Bubble, or the Three Faces of Steven Soderbergh

Most of the press (and blogging) on Steven Soderbergh's Bubble -- which will be released in theaters and VOD tomorrow, and on DVD Tuesday -- concerns the film's collapsed release window. Important stuff, no doubt, but in the interests of counter-programming I thought I'd give a few words to the fact that this is now the second feature (after Solaris) that Soderbergh has directed, shot, and edited. It's curious to me that few people have noted this fact, especially when it's so rare in mainstream Hollywood productions.

Personally, I won't be surprised if, at some point, Soderbergh eventually does everything for his films: craft services, acting in all the roles, hand-delivering the DVDs for Blockbuster to sell. Come to think of it, if he does everything then catering will be easy. He'll just take himself out to lunch.

Anyway, until that time comes, here's an interesting interview that was published in Film Comment around the time of Traffic, Soderbergh's first film as Director and Director of Photography. This exchange in particular suggests that the experience of making that film prepared him for "experiments" like Bubble.

Why did you decide to shoot the film yourself which entailed having to go to the trouble of qualifying as cinematographer?

    Because the conversations on the set -- "I want to do this," "Are you sure you really want to do that?" -- would have taken up hours.

Haven't you worked with a DP who trusts you implicitly at this point?

    I have, but part of it is that if the DP were anyone else, it would have been very hard for me to convince the people paying for the movie not to fire them, really. What the fuck is this guy doing? But if it's me, they assume there's a methodology there that's going to pay off. Are they going to call me and say, You've got to fire yourself? I've worked with some very good cameramen, and obviously I've learned a lot. I watched what they were doing very closely.

Will you go back to working with a DP in the future?

    I don't think so. It would be hard for me and for whoever I hired. It's a compromise in a way. There are numerous cameramen who are better than I am, and the opportunity to learn from them is lost. On the other hand, the speed with which I feel we are able to work and the intimacy it provides are worth it.

...

[I]n each film since [Out of Sight], your stock has risen higher.

    Let's put it this way. It's pretty clear to me that working as a director for hire agrees with me. I like it. The films that have come out of that, I personally like better than the ones that didn't. However, that other stuff will need to come out occasionally. My m.o. is gonna be, when that happens, to do it for $250,000 instead of $10 million. Which I can do without a problem. I literally have the equipment and I can go do that anytime -- and I will.

For full coverage of Bubble, check out the unofficial Soderbergh website (which he probably manages under yet another pseudonym).

Without a Box self-distribution initiative

Check out IndieWIRE's article on Without A Box's new self-distribution initiative. Lots of questions about how it will work practically speaking, when it will launch, etc. It's going to start small - only six films at first, but then should go wider. Still, it's another promising development. Most interesting is the fact that "filmmakers who participate will retain all rights to their movies." Nice.

IFC's First Take and the collapsing window

NY Times reports today that IFC Films is going to release twenty-four films this year simultaneously in theaters and on video-on-demand television. They're calling the initiative "First Take". It begins in March. HDNet's Bubble will, of course, be the first to collapse the windows. (It goes down this Friday. More on this later.) But there are two notable things about this IFC stuff.

First, IFC's slate -- for now -- doesn't appear to be made up of films that have someone like Steven Soderbergh's name attached. (And that name is important -- he's one director that has name recognition and credibility in both popular and art-film circles.) On the contrary, the films on IFC's slate might have otherwise slipped through the cracks. Included as part of the initial six are: I Am A Sex Addict (mentioned here a couple of days ago) and CSA: Confederate States of America.

Consider these quotes from IFC's Jonathan Sehring, which put the initiative in context:

So much great film has fallen by the wayside....

Foreign films are not being released, aside from Sony Classics. And low-budget American films - they're nonexistent. It's left to the really small companies, and they can't afford to take on a lot of films and get them played outside of New York and L.A.

