DVX-100 modification for uncompressed video

Rob Travis has alerted me to the Andromeda Data Acquistion System, which modifies a Panasonic DVX-100 to allow for capture of "4:4:4 10bit RGB Uncompressed output." Assuming you already own a DVX-100, it costs $3000, which includes the software needed to do the capture. You can read more about it at the Reel Stream website. Andromeda says they're considering offering this modification for other cameras. Needless to say, such a thing for the HVX-200 could be outstanding. Imagine: True 24P 4:4:4 10bit RGB Uncompressed HD.... for less than $10K....

Sorry. Back to reality. Some quick thoughts:

- $6000 ($3000 for Andromeda + $3000 for DVX100B at street prices) gets you uncompressed 4:4:4 24p in standard def. (See comments.)

- $6000 can get you a Panasonic HVX200 without P2 cards. No P2 cards means you're just using the HVX as a standard def camera. But you can invest down the road in P2 to get HD in true 24p.

- $9000 gets you a Canon XL-H1, which is HD. It can do uncompressed 4:2:2 via its HD-SDI output.... but it doesn't have true 24p.

The question for a lot of owners of the DVX-100 will be: Do I spend the cash on modifying my camera, or do I move up to something else?

Personally, if I had a DVX-100, I'd at least consider the Andromeda upgrade. All of the currently available under-$10K HD cameras are a mixed bag (at best), plus delivery of HD content is a big question mark (what with the HD vs. Blu-ray format war) anyway. Making a small upgrade investment in SD in the interim could be a smart move. Then again, I'm saying all of this speculatively since I've not seen anything except the tests on Andromeda's website.

Self-Reliant Film Contest!

Since I put up this site, a few people have sent me emails asking "What would be in the self-reliant film canon?" I've thought about writing a post in response, but have resisted because a) I'm not the Pope of self-reliant film, defining what does and doesn't fit the label, and b) it's more fun for people to set their own canons. Or maybe it's because c) I fear that I could spend days writing such a post and never be satisfied with it. Anyway, I want to do some reconfiguring of the SRF website over the next month or so and this morning I was toying around with a new banner. While it's not exactly a "canon" of self-reliant films, it's, well, something.

After finishing it and putting it up on the site I've immediately decided it's far too busy. I'll take it down soon, but I thought it would be fun to keep the thing up, at least for a week or so, to see if anyone can name all the movies it contains.

The first person to successfully name all 33 images will receive a DVD, on me, of any one film from the banner. (Note: Not all images are from films currently available on DVD.) I don't have a ton of time to spend on this, so this "contest" runs for one week only... if no one names them all, then there won't be a winner the person with the most correct answers (20 minimum) wins.

Good luck!

ADDENDUM: Click here if you want to see the banner without the text.

Fair Use, Pt II: Ctr for Social Media

Agnes Varnum from the Center for Social Media has reminded me of another important resource for filmmakers dealing with issues of public domain, copyright, and fair use. It's the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. Download it here. Agnes describes the Statement as "a short handbook that articulates certain circumstances in documentary making when it is appropriate to claim fair use for copyrighted material."

In her comment on this blog, Agnes adds, "I'm going to be at several fests over the next few months on panels about the issue and helping doc makers understand how to make better use of fair use. It's a small step, but an important one. We already have a lot of movement on the gatekeeper side to adopt the principles at work in the handbook."

She'll be at the Nashville Film Festival (one of my favorites) in April. Check out Agnes' blog, in addition to the Center's website, for more info and other dates.

Open Letter to An Entertainment Marketing Firm

Dear (name withheld): I have recently received multiple emails from you asking me to promote a new television series, which features beautiful young people touring an exotic location with cameras rolling.

When I received your first email, which offered me content from the series so that I could cover it on my website I thought, obviously, you had emailed the wrong person. I chose not to reply. Now you've emailed a second time, again asking me to promote your show, so I thought I'd at least let you know why I didn't write back the first time.

