Holiday simplifying, or: Paul's Junk Giveaway

I've been going through my house over the last few days trying to do my semi-seasonal purge of things I don't need. It's all part of the continual process of reducing the clutter (physical, mental, spiritual) in my life. Among the things I no longer need: An old copy of DVD Studio Pro 2 (install discs, manuals, box). I've upgraded to Final Cut Studio, so I have no use for it, but it seems like a waste to just throw it out and recycle the manuals. It's not the most up to date version, I assure you, but post a comment if you want it and I'll mail it to you, free of charge.

Here are the minimum system requirements, as found on Ken Stone's site:

Macintosh computer with PowerPC G4 processor (733 Mhz or faster). AGP graphics card with 8MB of video memory (32MB recommended) Mac OS X 10.2.6 QuickTime 6.3 256 MB of RAM (512MB recommended) 20GB of disk space DVD drive required for installation Apple SuperDrive or other DVD burner for writing finished projects (recommended)

***

While I'm at it, here are a couple of things I've been reading during my seasonal simplifying. Both are good reads during this season of "Buy! Buy! Buy!"

The venerable classic: Walden

A classic I just discovered: Richard Gregg's The Value of Voluntary Simplicity

Enjoy.

James Longley: SRF Interview

'You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,' he told the president. 'You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.' Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

-- from Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward

While the title of James Longley's mesmerizing new documentary, Iraq in Fragments, literally conjures images of the now-infamous "Pottery Barn rule", the connection runs much deeper than the title. Like Colin Powell's admonition to the president, James Longley's film actually considers the situation of the Iraqis. I say "actually" because, though it may seem like an obvious consideration, Iraq in Fragments is, to the best of my knowledge, the only American documentary about Iraq -- and this year has seen several of those -- that focuses solely on the citizens of that fractured nation

Divided into three discrete segments (hence the title's double-meaning), Iraq in Fragments first follows a fatherless 11 year old working in a Baghdad garage. The second section chronicles the growth of the militant followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. The film closes with a portrait of a family of Kurdish farmers. It's an illuminating approach, one that prevents it or us from making generalizations about how Iraq's citizens, have, and haven't, been transformed by the war. I imagine it will also help American audiences understand, at least a little, how American forces are viewed -- as occupiers by some, as liberators by others. Certainly, the time Longley spent with his subjects (well over a year, and 300+ hours shot) helps provide a perspective that's been absent from what we see on the nightly news.

While Iraq in Fragments would be noteworthy for its content, the film also happens to feature striking cinema verite cinematography and edgy editing, which gives the film a quality that is more poetry than prose. The style creates an impressionistic sketch of what it might feel like to be in Iraq, without (in my opinion) grossly aestheticizing the pain, rage, and hope he finds there.

The combination of style and substance has been met with critical praise. At Sundance, where it premiered, Longley took home honors for directing, editing, and cinematography -- a first for a single film. Since then its laurels include Best Documentary awards at major film festivals (Full Frame, Thessaloniki, and Chicago, among others), as well as a Gotham Award.

That Longley did most of the work (e.g., cinematography, editing, music, etc) single-handedly will make the film's achievement that much more impressive for some. Longley, though, suggests that working this way was precisely how he was able to achieve things.

We emailed back and forth last week, soon after Iraq in Fragments was short-listed for the Best Documentary Oscar.

***

You have "film school" training, but you chose to study in Russia. Can you talk a little about your training at the VGIK?

VGIK is a good school -- and it used to be even better back in the heyday of the Soviet Union. From my perspective in the early 1990s, it offered a chance to film inexpensively on 35mm. Also, there's a huge selection of 35mm prints playing at all hours in the 5-6 cinema screens in the main building -- so it's like attending a continuous film festival. Many of the professors are quite experienced and gifted, and the student body is talented. It was nice to have a different angle on filmmaking for a while -- something closer to Tarkovsky and Eisenstein than to Spielberg -- and to be surrounded with people who felt the same way. But most of all, it was a good chance to try my hand at making a documentary film under the difficult circumstances of a Moscow winter (Portrait of a Boy with Dog -- co-directed with Robin Hessman) and confirming that filmmaking was what I wanted to do with my life.