Second point: Bubble is one film. HDNet have about nine or ten more on the way, though some haven't gone into production and some don't even have titles yet. IFC is talking about twenty-four. Of course, we'll have to see if IFC really does release twenty-four films this way this year. If so, well, things could get very interesting, very quickly.

Mac Widgets for Filmmakers

Some people using Macs love this new Dashboard thing in OS 10.4, but others (like myself) are agnostic about its usefulness. In an attempt at self-conversion I went searching around the internet looking for some (hopefully) useful widgets for filmmakers. So, Mac-based filmmakers, here they are...

Two caveats: First, I'e only tested some of these. If something doesn't work, post a comment. Secondly, this list (probably) isn't comprehensive. If you know of one I should add, post a comment or email me. I'll add it and maintain it on a permanent page on this site (found in the right hand column, under "Pages").

By the way, if you're using a Mac with 10.3.9 you don't have to feel left out. Get Amnesty Widget Browser, which lets you partake in the Dashboard experience.

Film Tools:

    Depth of Field: Seems a little buggy to me, but this one will be nice to have if I can get it to work. 

    Sol: A sunrise and sunset calculator.

    TimeCalc: A timecode calculator.

    TV Safe: Shows TV-safe areas on QuickTime movies.

    VLC Widget: This widget controls the ever-useful VLC media player when in fullscreen mode.

    Carpenter's Level: Let's you use PowerBooks with motion-sensor detection as a level. I'm sure someone can think of a way to use this.

Film-related News:

    OnSuper8: News about Super-8 film stuff. Cool!

DVD and Moviegoing:

    Dashflix: Netflix widget. Comes in two sizes. 

    Tuesday's Coming: A DVD release widget. I've not tested this, so I don't know if it covers anything off the beaten path.

    Movie Trailers: Lets you view stuff from the Apple QuickTime Movie Trailers site.

Research:

    IMDB: Searches for films, people, etc. on Internet Movie Database. 

    Wikipedia Search: Just like it says. Useful for researching.

    Google Search: Again, self-explanatory.

Generally useful:

    PackageTracker: Self explanatory. 

    WikityWidget: Described as "sticky notes on steroids." Useful for note-taking.

    MakeZine: If, like a lot of people, you first discovered this blog through Make Magazine's blog, this widget is for you.

    Einstein: Searches for the nearest Apple support center near you. Mariposa Software, the developer, also offers a widget called MacGyverisms. Not the most useful widget you'll find, but pretty amusing.

Last of all, if you're interested in developing some widgets, this article is a good place to start.

IndieWire's Top 10 Undistributed Films - UPDATE

Following up on an earlier posting, make that Top 8 Undistributed films: Deals were announced today by Roadside Attractions/Netflix and IFC Films for The Puffy Chair and I Am A Sex Addict, respectively. Thoughts:

- I've not seen The Puffy Chair, but the Roadside/Netflix deal sounds interesting. Scott Kirsner at CinemaTech wrote about it yesterday.

- Caveh Zahedi's I Am A Sex Addict, which I've been lucky enough to see, is brilliant and daring moviemaking. Caveh and I just completed a brief interview, which I'll post around the time of his film's release (April or May, from what I hear). Congrats, Caveh.

- Kudos again to indieWIRE for drawing attention to these films. You never know if something like their "Top 10 Undistributed Films" surveys actually help distributors make their decisions, but it's safe to say it didn't hurt.

Richard Linklater on the Austin Film Society

IndieWIRE has a nice, brief essay by Richard Linklater today in celebration of the Austin Film Society's 20th Anniversary. Austin's reputation for being a model regional film scene has to do with so many factors: the early 90s successes of El Mariachi and Slacker, the willingness of its successful filmmakers to continue to work locally, and the presence of a large film school, among others. The Austin Film Society, which was around before either Linklater or Robert Rodriguez made their first features, has been an essential part of that equation. (What shape might Slacker have taken if Linklater -- a co-founder of the Society -- hadn't seen Bresson's L'Argent at the Austin Film Society? To consider all the possibilites would be, well, like Linklater's opening monologue in that very film.) Anyway, favorite quote from the essay :

When I say the film society was a success from the get-go, it's important to remember that the key element in this equation was our definition of success. It was simple: if we could show movies and somehow pay for the rentals, shipping and phone calls, then get to do it again, that would be great. Like in so many areas of life, once you remove the profit motive and just want to make something cool happen because life would simply be better or more fun, it's amazing what you can do and who will jump in and help you do it.