Though this website may, at times, promote films, books, and the like, I choose these works myself; they're not suggested to me by press releases.

Furthermore, the works I discuss are often critically or popularly neglected. I aim to bring more attention to them by writing about them. Your show, which will receive loads of promotion on television, does not need my voice.

Finally, if you had read the reasons I started this website, you would know that this website is not meant to be a shill for "reality entertainment" in which corporate-sponsored American twenty-somethings tour the globe, as the press release states, to "broaden cultural awareness." Robert Flaherty, a pioneer of self-reliant filmmaking, typically spent a year or more in the location where he was going to make a documentary before he ever picked up a camera. Now that's cultural awareness.

Last but not least, my name is Paul. Not Pharrell.

Nunez's Coastlines to get IFC treatment

IndieWIRE reports that IFC's First Take distribution program has picked up two more films, including one I've been wanting to see for some time: Victor Nunez's Coastlines. As a budding filmmaker growing up in Knoxville, the mere existence of Victor Nunez -- a guy who has made films in his native Florida since the 70s -- was inspiring. I've followed his career for years, and I was disappointed when Coastlines, after premiering at Sundance in 2002, just sort of disappeared. No theatrical distribution. No video release. Nothing.

All this was surprising, too, since Nunez earned a lot of acclaim for Ruby in Paradise, which launched Ashley Judd's career, and Ulee's Gold, which brought Peter Fonda an Oscar nomination. Though those are worth checking out, A Flash of Green, a real sleeper of a movie with Ed Harris playing an investigative reporter, might be Nunez's best. Of course, you'll have to dig around to find a copy; it's been out of print on VHS for years.

Anyway, it's nice to hear that I'll have a chance to finally see Coastlines. If you're new to Nunez and his work, check out this fine article written by Anthony Kaufman around the time of the film's production.

Free Comic for Filmmakers

A reader of this blog (thanks, Jon) alerted me to one of the coolest works of edutainment I've seen in a long, long time. The work in question is Tales from the Public Domain: Bound By Law?, and it's a graphic novel (published by Duke University's Center for the Study of Public Domain) that explores and explains copyright, "fair use", licensing and other tricky, sticky issues that inevitably arise when you're making a documentary. If those topics usually make your eyes glaze over, look no further. Granted, as a graphic novel, Bound by Law's anecdotes about licensing problems in docs like Sing Faster and Mad Hot Ballroom can't compete with the storylines of, say, V for Vendetta or Watchmen, but I was genuinely impressed with the quality of the art and writing. Plus, how many other graphic novels are going to help save you money and keep you out of court when you make your next documentary?

The cost? A mere $5.95 for the book, or free as a digital copy.

Evolve or Die: Nonprofits in the Time of Cyberspace

Brian Newman's "first person" piece on indiewire is worth a read. In the essay, Brian asks some tough questions about non-profit organizations (like AIVF) set up to support filmmakers. Below are some excerpts, which I hope will encourage you to read the whole thing:

What filmmakers... need are a community in which to connect, advocacy for policies that affect them, good information they can use, money to make their work, and new ways to distribute it. These can all be found or developed online, and these centers haven't made the shift. When people try to save AIVF, they are really trying to save the concept of the organization, because these organizations often stopped serving their members real needs long ago....

And later:

...If you want any of these organizations to survive, get involved now -- whether through money or just ideas, because otherwise I predict 2006 will be the end of the nonprofit media movement; and if it dies, our culture and our society will be worse for it.

Brian's most recent blog posting about having an impact with film is a nice companion piece to the indiewire essay.

DVD Roundup #3

Chacal De NahueltoroOf all the works of Third Cinema I have seen, this is one of the most brutal and poetic. Miguel Littin's film -- Chile's first feature -- concerns the life and eventual death of an illiterate man who murders a widow and her five children when drunk. I've only seen the film once -- thirteen years ago in a course in Latin American cinema (taught by Christine Holmlund). The film has been unavailable for years -- I've searched for it on vhs and, later, DVD, all to no avail. Recently I found a bootlegger who was going to score it for me... when he ran across this, its first appearance on video. For me this is the most exciting DVD release to-date this year.