The director's "voice" is so strong in Iraq in Fragments -- through the poetic imagery and impressionistic editing -- but any political opinions you might have can only be inferred by audiences. This really sets it apart from a lot of other documentaries -- from the Michael Moore and Robert Greenwald (Outfoxed, etc) movies to less strident fare like An Inconvenient Truth. Still, I suspect that when you've screened the film for audiences at festivals people have asked you your opinions about Iraq. What do you tell them? Personally, I thought the Iraq war was a bad idea. But that's just my opinion, and everybody has opinions. With my film, I wanted to do something more than simply tell people what I think: I wanted to convey a broader sense of what was happening in Iraq during the two years I was there, and to put a human face on the country -- to let people experience the place a bit. I'm not sure whether I was ultimately successful, but I tried.

One of the most conspicuous decisions you've made -- one many critics have cited in their praise for the film, one of the things that distinguishes it from some other Iraq documentaries released this year -- is your choice to focus on Iraqis, not Americans. US soldiers only make very brief appearances, and none (to the best of my memory) ever speak. Likewise, I don't remember any contractors or Western journalists making appearances. Was that the plan from the beginning, or did you shoot footage documenting those perspectives, too?

My original goal was to make a film about Iraqis -- I tried to start this project before the war, but was unable to begin until after -- and when the war ended my goal hadn't changed. I knew that the perspective of US soldiers and even US journalists was already being recorded by other filmmakers, and I had no desire to duplicate their efforts. And in any case, I prefer to focus on under represented perspectives, of which the Iraqis' is certainly one. It's the harder film to make in many ways, but I think also the most important. After all, the Americans will eventually leave Iraq; the Iraqis will stay.

What interactions did you have with other Americans while there? Were you on the radar? Under the radar? Under the radar, I think. I didn't have a lot of interaction with US troops, mostly because I wasn't filming them and I almost never went onto US bases. I never went to the Green Zone, for example -- don't know what it looks like on the inside. A lot of my journalist/filmmaker friends spent at least part of their time in Iraq embedded with US troops, but I chose to stay outside the wire.

Like the military, you're clearly a Westerner and, though you weren't carrying a gun, you were carrying a video camera. Why or how do you think you were able to blend in like "furniture" as you say in your production notes? Was it just a matter of putting in the time, or were there other factors? It's mostly a matter of spending enough time and moving very patiently. I really didn't stand out as a Westerner -- with a beard and a suntan, many people thought I was from Iran when I was filming in Najaf. They would come up to me and start speaking in Farsi. But mostly I just took a lot of time to get to know people and know the location before doing a lot of filming work -- in all the places I filmed, I did weeks/months of prep work, letting locals get used to me. And I was just extremely lucky, also -- I came at the right time and left at the right time. And somehow I managed to walk between the raindrops.

Are you still in touch with your subjects, especially the kids in the first and last segments? I haven't been able to keep up with everyone; last time I heard from Mohammed Haithem he was working for his uncles in Baghdad. The Kurdish farming family is still in much the same situation as when I filmed them. The Sadr movement is famously contentious.

Has anyone that is in the movie seen it? If not, will there be any oppportunities for that? So far nobody in the film has seen it. It's very difficult to send packages to people in Iraq now, very difficult to move around even in a city like Baghdad, even for locals. Also, most people in Iraq don't have DVD players that they could watch the film with. Video CD has been the format of choice in Iraq for the last 10 years or so, and DVD is only just starting to appear in places like the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.

Did you have any reservations about screening the film publicly without screening it for your subjects first? Some documentarians consider this an essential part of their enterprise, while others argue that it can compromise the integrity of the piece. I have never screened documentary work for the subjects before releasing it to the public -- but that may be partly due to the specifics of what/where I'm filming. I'm not against the idea of showing the film to the subjects to get their reaction, certainly, but I also don't consider it a mandatory step. I film with people for such a long time that I become very confident of my portrayal by the end of it. I often showed the people in the film sections of material as I was filming in Iraq, but I've never had a chance to show them the completed work, thus far. It's not so easy to send a DVD to a house in Baghdad now, and even if I did -- they don't have DVD players.