DIY Film Projects: Six Thoughts

A reader of this blog recently emailed me about a DIY steadicam he had seen online. Though I'm still suspicious of a steadicam without a gimble (i.e., the little ring that's used to control pans and tilts), the sample footage on the site looked okay, all things considered. Anyway, this got me thinking about how the internet abounds with DIY projects. Most of them are variations on one of the following:

a. skateboard dolly: 1, 2, 3

b. home-made steadicams: 1, 2, 3, 4

c. jib arm / crane: 1, 2

d. car mount: 1, 2, 3

e. the aforementioned Depth of Field reducer

f. other: 1, 2, 3

I'm not necessarily advocating any of these projects, much less one plan over another. I just thought I'd post links to a few and people can explore them (or not). Besides these links, those that are interested should check out Nuts and Bolts Filmmaking by Dan Rahmel, which has a lot of DIY projects, as well as other useful information.

A few thoughts:

1) Pros that pooh-pooh DIY equipment would do well to remember that many now-standard pieces of film equipment (boompole, steadicam, etc.) were handmade innovations before they became mass-produced professional tools.

2) Sometimes building DIY projects is not more cost effective than spending the money on a professional tool. Example: A new C-stand costs less than $200. The amount of time and money it would take for me to build some inferior imitation out of pipe I bought at Home Depot simply isn't worth it in the final cost-benefit analysis.

3) An inexpensive homemade tool that doesn't get the job done is less of a bargain than an overpriced mass-produced tool that does get the job done.

4) Conversely, it's simply ridiculous what some companies charge (and what some people will pay) for the most simple tools that could just as easily be homemade. If you know how to use a sewing machine, or know someone who does, you should not be paying $50 for a sandbag.

5) Judging from some of the projects I've seen made with DIY tools, the time spent building the tools would have been better spent working on the script. Of course, the same could be said of many Hollywood products produced with the best tools money can buy. As Agnes Varda once said, "The technical [aspects] and the frames are only a means to go through what has to be felt."

6) Often, the biggest advantage to making homemade tools is not the savings in money -- it's that you can tailor the tools to your project's specific needs. (Cf. the Crafter's Manifesto.) And as long as making your own tools doesn't distract from the real work -- making films -- the peripheral benefit of DIY is that the geeky fun had in making something is often, as Mastercard would say, priceless.

Camera Maintenance with Bernie O'Doherty

I've just returned from Boothbay, Maine, where two other filmmakers and I trekked to take a one-day workshop in camera maintenance and repair with by Bernie O'Doherty of Super 16, Inc. Saying Bernie knows some things about motion picture cameras is like saying Jacques Cousteau (whose cameras Bernie serviced) liked to make little movies of the fishies in the sea. Bernie's not just a renovator that repairs all sorts of movie cameras and converts standard 16's (like my Eclair ACL) to Super-16; he's an innovator. The guy developed a viewfinder brightening process that was nominated for an Academy Award.

It would be unfair to Bernie's business for me to share all his tricks on this blog, but I can say that his workshop covered everything from how to realign whacked viewfinder diopters to how to do a film scratch biopsy. For me the highlight was learning how to fully disassemble, clean from the inside out, and then reassemble my own camera's magazines. Suffice to say that eight hours, several disassembled cameras, and one lobster feast later, Bernie looked to us less like an engineer and more like a guru, a sensei, a jedi master of the movie camera.

Make no mistake: There are plenty of things (say, collimating a lens) that I would never, ever attempt to do myself. But the workshop aimed to give each of us a much higher level of ownership, confidence and control over the tools we already use, and it did that in spades. Knowing that, if I absolutely had to, I could take apart my camera on a shoot and diagnose a problem is a great feeling. That feeling is, in fact, part of what this blog is all about.

