseball. Organized efforts (not scattered grants and fellowships) by the industry to take the risky 1 million dollars it takes for that one short one script first timer and turn it into 200 short films. Get people like yourself and the great filmmakers you work with to mentor the filmmakers, explain the realities and educate.

    If you get a degree in finance and you display talent in school, there are jobs waiting for you after graduation. If you graduate film school, you are thrown into an under organized system and expected to wander from PA job to unpaid internship to advance, barely utilizing the skills necessary of a filmmaker, barely being able to pay the bills just to survive. You try to get your work out there, but you're not getting better. In fact, you might be getting worse in the stagnation. So how does that result in better films and a better film culture?

    If we redirect a small percentage of our resources away from the 5000 features submitted to Sundance and towards identifying, organizing, sustaining, and developing those thousands of filmmakers through a system of making shorts and conducting workshops, we can have better films and a better culture.

    Like the great Billy Wilder said “if you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.” We need to fix the first act of developing filmmaking talent in order to make the better films.
  • Pericles
    To create a glut there has to be a passion and a tremendous amount of work to get an indie movie to it's audience. There are also external forces like critics, reviews, audience ratings and word of mouth that will be beyond the control of the filmmaker. If a movie so "bad," it was probably made by a filmmaker that will not go to the lengths needed to promote it. There is a tremendous amount of work involved and there will be a intense "beat down" by the audience if it doesn't meet their standards.

    I think that if you take all of this into consideration, there will be less of a "glut."

    I don't understand the comment about the people at the table being the "gatekeepers," I didn't feel that way at all. I felt that it was a drunken eruption of information that was very useful.

    I truly believe that the cream will rise to the top. Right now all of this is about building a infrastructure on the shifting sands the internet, if the infrastructure is built the realities will then emerge and the shaping of the details will take place.
  • Anonymous
    Talking about quality is silly. No one sets out to make a crappy film and everyone who's shot a film knows that feeling of thinking that they are making something great. As far as quality in the marketplace, forget it. Four Christmases was not, I'm sure, what you are talking about. Some of my favorite films are films that most people haven't even heard of.

    It's easy to have a debate about quality of films with fellow cinephiles is one thing - those are some of my favorite conversations. But applying that to the making of a film just doesn't work and means nothing in regards to profit. Audiences don't know what they want and sometimes they have to be led into a film, by a critic or an ad campaign or something like that.

    I think the films you are talking about need to risk being awful. Where is the bravery in an artistic choice if there was no chance of failure?
blog comments powered by Disqus

This site could not have been built without the help and insight of Michael Morgenstern. My thanks go out to him.

Help save indie film and give this guy a job in web design or film!