HBO was involved with the project, as was the Sundance Institute. When and how did financing for the film come about? HBO acquired the TV rights to Iraq in Fragments in summer of 2006, after it was completed. They have been very helpful in promoting the release of the film, and I expect they will screen the film on Cinemax in 2007. I applied for a Sundance production grant while still filming in Iraq, and after going through several rounds of review with them, they came forward with a grant in autumn 2005. They were instrumental in the completion of the film, and also selected Iraq in Fragments for the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, which was the perfect place to premiere it.

The credits of both Iraq in Fragments and your previous film, Gaza Strip, list you as the producer, director, cinematographer, sound, music and editor. You seem to have willed both movies into existence virtually single-handedly. Do you like working this way, or is it more of a necessity? And, either way, what do you find it affords you, and are there things you feel you can't do on your own? It's partly necessity -- because I was using my own money to pay for the entire pre-production and production period of the film, and partly because I know what I like and I know how to use a camera. I like to make things, and it's not difficult for me. It's what I enjoy most. If you're working with other people, sometimes you'll put their needs before the filmmaking process -- I might not have filmed for two years in Iraq if I had been collaborating with another person full time from the start. Doing your own work lets you make fewer compromises in a difficult filming environment. That said, of course I did work with a lot of other people on the film -- there are about twelve different translators / fixers, and two other editors (Billy McMillin and Fiona Otway), John Sinno came on board to co-produce after production, etc -- so it is a collaborative process, but one in which I didn't ask other people to participate in the full two and a half years of pre-production and production. For that period, I simply brought on Iraqi translators in various locations in Iraq and worked with them as long as I was in their area. I never asked anyone to go through the whole journey along with me, because most people wouldn't have wanted to in the first place.

As you can probably guess from the name of this website, a lot of the people reading this are interested in self-sufficient filmmaking methods such as yours. Do you have any tips for them -- philosophical or technical? When filming with these small video cameras, always try to find a way to keep the iris wide open. Your material will look much better.

***

For more details on the production history of Iraq in Fragments, check out Longley's production notes. Also, Kimberly Reed's fine interview with Longley in DV Magazine goes into detail about the production process and provides specifics about the equipment used. The quality of Reed's article led me to avoid (for the most part) asking overlapping or similar questions in this interview, in fact.

Birthday #1

Emerson once said, "So much of our time is preparation, so much is routine, and so much retrospect, that the path of each man's genius contracts itself to a very few hours." I don't know about the "genius" part, but in the last 365 days since this site was started there have been 138 posts, 267 comments, and untold numbers of readers and, perhaps most importantly, new friends made.

Here's to Year Two!

Self-Reliant Film Store

I get a fair number of emails asking me to recommend this or that book, or asking what films constitute a "Self-Reliant Film canon" and so on. So I thought that I'd add a modest Amazon store so that I can simply point people towards books I recommend, movies I like (or want to see), and so on. You can access the store by clicking the link below and, after this post loses prominence, you can always access the store by clicking on the SRF Store in the menu bar at the top of the site, just under the banner.

Purchasing through the store will help offset the costs of server space, etc. so if you do purchase something, thanks a bunch!

Finally, if this feels crassly commercial, please note that the header of the SRF store says "Stuff to Buy or Borrow." Knowing what you need and don't need to buy are good principles of self-reliance. If you got some of these things from your local library or a friend I'm sure Thoreau and Emerson would be proud.

Click here to enter the SRF Store.

I'll be doing holiday stuff over the next week. When I return I'll be doing some posts related to a new film project of mine. Happy Thanksgiving!

A Swarm of Angels

Matt over at FresHDV had an interesting post the other day about A Swarm of Angels, which is a self-described attempt to create "cult cinema for the Internet era." On one level, this isn't that different than what I wrote about in my last post: Filmmakers using the internet to raise funds for a project that harnesses the collaborative nature and spirit of the internet. Still, some key differences make me skeptical about its potential for success, at least compared with a project like Lost in Light on Have Money Will Vlog:

First, instead of trying to raise $1500, they're trying to raise a little over half a million dollars. I have no doubt that it is possible to raise that kind of money over the internet, but this project is essentially asking people to pay about $18 to participate. Maybe that's reasonable? Personally, I would rather give money to a more personal project like Lost in Light

Secondly, the project is trying to enlist 1000 people to help create it. Again, I think you can find this many people to collaborate on a project. Firefox, Wikipedia... these are great examples of internet, open-source collaboration. But are 1000 heads better than one (or even 20) when it comes to feature filmmaking? Snakes on a Plane, as one previous example, isn't exactly Exhibit A for the so-called "wisdom of crowds."