Bernie and his wife Julie were uncommonly warm and generous hosts, too, and that made the workshop all the more fun. My two fellow-travelers and I left for Philadelphia glowing not just from the empowering knowledge we'd gained, but also because we felt like we'd made some new friends. It was a great start for the new year.

Obviously, if your camera needs some work or, in a more self-reliant vein, if you want to do a workshop similar to the one we did, give Bernie and Julie a shout.

IndieWIRE's Top 10 Undistributed Films of 2005

indieWIRE announced their annual Top 10 Undistributed Films of 2005 today. It's a good list, and by that I mean a) I've not seen any of them and b) the descriptions make me want to see the films. I do wish that the indieWIRE crew -- most of whom I assume are based in NY -- would do a similar list or more extended coverage of the "in between" movies that only got limited release. These could also use the attention and some championing, especially so that they might find a life on video.

Still, this is a quibble. At least IndieWIRE does a list like this, thereby acknowledging that some great movies don't make it beyond the festival circuit or a couple of weeks at the Quad. You'd never know it from some of these Ten Best lists.

I'm consoled by the fact that I've got screener DVDs of two of indieWIRE's Top 10 on the way. But it is only a small consolation.

Wikipedia's Movie Making Manual

If one of your New Year's resolutions is to cut down the time you spend on the internet you should probably steer clear of Wikipedia's open-content textbooks. The "books" cover everything from How to Build a Computer to learning Mandarin to Monopoly strategy. Like everything else on Wikipedia, the content is entirely user-contributed. Considering Wikipedia's communal spirit, it's fitting that one of the few readable articles in the otherwise undeveloped Movie Making Manual is a brief but interesting section on film equipment timeshares. The article discusses the pros and cons of owning equipment and includes a draft of a sample timeshare agreement. And, yes, even this is a work-in-progress, but then isn't everything on the 'net?

MacIntelevision?

Good, brief post by Mike Curtis at HD For Indies concerning a report that Apple and Intel working on a new standard for hooking computers to HD televisions. May sound like boring techie stuff but, little by little, the dominant distribution paradigm is going to be forever changed. As I recently counseled a documentary filmmaker negotiating a distribution deal, try to hang onto those 'internet/digital' rights. They're going to be useful. Soon.

DVD round-up: 12/21/05

Instead of making individual postings whenever a worthwhile DVD comes down the pike, I'll start doing a catch-all posting every now and then. I'll stick to the ones that make the most sense within the context of this blog and ignore other jaw-droppingly great releases, like Mizoguchi's Ugetsu monogatari. So, without further ado, here's the first DVD roundup:

Su Friedrich Box Set My friend Diana King alerted me that Su Friedrich's complete works have just been remastered from the original negatives and released on DVD by Outcast Films. A box set of five DVDs to be precise. Scratchy dreams. Messy break-ups. Lesbian nuns. Thirteen films, including her masterpiece, Sink or Swim. The price might seem a little steep ($150) for casual fans or the uninitiated, but it's hard to fault small distributors for charging a little bit more if you consider the filmmaker is probably getting a fairer cut of the profits than they would with some megacorp.

Ross McElwee Box Set Another five DVD set, this one from Ross McElwee, who was documenting his life, friends, and family long before the advent of "reality" TV. These are wry, smart, and sometimes heartbreaking films. McElwee's biggest claim to fame, I suppose, is Sherman's March (it's on the Library of Congress' National Film Registry as a "cinematic treasure"), but Time Indefinite (its sequel of sorts) is even stronger. Now you can have those two, along with four others, including his most recent, Bright Leaves.

Punishment Park Peter Watkins' work has long been absent on DVD, so the release of Punishment Park (1971) is a promising step in the right direction. I've been dying to get my hands on this since it arrived at my local video store a couple of weeks ago. It's been rented every single time. Thirty-four years after its release, could it be the world is catching up with Peter Watkins? Better late than never, I suppose.