Country Blue The Tallahassee Film Society has recently released Jack Conrad's "groundbreaking saga of crime and punishment in the rural South." While the film is pretty standard sub-Corman drive-in fare on one level (car chases, T&A, etc), its status as an early (1973) stab at Southern cinema might make it a curio of interest to historians of independent and/or regional film. Film critic Mark Hinson's introduction does a nice job of providing a historical context and some enjoyable trivia about the movie. Legendary soundman Richard Portman worked on the film and provides audio commentary with mixed results -- his interviewer repeatedly interrupts him. Transfer quality is well below average, but this might be the best we can hope to get from a regional film of this era. You can read more about the production history here.

November Depending on the circles you run in, this film's primary claim to fame is either a) that it stars Courtney Cox or b) that its Sundance award-winning cinematography was done with the Panasonic DVX-100A. If you have an interest in digital cinematography, it's worth a look -- both because there are some great images, and also because it's instructive to see that venerable camera pushed past its limiations. Ultimately, I enjoyed the movie more by listening to the commentary by DP Nancy Schreiber and writer-director Greg Harrison. Courtney Cox has more range than her stint on TV would suggest, but if that's why you're here you might just rent this again.

Room to Dream: David Lynch and the Independent Filmmaker This is a promotional DVD put out by DigiDesign touting Avid non-linear editors. What sets it apart from other corporate propaganda is that the chief touter is David Lynch. Mainly, Lynch talks about how his filmmaking has been revolutionized by using DV, and there's quite a bit of behind-the-scenes footage of Lynch shooting with a PD-170 (or 150). Lynch is famously tight-lipped about his films and working methods, so it's intriguing to see him at work, even if the scene being filmed is, as David Lowery notes, a stinker. What Lynch has to say about the filmmaking process itself isn't nearly as weird, hallucinatory, or eye-opening as his movies can be. Indeed, the oddest thing about the DVD is the soft sell, at least for infotainment: The pitch for Avid products doesn't come until very late in the program, and even then it can be skipped. Now, that's surreal. Click here for a free copy.

Fresh and Local: Part II

After I made the "fresh and local" post late last month, I found myself thinking back to a paper that Sara Zia Ebrahimi, a graduate student in the MFA program at Temple, wrote in my producing course last semester. In the paper, she proposes a co-operative filmmaking model based on Community Supported Agriculture programs. I appreciated her ability to draw productive analogies to a system that many independent filmmakers might overlook, so I asked her to share the paper, and she's generously agreed. Sara Zia points out that the paper is a work-in-progress. Eventually she might want to present the paper at a conference -- not to mention implement the ideas contained in the paper -- so she'd love to hear your comments and constructive criticism. Post here, or contact her through her site below.

Sara Zia's short The Achivements of Exile will screen as part of the Philadelphia Film Festival's "Festival of Independents" on Monday April 3, 7pm. Congrats!

Download the paper here.

Kodachrome

When I think backOn all the crap I learned in high school It's a wonder I can think at all And though my lack of education Hasn't hurt me none I can read the writing on the wall

And the writing on that wall says: Super-8 Kodachrome will soon be R.I.P.

[via OnSuper8.org]

AIVF : S.O.S.

I've been a member of the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers for years, and while my membership has lapsed a few times, I've always come back to the fold because the resources they make available to their members have always been a great help. Now the tables are turned and AIVF needs help (i.e., money). Bad. They've let all but two full-time paid staff go. And my sources have told me that if AIVF doesn't raise some substantial cash (around $75,000) in the next few weeks the organization might be closing its doors for good.

Losing AIVF would be a major loss for the independent filmmaking community so, before I elaborate on the details, here's the link for donating:

CLICK TO HELP

Now for the details...