Reservations aside, I'll be interested to see the project evolve and I wish the best of luck to the participants. All one thousand of you.

Lost in Light

A few weeks ago, in an effort to show my students some of the more interesting film and video work being created for the web I discovered Have Money Will Vlog. It's an ingenious site that helps media artists raise funds to produce their web-distributed videos and films. The project budgets are in the $2000 - $3000 range, and the donations are usually small -- $10, $20, and so on. Of course, that money adds up when you consider all the people online. You get what you pay for, too. The work you'll find on HMWV is about, oh, a zillion times better than anything you'll see on YouTube or Google Video. (Unless, of course, you have some predilection for watching pre-teens doing karaoke in front of their webcams.)

Anyway, if you've not yet run across Have Money Will Vlog, now is a particularly good time to check out the site (and to dig in your pocket for some loose change) because funds are currently being raised for a project by Jennifer Proctor and Aaron Valdez, two Iowa City filmmakers. The project is called Lost in Light and, in Jennifer's words (via email) the project is "devoted to preserving, archiving, and making available 8mm and Super 8 films that are otherwise being lost to time."

In fact, as they state on the Lost in Light websites (HMWV site, official site), "we will provide free Super 8 and 8mm to video transfers to anyone who asks, in exchange for posting their video to the Lost in Light site and on the Internet Archive with their choice of Creative Commons licenses. In addition, Lost in Light will include articles and features by members of the filmmaking and film preservation communities, video tutorials for making 8mm films, as well as creative work, all with the goal of preserving and championing this important film format."

So, send them your Super-8 and 8mm films. And send them some $ while you're at it.

Online Viewing Tip: UbuWeb Films

If you're at all interested in avant-garde cinema or video art, you need to check out Ubu Films, which features works, both rare and well-known, by everyone from Vito Acconci to Agnes Varda. In a perfect world, YouTube would look more like this. Of course, if you're aghast at the idea of watching experimental films on your computer monitor, consider this justification from the Ubu website:

UbuWeb is pleased to present dozens of avant-garde films & videos for your viewing pleasure. However, it is important to us that you realize that what you will see is in no way comparable to the experience of seeing these gems as they were intended to be seen: in a dark room, on a large screen, with a good sound system and, most importantly, with a roomful of warm, like-minded bodies.

However, we realize that the real thing isn't very easy to get to. Most of us don't live anywhere near theatres that show this kind of fare and very few of us can afford the hefty rental fees, not to mention the cumbersome equipment, to show these films. Thankfully, there is the internet which allows you to get a whiff of these films regardless of your geographical location.

We realize that the films we are presenting are of poor quality. It's not a bad thing; in fact, the best thing that can happen is that seeing a crummy .avi will make you want to make a trip to New York to the Anthology Film Archives or the Lux Cinema in London (or other places around the world showing similar fare). Next best case scenario will be that you will be enticed to purchase a high quality DVD from the noble folks trying to get these works out into the world. Believe me, they're not doing it for the money.

Well said. Now, go check it out...

UPDATE (May 12, 2016): If you do get turned onto Vito Acconci's work (or were already a fan), check out his Artsy page, which an alert reader just pointed us towards.

Gotham Award Nominees

IndieWire has a story on the Gotham Award nominees. Eugene Hernandez clearly seems nonplussed by at least a few of the selections, stating that it's "a selection of films that may stun some observers" and then reporting that indieWire asked IFP Executive Director Michelle Byrd to "reiterate the criteria" for nomination. While I respect indieWire's attempt at so-called "objective" journalism, wouldn't it be so much more interesting for them to just come out and say what they really think instead of having us read between the lines? Hm. Perhaps an editorial is in the works?