Black Girl Black Girl (1966), Ousmane Sembene's first feature, was a seminal film in the history of sub-Saharan African cinema. I haven't seen it in a dozen years, but I still remember the ending. The New Yorker DVD release also includes Sembene's short Borom Sarret (1963). Sadly, some DVDs on New Yorker (like the Bressons) are less than stellar but, according to DVD Beaver, this one passes muster.

Documentary Cookbook

UPDATE 9.1.2009: Looking for the Documentary Cookbook article for our students at Virginia Tech we noticed that it's been taken down from the UC Berkley website and appears to have disappeared from the internet... except in this mildly abbreviated copy/paste job.

I first read the UC Berkeley Center for New Documentary's "Cookbook" essay over three years ago. It's a fairly straightforward essay that investigates, through theory and practice, the question of how one can inexpensively produce intelligent, saleable documentaries. In its subject matter, there's nothing especially revolutionary about the Cookbook -- people have been making movies cheaply for years, and people have been writing about how to do the same for nearly as long. But a couple of things make the Cookbook a keeper (aside from the fact that it's free, of course):

First, it's written by working filmmakers, about working filmmakers, for working filmmakers. It's very, very readable. A damn good read as far as these things go, in fact.

Secondly, it's written from the conviction that all personnel on any film should be paid the going professional rate for the work they do. Salaries are not reduced, deferred, or eliminated from the budget in order to "get the film made."

This second point is critical. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you have access to a camcorder you could theoretically shoot a feature for about $10 (the cost of two 60 minute MiniDV tapes) these days. Making a movie on the cheap and paying all parties involved is much harder. The Cookbook's focus, then, is on helping "journeyman filmmakers" (their term) find ways to make a living while producing vital work. Good stuff.

What makes all of the Cookbook's ideas especially seductive is the reasonable, intelligent voice of the writing, which avoids the unrealistic cheerleading (or sketchy used car salesman vibe) you sometimes find in these You-Can-Do-It essays.

Of course, the question is: Can these ideas work for anyone? The Cookbook was written in 2002, and as far as I know it has not been updated since. How have documentaries using the Cookbook's guidelines fared, both critically and in the marketplace? An email asking about updates and further thoughts, which I sent to its authors last week in preparation for this post, hasn't been answered. I was hoping they would address what the Cookbook spends the least time discussing: distribution. After all, the key question these days is not "How can I get a movie made?" but whether or not it will be distributed.

I'm also interested in what the Cookbook has to say to narrative filmmakers. Obviously, the issues facing the genres aren't identical. To name just one, documentaries are marketed on their content far more than narrative films, which typically rely on the use of one or more "name" actors. Since a $100,000 budget isn't likely to cover the salaries that name actors command, productions in that budget range are usually at a substantial disadvantage in the search for distribution. For that matter, just paying your cast SAG scale would strain a $100K budget.

It's for this reason that the Cookbook probably has the most application to filmmakers that are working "regionally"since they typically are working with fewer resources, a smaller crew/talent pool, and in a style that's more humanistic than spectacle-driven. Reading over the essay again tonight, I was inclined to think of filmmakers like John O'Brien, Todd Verow or Caveh Zahedi whose films blend fiction and non-fiction, actor and non-actor and, script and improvisation in rewarding ways. Soderbergh's upcoming Bubble is another film that springs to mind.

The Cookbook's ideas aren't radical. Or if they are, they're not alone in their radicalism. InDigEnt's production model (as just one example) is not so very different from what the Cookbook proposes. InDigEnt productions (from what I remember) are made for about $300,000, and feature name actors (Sigourney Weaver, Katie Holmes, etc.). The main difference is that talent and crew are paid minimal wages up front and deferred the rest through profit participation. But that is a big difference and, in fact, is the distinction that separates the Cookbook from other models.

One way or another the essay's worth a read... I'd enjoy hearing your comments on it.