First, if you're new to independent filmmaking, AIVF is the organization behind The Independent, one of the few magazines for filmmakers. Its back pages -- listings of calls for work and funding opportunities -- are a great resource. Besides publishing The Independent, AIVF sponsors lectures and discussions, has a resource library, and provides its members with discounts (on things like insurance, car rentals, and legal services).

Anyway, when I heard about the crisis I wondered why things had gotten to this point, and how AIVF is solving the problem?

I've been asking around, and here's what I've been able to find out:

How has it gotten to this point? As anyone who's worked in the non-profit sector can tell you, a Board of Directors is often loaded with wealthy supporters of the organization. These individuals help support it directly (i.e., give money) and/or support it by raising money for the organization. Well, AIVF is in trouble because most people on the BoD are filmmakers. Independent filmmakers. That is to say, they don't have money. And if they're able to raise money, they're raising it for their own projects. Hey, I don't blame them -- but you can see how this has turned into a problem.

What are they doing to solve the problem? First, a Transitional Board of Directors has been set up. Assuming enough money is raised to get them through the crisis, they will implement a strategy that is laid out in their recent Open Letter to the AIVF Community. (Sorry, can't seem to find this on their website, but it's in the most current issue of The Independent. If you go to the current AIVF splash page you will get the gist of it.)

In addition to the changes proposed in the letter, it looks like a new mostly non-filmmaker Board of Directors (read: people connected to money) will be assembled. Simultaneously, a "Members Action Force" (or something like it) will be created. This sounds as if it will be like the Board of old -- they'll mostly be filmmakers and they'll make sure AIVF is serving its members by staying true to its mission. These sound like smart decisions that will make AIVF a more stable and better-organized, um, organization.

 

**

So what can you do to help? Well, they need money, so give money if you can, even if it's only like $10 or $20. If you're not a member, join. If you can't donate money, at least spread the word to some people you know that do have money. More than anything, if this concerns you, spread the word.

I am the first to admit that neither AIVF, nor The Independent, is perfect. I have occassionally griped to AIVF that its New York members get more attention, when the media-makers that need the most assistance are those that are working regionally. They've been listening, though. I've heard some of their plans for making it a truly national organization, and I'm convinced they're taking the right steps. But they have to make it through the next few weeks first.

I want to see that happen, so I'm chipping in $100. That's not a lot, but it's what I can give and I definitely owe them one. I first read about the Aperture Film Grant in The Independent and, without the Aperture grant, Gina, An Actress, Age 29 would have been a very different, and probably poorer (literally), production. Instead, I made the film I set out to make, and some nice things happened with it. In a way, it all started with AIVF.

So consider helping them out by joining, re-joining, or giving a much-needed donation. If there are changes you'd like to see, now's a good time to let them know. I encourage you to do it while you're handing them a check. Think it over.

Tax Tips

While everyone else was in Austin for the launch of South by Southwest last week, I was traveling through Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina. You might call it South by Southeast. I have lots to report -- professional developments, an interview with the guy behind one of my new favorite films of the past couple of years, and other good stuff -- but I'm not letting myself write about this stuff until I do my taxes. Ugh. So, in the interests of procrastination, I have decided to share some tax tips.

Trust me, I know hardly anything about taxes, but I find that the little I know is still more than many of my filmmaker friends. In the interests of getting back a decently-sized (and entirely legal) refund from Uncle Sam, I stopped filing 1040's and started learning about hardcore X-treme tax filing in 1999. I've never looked back.

NOTE: As should be painfully clear, I'm not a professional tax advisor. This is just one idiot's piece of advice, so all the legal disclaimers apply. If you end up getting audited or, worse, sharing a cell in the slammer with Kenneth Lay it is not my fault.

Step 1: Choose your path.

The way I see it, the path towards filing taxes as an artist is either a) learn the US tax code intimately or b) find an accountant. If, like me, you choose "B", move to Step 2. If "A" is more appealing, you are even more self-reliantly inclined than I am. I encourage you to consider a career as a CPA.