Clearly, of the five nominees for Best Feature, a couple, maybe even three, seem out of place. Of course, which two or three depends on your definition of "independent film."

There will probably not be any disputes over the "indie cred" of the "Best Film Not Playing at a Theater Near You" nominees: Steve Barron's "Choking Man," Richard Wong's "Colma: The Musical," So Yong Kim's "In Between Days," Jake Clennell's "The Great Happiness Space: Tale of an Osaka Love Thief," and Goran Dukic's "Wristcutters: A Love Story." Congrats to the nominees.

UPDATE: IndieWire gets response from the indie (and indiewood) community and finds lots of questions and criticism.

Review: 51 Birch Street

Doug Block's 51 Birch Street opens today at Cinema Village in New York. The film has really been tearing up the festival circuit, and now Block is semi-self-distributing the film via Truly Indie, the distribution service brainchild of Mark Cuban and Todd Wagner. The film is being billed, not incorrectly, as a documentary mystery: Just a few months after Doug's mother dies, Doug's father suddenly announces that he's engaged to his former secretary. It's not long before Doug finds himself at their wedding, awkwardly toasting the new couple. At the reception his father, the groom, is a different man. What's the story? Was his father unfaithful? Was his parents' seemingly happy marriage a sham? Doug starts asking questions and the more the detective digs, the more uncertain he is he wants to know the truth.

On one level, 51 Birch Street is a well-made, if somewhat conventional, autobiographical documentary. Block's conflicts with his father reminded me of Alan Berliner's Nobody's Business and, though it's unfair to compare the two, I do wish that 51 Birch Street had some more stylistic flair. The visuals rarely transcend the plain, home-movie look so common to video, and Block's voice-over sometimes explains more than is necessary.

But the movie is about looking beneath the surface, and on that meaningful score 51 Birch Street succeeds. Block shows us a seemingly stable marriage, then peels back layer after layer until he discovers the heartbreaking truths of two unfulfilled lives and the relationship they both outlived, but never abandoned. Implicit throughout is a critique of blind allegiance to "family values": What good is a golden-anniversary marriage, if it's stale, maybe even dead, at its core? The comparison to Updike (as at least one reviewer has made) is apt: This couple could have lived at 51 Birch Street. Or in your suburban neighborhood. Or maybe in your own home.

51 Birch Street makes an impact. I've thought about it every day since I saw it well over a week ago.

Check it out for yourself at a screening in your area.

David Lynch self-distributing Inland Empire

David Lynch has decided to self-distribute his new film, Inland Empire. The Hollywood Reporter has the story. Says THR:

After a flurry of rumors pointing to just about every indie studio in the business, director David Lynch has worked out a deal with French producers Studio Canal to self-distribute his three-hour epic digital video feature "Inland Empire," in the U.S. and Canada. Producer Mary Sweeney said the plan will "explore a new model of distribution."

Lynch will work with well-known theatrical and home video partners to launch his epic fever dream of a film, retaining all rights to the low-budget project in each service deal. The partnerships will be announced within the next week.

If you've read any of the press about this movie so far, you already know it's a labor of love for Lynch. He shot it on DV over two and a half years; he says he's never going back to film. To me, DIY distribution is a logical next step. What makes this noteworthy is DIY is so often associated with younger filmmakers trying to "break in." Here we have an older, established filmmaker going back to basics.

Of course, some will say that Lynch's decision to self-distribute is simply a response to the fact he didn't receive any offers, or good offers, from major distributors. I have no idea if Lynch did or didn't get offers but, even if that's true, one shouldn't take that as an indication of quality: Should we be surprised, especially in today's climate, that this film scares off distributors? Lynch has never made blockbusters, this film is 3 hours long, and it's reportedly one of his most impenetrable movies (and that's saying something).

Self-distribution (or brokered self-distribution, like IFC's First Take or Truly Indie) is, more and more, the way that the real labors of love reach audiences these days. Is it surprising, then, that Inland Empire is any different? Yes, a little. But that makes me that much more interested.

Until we hear more about how the release will unfold, you can watch Lynch, and IE stars Laura Dern and Justin Theroux, on YouTube doing Q&A at the New York Film Festival. More indieWire coverage here. The reviews from NYFF and Venice have already begun.