Agnes Varda on DVD

Masters of Cinema reported today that Agnes Varda's Cleo from 5 to 7 (1961) and Daguerreotypes (1975) were recently released on DVD by Cine-Tamaris, the company that Varda co-founded with her late husband, Jacques Demy. MoC does not report on the two-disc set's region coding or whether it has subtitles. I don't know if you parlez the Francais, but if you've found your way to this site, you probably have a region-free player. And if you don't maybe you should think about it. While major works like The Gleaners and I and Vagabond are easy to find, it's a shame that more of Varda's films are not available on video -- either in the US or elsewhere. Could someone, somewhere please release La Pointe Courte?

Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez, Agnes?

ADDENDUM: My savvy lady-friend (who also helped me with my French) has suggested posting a site for people that want to hack their Region-1 DVD players so that they're region free. Here it is.

ADDENDUM 2: Stephanie at Cine-tamaris has let me know that the DVD set is Region-2, and it has English and German subtitles. Thanks!

Liz Cole on DIY Film Touring

Yesterday, Liz Cole of Evil Twin Booking spoke to the producing class I've been teaching at Temple University. Evil Twin is a hybrid of a distributor and booking agent, which grew out of a touring festival of politically-minded (mostly radical) film and video called the Lost Film Fest. I thought Liz and the work she represents (literally and figuratively) would offer a nice counterbalance to a lot of the traditional models of production and distribution that I had talked about over the semester. She definitely comes from the DIY punk school of getting things done, and that's always a good note to end a class on.

Besides screening some amusing, edgy agitprop, Liz shared some tips on how to set up a DIY screening tour. This seemed to interest a lot of the students -- probably because short films, which most students make, have so few venues.

Anyway, while some of these points are just common sense, all of it was great for my students to hear coming from someone who walks the walk.

Here are my notes:

Touring isn't for everyone, and it's not a strategy for paying off anything but the most low budget of productions, but as a means with cultivating and connecting with audiences it's an interesting option.

Time and Timing: Timing is important: Most collegiate tours that Evil Twin sets up (say, for Sam Green of The Weather Underground fame) are scheduled about a year in advance. A DIY tour at microcinemas and other non-college venues requires about 3-4 months of advance prep.

Decide how much time you can spend doing this. It may be six days, three weeks, or three months. Until you determine this, you ain't goin' nowhere.

Venues: Before you pursue venues, know your work and know your audience. Who is going to want to see your film? The work Liz promotes is anti-establishment, but she and Scott Beiben (her, um, evil twin at Evil Twin) are very business savvy about knowing their audience and where that audience is.

Evil Twin was helped in the early days because Scott had a lot of contacts from running a hardcore label. Still, a lot of this is available by doing simple internet searches. Great venues include: artspaces, infospaces, independent bookstores, and even the odd warehouses. Wherever you go, you'll want to cultivate and maintain contacts at different venues.

Liz emphasized that the Midwest is a great place to show films. The lag-time between East/West Coast and places like Minneapolis, Columbus, Cleveland, etc. is significant enough that these places are hungry for alternatives.

Book your venues with a sensible plan that conserves time, energy, gasoline, and money. Know your geography!

Necessities: To tour DIY-style, you need: transportation, video projector, dvd player, a stereo, and a screen. (Doing college tours you probably won't need anything but transportation.)

Obviously, all of this is easier if you have a car but Liz also said Greyhound is an option some will use. Not comfy, but an option.

The DVD player, video projector, screen and stereo aren't a must, but some venues will only have film projectors (I imagine this is changing rapidly). More importantly, some venues will ask you to pay for use of their equipment, so it's good to have your own. You want to avoid "pay to play" situations where you have to rent the space or the equipment. Most won't ask for that, but avoid the ones that do because you can likely find another spot elsewhere.

Having a laptop with DVD player serves a nice double function so you can work from the road.

Promotion: Create "a lot of small noises" through cheap and free online sources: Friendster, MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, weblogs (um, like this one).