Step 2: Find a good accountant.

Not just any accountant will do. You should hunt around for one that meets your specific needs. Start by asking your artist friends (filmmakers or otherwise) if they have an accountant. See who's happy with theirs, and what the accountant is charging. If you can get a few names, it makes sense to interview them. What you're looking for:

Honesty: This is priority one. You want this person to save you money, but not at the risk of going to jail. You don't even want to be audited. Repeat: This is priority one.

Experience with artists: You want someone who understands your expenses, your income, and your (potential) deductions. The accountant doesn't have to have experience with filmmakers. If they do work for painters, musicians, and so on, that's probably fine.

Local: You don't have to live in the same city as this person, but it probably makes sense to live in the same state since you want someone that understands your state tax code (if your state collects income tax) as well as the federal tax code.

Affordable: Some friends in New York have accountants that charge around $500. That might be the going rate in New York, but I can say that my Pennsylvania-based accountant -- who, it must be said, is a god among men -- charges quite a bit less.

Step 3: Learn from (and obey) your accountant.
Once you choose an accountant, you should have a nice, long conversation about two topics.

First, you need to learn about what sorts of records s/he wants you to keep. Equipment and software purchases, for example, are an obvious filmmaking-related deduction. So is filmmaking-related travel. So get the full list from your accountant about what is and isn't kosher. I have a good idea of this stuff, but I'm not going to tell you because you should hear it from a professional.

Secondly, you should ask the accountant how he or she prefers you to keep those records. Basically, the idea here is that YOU keep the records and then THEY figure out how to organize those records into a tax filing. (If they're keeping your records for you, well, you can expect to pay a lot more.) Different accountants will ask you to do different things in terms of itemizing your expenses, your income, and so on. Some might want Quicken files, some might want an itemized list in Excel. You get the picture. Figure out the simplest solution that works for both of you, and make sure you ask about anything that confuses you.

Step 4: Keep the accountant happy.

Since you're now outsourcing the work to someone else, remember that you can't wait until April 15 to get your papers in order. Get all your stuff together in February, or early March at the latest so that your accountant can get everything done in time. Remember, if they're a good accountant, they're going to be SLAMMED in March and April because they're doing taxes for dozens if not hundreds of people. Keep the accountant happy: They're working for you, and they're working with your money.

***

A final tip: This tip was passed along by my accountant, and I'm passing it along to you.

One way to keep record-keeping fairly simple is to charge all of your film-related expenses to a single credit card. This serves a dual function as long as you pay off the bill at the end of each month. First, charging and paying off each month helps builds up your credit rating. Secondly, since your monthly credit card statements serve as an itemization of your film-related expeneses going through those records and elaborating on them at the end of the year could conceiveably constitute the bulk of your tax preparation. Cool!

Ok. Enough procrastinating. Time to dig out the files.

Sony HVR-Z1U: First impressions

I've been traveling a lot lately. More on this later. But to get the posts started up again, here's a quickie summary of my first impressions of the Sony HVR-Z1U, which I did some shooting with last week (documentary footage of homing pigeons).

Remember, these are first impressions. I had about three hours to prep on it without a manual, and then I spent about four hours shooting with it. I would have liked to prep with a manual, but Sony doesn't have a manual posted on its resource site. I'm open to hearing defenses of the camera, but don't blame me for knocking it when Sony doesn't even share documentation with potential users of its cameras. I searched for more than a couple of hours on Sony sites and discussion boards for a manual, to no avail. But one is online, apparently. Good to know. See comments section for more on this.

Frame modes:

Cineframe: This is the "fake 24p" mode. It looks ok on a small screen, but the same images projected ranged from fair to embarrassingly unusable, depending on the amount of motion. I would avoid this mode. I've since talked with some other filmmakers that have used this camera -- their first impressions matched mine.