And, speaking of getting back to basics, here's an amusing review from the past.

Screenwriting Software

Lately I've been working on some rewrites of a short script, and I find myself dividing my time between two different screenwriting applications. I'm not sure if I'm transitioning from the old (Final Draft) to the new (Celtx), or if I'm just trying to choose between the lesser of two frustrating applications. This post is intended as a kind of sketch of what I've been encountering over the last few days in hopes that some readers might contribute some comments on how what they're choosing to use (and why). Final Draft I've been using Final Draft 6 since it was released years ago -- like '99 or 2000. For the most part, after several updates and bug fixes (version 6.0.6.0 anyone?) over the years, it's pretty stable. In the end, it does what it's supposed to -- it makes writing and rewriting scripts in "proper screenplay form" as simple as it is to type a regular text document in something like Microsoft Word. What more could you ask for? Well, a few things:

First, Final Draft has a copy protection scheme that is frustrating for the way I work. I support the rights of developers to profit off of their work, so I'm not opposed to copy protection. When I've paid for the program, though, it shouldn't interfere with my ability to do my work. Basically, Final Draft's copy protection allows for two "authorized" hard drives. The first problem with this is that it doesn't acknowledge the way many of us use computers. I, for one, have three different computers (one at the office, one at home, and one laptop). But I can only install FD on two of these. Even worse, when a drive crashes (an inevitability, really) I have to actually call Final Draft and explain that I'd like to reinstall their application on my computer. At times, with some of their tech support, I've had to lobby to them that I'm not pirating their software but there really has been a hardware malfunction.

Even worse is their technical support: You get 20 minutes free in the first 90 days of owning the program. After that it's $2.50/minute. This ranks Final Draft somewhere between my current cell phone company and the Philadelphia Parking Authority in the category of Customer Service.

Reports from other quarters that Final Draft 7 is a bugfest have kept me away from upgrading. My guess is that the reason for the bugs is that, having reached the limitations of what it can and should do in version 6, all the new, bloated features are interfering with the real reason many of us adopted the software in the beginning.

In sum, I've been grudgingly using FD6 with the suspicion that, sooner or later (because of computer or operating system upgrades), I'm either going to have to swallow hard and buy FD 7 or find a replacement.

Celtx Last weekend, then, while doing a polish of a rewrite, I made an earnest effort to make the switch to Celtx, the open source screenwriting/production application. I've written about Celtx twice before (here and here), and I've definitely been rooting for it because of the reasons listed above. In fact, after my last survey of the application, Celtx seemed ready for use.

Now, after a few days of working with it fairly rigorously, I feel like I've reversed my opinion of it again. Alas.

Among the bugs:

- I've had repeated problems with different document elements being mistakenly tagged. For example, some dialogue I've typed appears in all caps as if it's a character name. So I'll select that text and select "Dialog" [sic] to correct the problem. This fixes the selected text, but the text surrounding it -- e.g., the character speaking the dialogue is now also classified as dialog. Needless to say, this is distracting and slows down the creative process. Very frustrating.

- I've encountered odd cursor behavior. Sometimes, as I move the cursor around, it leaves a non-blinking cursor in a previous spot. Not only is this annoying, it makes you question the overall stability of the application.

- The "underline" feature still doesn't work. Not a deal breaker, I grant you, but it's a glaring bug when clicking on a menu icon does nothing.

These are elemental problems that make me inclined to continue using FD6 for the short term, at least. Beyond these basics, though, there are elements of Celtx that still make it less than ideal:

- I still dislike the obligatory introductory menu that appears each time you load the program. Especially annoying is the fact that I can't seem to erase the Celtx tutorial project from the menu even though I've deleted it from my hard drive. I'm sure there are people out there that like the menu screen, so perhaps the developers can make toggling it an option in the (under-developed) Preferences menu.

- File saving is confusing. Inside my Celtx project folders are numerous files, which is a little confusing. I want to be able to save a "Celtx" document (as I do with MS Word, or Photoshop, or any other normal application), drag it to my jump drive, and open it on another computer. Is that so wrong?