Work with promoters in different towns that will flyer for your show, use email lists, and generally get a crowd to the show.

Evil Twin makes flyer templates for their shows and they send them out to everyone so they can be tailored for each screening. Flyering, though it's messy, does get people out to your screening.

Films: You should have between one-to-two hours of material. If you don't have something feature-length, you need to fill up that time somehow. Maybe you screen a bunch of short films you made, or short films of yours along with some other people (who have given you permission, natch'). Or maybe you do a performance piece. Or a reading. Or your tour with an author that does a reading. You get the point.

The age of your movie doesn't matter as much as its relevance. If you're touring with it for the first time (or for the 5th time, for a city that's not been screened in), then that's fine -- IF it's not a timely, time-specific movie. (Liz gave the example of the 2000 election. Lots of movies on this, and the subject has been beaten to death.) Be sensitive with work that has an expiration date.

Revenue: While part of the goal of all of this is to get the work out to The People, this ain't charity, either. Typically, the charge for admittance will be around $5. Maybe $8 at most. You will need to split the revenue, in all likelihood, with the venue. But a good night, with good attendance, you can make between $100 to $300.

The similarities between this and gigging in a rock band are strong, and there will be even more as increasing numbers of filmmakers turn to self-distribution and small starting their own DVD "labels" -- in essence emulating what rock bands have been doing for years. That's the thing I don't get about the "dope smoking slacker" cliche of guys in rock bands. If you read a book like Our Band Could Be Your Life, which talks (among other things) about Greg Ginn and his founding of the SST record label, you see that in many cases these guys were very focused, achievement-minded, and they worked very, very hard.

DIY video depth-of-field contraption

Here are some interesting, DIY plans for a depth of field reducer for video cameras courtesy of the always-great Make Blog.

One claim on the site is that it will help your video "look like film." In a way, yes: Shallow depth of field is more common with film than video, generally speaking. Newbies should keep in mind, however, that film and video work entirely differently: a video CCD is essentially like a scanner, while film is a series of unique frames, each with a different pattern of silver halide crystals (think: snowflakes). It's because of this fundamental difference that video (as long as it continues to work the way it does now) will never completely look like film.

Anyway, I would be interested to see how footage using this thingamajig looks, especially in comparison with something like the P+S Mini35, which is a more professional version of the same thing. (The Mini35 is $7500, the DIY thing would probably run you 1/100 of that.) Some guys tested the Mini35 with a JVC GY-HD100 -- I was impressed with the close-ups, but not the night shots.

UPDATE: It looks like the Mini35 will have some competition soon from an outfit called Cinemek. The demos -- particularly the one that begins with the cat -- look good. And they say they're working on one for the HVX-200. Stay tuned.

UPDATE #2: A reader of this blog alerted me to two other commercial options for shallow DOF. One is the M2 -- AKA the Micro35 -- from RedRock. Another is from Dan Diaconu.

UPDATE #3: Yet another one... this time with instructions in PDF format.

Japanese Manufacturing Techniques?

I've taught various aspects of filmmaking on and off for nearly ten years, and in this time I've seen a number of student filmmakers excitedly adopt a nearly Fordist model of production when it comes time to make their "big student film." Where they once wrote, directed, edited, and shot, now one person writes, another directs, another shoots, etc. Naturally, sometimes this produces a better film since, as students, they are able to focus their developing skills in the areas where each student is most experienced. But I'm troubled when the approach seems to be adopted for no other reason than because the filmmakers think it's the way "real films" are made.

This is, of course, completely absurd. Movies like Tarnation or Primer, for example, aren't less "real" because they were cut on iMovie or lit by their writer-director-actor-editor.

And even if these students equate "real" movies with studio films they're not seeing the whole picture. While it's undoubtedly true that large, task-specific crews and creative personnel were used to make Hollywood films during the Classic era, times have changed. Even making films for a studio today doesn't mean that, by definition, a filmmaker can't exercise principles of self-reliance. Steven Soderbergh and Robert Rodriguez, for example, shoot and edit their own films. Are they the exception? Sure. But the fact that there are exceptions at all says something.