30: This is a simulation of 30 progressive frames. As far as the look, like true 30p, it kind of splits the difference between the "video" look of 60i and the cineframe mode -- not too "filmy" not too "video-y". It has that HD "smear" that everyone discusses. There are ways to get rid of this (jacking up the shutter speed), but if you're in low light situations (I wasn't) I imagine this might be a problem. Some people have told me, also, that looking at this stuff on an HD monitor solves some of the smear problem. Can't testify to that (yet), but the fact remains that people will be watching things on standard def TVs for some time to come. For what it's worth, I chose to shoot in this mode, and in broad daylight I got pleasing results.

60i: This is probably, on first glance, everyone's least favorite mode since it has the "video" look that most filmmakers (or "make-video-look-like-film-filmmakers") despise. In truth, this is the mode that I trusted the most. It says it's 60i, and that's what it really is. It's like a PD-150, but in HD resolution, which is to say that, for what it is, it's great.

Menus: Definitely passable. At times they're intuitive, at times not.

Sound quality: Good quality when recording from XLR. The downside is that you must choose between using either the XLR or on the board mic, which is dumb. Why can't you split one and one? Also, I didn't like the XLR inputs being on the right side of the camera. It makes more sense when they're centered so that the sound person can be on either side of the camera without getting into a tangle with cords.

Colors: Really terrific. This is where I saw the biggest positive difference between HDV and DV.

Focus: As many a person has pointed out, HD focus is critical since you're dealing with more resolution. Unfortunately, your viewfinder isn't really as helpful as when shooting SD because it's so hard to judge focus this critical on a tiny flip out viewscreen. You really want to judge focus on an external monitor. This fact makes an HD or HDV camcorder more suited to shooting in situations that are controllable (e.g., narrative and documentary interviews) instead of uncontrollable ones (e.g., observational documentary and improvised narrative).

Conclusions: This brings me to the central dilemma of this camera: This camera's best mode is 60i, which most people associate with documentary. Yet, unless you're shooting in broad daylight where you have nearly unlimited depth of field (as I was), focus could be tough -- I would not want to be shooting run-and-gun in low-light with this thing. Alternately, a monitor's no problem in a controlled environment like a narrative shoot, but I probably wouldn't use the cineframe mode, no matter what. So I don't know when I would choose to use this camera over some other ones out on the market right now.

All of this should be taken with a grain of salt. As I said, I was working without a manual, and these are first impressions. But I blame Sony for some of this as they don't have a manual of the Z1U online and I think that's pretty inexcusable. If you want people to use a sophisticated piece of technology to the best advantage, you have to help them know what it can do.

ADDENDUM: See Nick's comments below -- Sony does have a manual online. Don't know when this was posted (I was looking for it on March 3 or so).

Small Format Magazine

Just read a posting on OnSuper8 about Small Format magazine, which hails from Germany. Looks interesting by what I can tell from the two articles they have posted online. Having said that, at $79 (US) for 6 issues it makes me think that either I'm clueless to what it costs to put out a magazine these days, or the US dollar is itself awfully "small format."

Notes Towards a Macrocinema Distribution Circuit

My post from a few days ago, in which I proposed a "microcinema circuit," generated some interesting and inspired discussion. Based on the comments to that post, as well as the conversations I've had with some of you via email, I found myself drafting some rough notes towards such a circuit. I think a good name for this is Macrocinema. Instead of writing up a nicely organized blog essay from my notes, I thought I would simply post them raw (or at least medium rare) since the point is not to generate movement from these notes, but to generate discussion and debate, which then generates action.

Harrill's Rough Notes for Building a Macrocinema Circuit

1) Gather information

The first step is to locate all possible non-theatrical screening venues: microcinemas, film societies (like Austin Film Society, Bryn Mawr Film Society, etc). and anyplace else that screens films (ir)regularly.

Anyone who wants to help do this work is welcome. (I would imagine it'd be a mix of filmmakers and microcinema gurus.) Hopefully five or ten people could get involved at this stage. Might be helpful if one or two people doing this work had some sort of institutional (non-profit, foundation, or university) support too. Could help take care of any (probably minor) costs associated with this. This is not essential - most of the first steps of this process could be done electronically (i.e., freely - no paper, no postage, etc). Any institutional support would need to simply be that, support. Not support as a means towards ownership.