- For all of Celtx's features, you can't highlight script text in yellow (or any other color). This is an immensely useful feature in Final Draft. It allows me to draw attention to something in a draft (so I can return to it, to spotlight it for a collaborator, etc.)

- I'd like to see keystrokes in the text elements' drop down menu (e.g., "Dialogue Cmd-4").

- I want to have the option of breaking out of screenplay format. For example, if I want to type "The End" I should be able to simply center the text. (This feature would be useful, too, for the way I prefer to type out montage sequences.)

- Online sharing. As I've written in previous evaluations of Celtx, I'm not interested in sharing my work via their online servers. And I don't think PDF creation should be connected to registering with their online community. As a workaround I've simply used OS X's "Print to PDF" feature, and then used the ever-useful PDF Lab to marry my title page and script. It gets the job done, but they're needless extra steps.)

So, as of right now, Celtx feels like a case of software under-/over-development. I'd like to see the developers work out the bugs in the essential (that is, screenwriting) areas as it approaches Version 1.0, before pushing too far on the pre-production aspects of the program. The open source philosophy of the application, the general responsiveness of its developers and, admittedly, my frustrations with Final Draft have me rooting for it. Until then, I'll probably return to Final Draft 6 in hopes that Celtx will fulfill its promise soon. If it doesn't, I guess I'll be checking out Movie Magic Screenwriter, which I suspect is overpriced ($250), but works.

Until then, I've got some question for the writers out there: What are you using? Are you having the same problems? And what would you like to see?

Red Footage Posted

If you're following the development of the Red Camera (I am), you'll want to check out the footage they've posted on their recently overhauled site. Mike @ HDForIndies says that he thinks it's only 1K. And it's not terribly interesting -- some sunglasses, and steel grey at that. So what can we judge from this? Not resolution (if it's 1K) and not color or exposure range (because of the subject matter). In sum, very little. But, it's another step in the process of the design and hype of this camera -- an unusual mixture of transparency and secrecy. There are rumors that there's more footage soon to come. Hopefully that footage will be accompanied by technical specifications, not to mention some human subjects. The clip is a downloadable torrent, so you'll need a peer-to-peer application like Transmission.

Of course, if you've somehow only recently discovered filmmaking and/or the internet, you can read this earlier post to get caught up.

ADDED: Matt @ FresHDV catches you up on some of the other recent RED developments.

Old Joy

One of the sad ironies of independent cinema is that when a distributor acquires and releases a regionally produced independent film, especially one that points its camera away from the city, it's rarely screened in those off-the-beaten-path places like those it depicts. I care about this because I live in one of those places (Roanoke, VA). Case in point: Kelly Reicherdt's Old Joy, which is being released today in New York. I have just checked playdates on the official website. It's no doubt interesting that the film will play Nashville, Lexington, and Montgomery AL and not, say, Philadelphia. (At least, not as of yet.) But it's maddening that Lexington's as close as it may get for me. That's 350 miles away.

Which raises the question: How far would I drive to see a movie these days?

I've done two hours numerous times. (Au Hasard Balthazar, Umbrellas of Cherbourg, L'Argent, Minnie and Moskowitz, and Taste of Cherry come to mind -- all worth it, by the way.) And I've done 180 miles for I am Cuba and What Time is it There?.

But most of those occasions were years ago, before I had a dvd player, a video projector, and surround sound, and also before many of those works were availble on video at all.

Would I do it today? If it was for a rarity that I've never seen -- say, Bresson's Four Nights of a Dreamer or a restored print of something like Leo McCarey's Love Affair, I'd drive half a day, probably. Actually, I probably still would drive that far for the Bresson films I have seen -- there's simply no substitute for seeing his films as big as possible and on film. Same goes for works by Tarkovsky, Ozu, Dreyer and the other so-called "slow" filmmakers.

But I'd rather not have to drive 350 miles to see Old Joy. Will I? We'll see. I might. After all, it is a road movie.

(Actually, that would be one helluva high-concept distribution strategy -- "Let's make everyone drive miles to see this road movie!" Alas, I don't think that's what's happening here.)

In any event, IFC has an interview with Reicherdt here. I've read too much about the movie already; I'll wait on the interview until I can see it.