If these students were making cars instead of movies would they consider Japanese manufacturing techniques any less legitimate than Detroit's way of doing things? This summer in the library I ran across Richard Schonberger's Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity. Not being someone who's studied logistics and transportation most of the book was over my head. Still, reading about Kanban and Just-in-Time was fascinating.

One thing that caught my eye was a breakdown of production line techniques, which I photocopied before returning the book. Here's an excerpt:

Western Japanese
Top priority: Line Balance Top priority: Flexibility
Strategy: Stability - long production runs so that the need to rebalance seldom occurs. Strategy: Flexibility - expect to rebalance often to match output to changing demand.
Assume fixed labor assignments. Flexible labor: Move to the problems or to where the current workload is.
Need sophisticated analysis to evaluate and cull many options. Need human ingenuity to provide flexibility and ways around bottlenecks.
Planned by staff. Foreman may lead design effort and will adjust plan as needed.
Plan to run at fixed rate; send quality problems off line. Slow for quality problems; speed up when quality is right.
Conveyoritized material involvement is desireable. Put stations close together and avoid conveyors.
Buy "supermachines" and keep them busy. Make (or buy) small machines; add more as needed.
Run mixed models where labor content is similar from model to model. Strive for mixed-model production, even in subassembly and fabrication.

Obviously the metaphor isn't perfect. Both the Japanese and Western models are trying to produce identical versions of automobiles (i.e., what's under the hood of one 2006 Camry should be pretty much like the next) while, on the other hand, even the most "Fordist" studio approach still tries to produce different films (even if they're only nominally different, like Miss Congeniality and Miss Congeniality 2). Still, looking at it again, I think the Japanese approach has some relevance to the project of this blog: Ingenuity, a "foreman" that also leads the design effort, reliance on small machines. These are hallmarks of self-reliant filmmaking. Finally, in spite of all the above I've written, I should mention that I like some of Ford's ideas. After all, he's the guy that believed that factory workers should be paid enough to be able to purchase the good they were producing. That's one idea that, sadly, in this age of global "outsourcing", again sounds quaint and unconventional.

Sundance: Then and Now

The other day I ran across a scanned-in copy of the first Sundance Film Festival program. It's from 1978, when the festival was called the Utah/USA film festival. Since Sundance is announcing its 2006 lineup this week, I thought it would be interesting to look back to that first year.

Of the twenty-five films submitted in the "Regional Cinema" section (that is, the independent film competition), eight were screened:

Bushman (David Schickele)

Girlfriends (Claudia Weill)

Local Color (Mark Rappaport)

Martin (George A. Romero)

The Whole Shootin' Match (Eagle Pennel)

Property (Penny Allen)

Johnny Vik (Charles Naumann)

Not a Pretty Picture (Martha Coolidge)

Regional filmmaking was part of the original festival's mission; it was synonymous with independent film. Bushman was made in San Francisco, and Girlfriends, Local Color, and Not a Pretty Picture are New York movies, but the other four are from around the country: Pittsburgh, Austin, Portland, and Custer, South Dakota. And the ones that weren't accepted are from all over, too. Those nineteen came from: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Wow. Very cool.

What's uncool? They're all depressingly unavailable. Today, of the competition films, only Martin is available on DVD The Rappaport and Weill movies were available on VHS years ago, but are out of print. The program descriptions sound compelling, so it's sad that these movies aren't popularly available, especially considering they're part of the heritage of American independent film.

Oh yeah. One last thing: Of the reject films, one was Robert M. Young's Alambrista, which had won the Camera d'Or earlier that year at Cannes. The other was this gem of self-reliant filmmaking, which was shot over five years.

UPDATE: June 14, 2009:

Property is now being self-distributed on DVD by Penny Allen.

The Whole Shootin Match was recently released on DVD by Watchmaker Films.