Start info-gathering with these:

    - Microcinema Map at Wayfaring. - Academic Venues via The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - Can't believe AMPAS actually has something helpful for indies on their website! - Flicker listing #1 and Flicker listing #2

AIVF should have this stuff on their website, too. I can't find it. Where is it? And Film Arts Foundation used to publish the AEIOU (alternative exhibition index of the universe) guide. Is that on their site? I'm not a member, so I don't know.

Austin Film Society, for example, isn't listed on the above sites, so make sure you really dig to find all the cinemas that need to be contacted.

2) Contact venues

Collect venue information:

    - venue size - how often they screen - how many shows/dates/weeks/whatever they're interested/able to book self- or semi-self-distributed work - genres they show - how shows are promoted - how much they charge - how much of the door they can offer / how much they can offer if FILMMAKER ATTENDS - projection formats - etc - what am I leaving out?

Also: Find out who's interested in a circuit. Not all will be.

3) Analyze and Compile Data...

Compiling them all makes a nice "book" (really a pdf file we can circulate) for all parties interested. Much like the old and out of print (I think) AEIOU (Alternative Exhibition Index Of the Universe) guide that I had back in the late 90s.

"Analysis" means this: See who's out there, where they are, which venues are the most stable/strongest (see next point). In essence, look at the dots before you start to connect them.

4) Build Alliances

It's a matter of connecting the dots on the maps and getting these people to talk.

Regional alliances first. Maybe start with the most well-established microcinemas --- the ones that are the most stable. As we all know, venues like this can be in danger of dying -- sometimes if only one key organizer moves, or a venue space is lost, etc. Some, however, are stable and thriving. So start with them as the hubs. Then build out to the "spoke" venues surrounding them.

Regional "hub" approach makes it easier for the filmmaker to travel to the venues -- you do a "Southeast" region or a "Northwest" region. Then, at some later date, maybe you do the "Midwest" region hub and spokes.

5) Trial and Error

Let's see how this works, and how well it works with films of different genres. Do a number of trials. Trial runs should, well, TRY different thing. To see what sticks. Features. A package of short films. A documentary with two shorts. With filmmakers in attendance. Without filmmakers. Selling DVDs at venue day of show. Selling DVDs afterwards -- either at venue, one website, or some other way. And so on.

NB: I my notes I listed a few ideas about films that might be perfect for this, but I won't mention them here (yet) since I've not approached the makers.

6) Eventually, MAKE A SYSTEM of this (at least a little)

The aim is to make a system of this so the wheel doesn't have to be invented/reinvented several times by every filmmaker that wants to exhibit this way. Likewise, a system can make things easier for the managers of said microcinemas since they're usually doing this (like the filmmakers) in their spare time, for little/no financial reward, and out of a gut passion. The aim isn't just to generate more income for filmmakers/microcinemas, but also to help save everyone's precious time.

Having said all of this, any system should be a flexible system and, above all, one that grows organically out of the trial and error discussed above. Imposing a top-down system without experiments to see what works is just a bad idea.

One way the Macrocinema circuit could work is to take from the ITVS/Public TV exhibition model (but without the enormous corporate structure. All I mean by this is:

- The network [the MACROcinema] says, "We'll screen the film" - and it goes out to all participating cinemas, rolling out city by city (so the filmmaker can travel to venues)

- The different channels [MICROcinemas] that might autonomously say, "We'll take this one and this one" for the things that aren't going out to (picked up or offered to) the MACROcinema, for whatever reason.

End of notes.

**

These notes are incredibly incomplete, and anyone that has a lot of experience touring or running a microcinema will shoot holes in many of these ideas. That's okay. The point is to advance the dialogue. Like filmmaking, this is a process of creative problem solving.

New Blog Alert: SpringBoardMedia

Some of you may have noticed Brian Newman's comment yesterday on this website (down in the article on fests and microcinemas called "Fresh and Local"). Among the things he had to say was this:

Having run a film festival, I was always amazed at how many people used the festivals to find a distributor (and failed) instead of using it to find an audience. Festivals are generally poor, but we should start to develop systems that allow filmmakers to better use the festival tour as part of their distribution and to help them seel DVDs and maybe make a living.

It was a great surprise to hear from Brian. I first met him back when he ran the Atlanta Film and Video Festival. I haven't talked with him in a few years, but I really respected his taste and the way that festival was run.

Brian emailed me yesterday to say hello -- he's in New York now, and it turns out he recently started a blog, SpringBoardMedia. I've just spent a few minutes reading over the early posts. Wow. These are susbstantial thoughts on distribution, the future of film and video, and the issues facing film/video makers. It's great to read something written from his unique perspective -- he's in the non-profit sector and it's his job to help filmmakers.

The blog is young so, not surprisingly, it's thin on comments. I hope you'll check it out and give him some feedback on his ideas. I'll see you over there.

Fresh and Local: Some thoughts on "regional" film distribution

I've really enjoyed reading AJ Schnack's discussion of the True/False film festival over the past few days. It sounds like a great festival: large audiences of enthusiastic moviegoers, a strong lineup of films, and a venue that's quite special. What I found most interesting about AJ's discussion, though, was not the "text" (what a great festival this is!), but the subtext: this went down in in Columbia, Missouri and was started by "kids." True/False, to hear AJ tell it, is not a festival with major celebrity backers (Sundance, TriBeCa). It's not in a major American city (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago). It's not even held in a city with a sizable film community (SXSW). That's what makes reading about screenings with 1,200 in attendance so exciting.

And yet I was not surprised at all. In fact, all this only confirms my own experiences on the festival circuit. Audiences in the so-called "fly-over" states do care quite a bit about alternative cinema, thank you very much. As a farmer once said to me at a festival in Minneapolis: You do what I do: It's called "Fresh and local."

To take the discussion a step farther, the question for filmmakers is, How do you tap into this craving these under-served moviegoers have? How do you reach these audiences?

Festivals, certainly, are one way, but from a regional distribution standpoint, festivals are a mixed bag. Festivals obviously lend prestige to your work. They also have the potential to generate a lot of excitement and, as a result, turnout (like at True/False).

But, there are downsides: On the front end, there is no guarantee of a festival accepting your film. On the back end, while you might expose your film to, say, 1200 people, it's unlikely you have seen any income from even a sell-out screening since few festivals share a cut of the ticket sales with the filmmakers. (I don't blame festivals for this -- they're expensive to run and non-profit funding in the States is desperate. Period.) On top of the income issue, your core audience -- the people that went to see your film -- have now paid to see it once. There is going to be a lot of fall-off, especially in smaller cities, if you now try to four-wall or even sell DVDs after a successful festival screening.

Microcinemas, where they exist, are the logical alternative to reach said audiences. The question is: Can they generate the audiences that a well-programmed and managed festival can? Some can. Some can't.

What might work best is a kind of microcinema circuit. (For those of us interested in music industry-to-film industry analogies, I'm thinking along the lines of the circuits that jazz and folk musicians traveled in those genre's 50s-60s heyday.) Certainly microcinema programmers talk to one another now. There is a network. But I'm thinking of something a bit more organized, which capitalizes on the kind of collective publicity that festivals are able to generate, but without the large costs.

For all I know, something like this might already exist and I'm not aware of it. If so, let me know. I want to hear about it. If it doesn't, and there are interested parties out there, let's bring you people together and talk about how this would work.

If nothing else, hopefully AJ's write-up will spur filmmakers to look at more than just the "big name" festivals. A moviegoer is a moviegoer, no matter where they live. In many ways, it's the hungriest of audiences that are the most likely to savor your work.