The Self-Reliant Film DVD of For Memories' Sake was recently given a nice review in Video Librarian. If you came here via their link, you can purchase the DVD here.
Coming out of Hibernation
Winter is normally a time of hibernation, but I'm taking this opportunity to let you know that Self-Reliant Film will be out of hibernation soon after the new year. There's lots of exciting stuff to report, but until then, stay warm and have a wonderful holiday season!
Quick Feet... on PBS World - July 9.
On July 9th my short film Quick Feet, Soft Hands will be on nearly a hundred PBS stations across the country, including stations in New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Boston. If you've not already seen it, tune in or set your DVR. Many stations are playing it three or four times throughout the day.
To determine if it will be broadcast in your area -- and, if so, which PBS station (many cities have multiple streams) -- you can click here and enter your zip code.
Another way is to check is to look at this listing of all PBS World stations. If your city is listed here, then look at that station's local listings for July 9. Almost all of these will be doing the broadcast.
Here's the trailer from 2008, when it was about to begin playing on the festival circuit.
July 4
The Fourth of July is not only America’s birthday, but also the anniversary of one of the boldest experiments in American letters. On July 4, 1845, Henry David Thoreau moved into a small cabin near Walden Pond in Massachusetts and began writing “Walden,” the autobiographical book that would define his legacy.
Thoreau was many things – naturalist, political dissident, professional crank – but he was also one of our earliest and most memorable media critics....
Read more here.
How do you make a filmmaker cry?
It seems like I can't go a month without hearing that yet another filmmaker I know has lost a project due to having a hard drive fail and not having a back up. Most recently, it was some kids at a youth video project. Their counselors didn't back up the kids' iMovie project file and returned to edit the next day to learn the project was gone. All the editing they had done was lost. A group of budding filmmakers was in tears, the project was in chaos... Talk about an ugly situation!
But worst part is: The counselors knew better. They knew about backing up footage. They just didn't do it!
C'mon, counselors! What were you thinking!? Do you want to make children cry?
In a bit of inspired timing, Final Cut User linked to this video recently. No, I don't expect everyone to have the kind of backup system that Chase Jarvis demos. (I sure don't!) But as Jarvis says at the end of the video, you need something that scales to the work you're doing.
When was the last time you backed up your data?
DSLRs, "Democratic Technology" and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 2
This is the second of two posts considering the rewards and challenges of using DSLRs for cinema work. If you've not read the first post, start there. At the end of the last post we had assembled a Canon 7D camera, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens with Image Stabilizer, a Zoom H4N audio recorder, and PluralEyes software to help us sync the picture and sound in Final Cut Pro. The cost: $3230. I hesitate to call this a "bare bones" package since it doesn't even include a tripod or microphones. It does, however, get you picture and sound.
But you get picture and sound with a pixelvision camera. My intention with these posts is to compare DSLRs to a more traditional prosumer camcorder. And we still have a ways to go before it's a fair comparison. So let's continue...
For starters, the Sony and Panasonic cameras have ND filters built into their cameras. And while there may be some optional kit with the Canon DSLR rigs, ND is not one of them. Not, at least, if you want that creamy shallow DoF cinema look, which is probably the reason you bought the Canon in the first place.
Some people, including Philip Bloom, swear by the FaderND, which cuts out between 2 and 8 stops of light. If you find it on Ebay you'll pay around $125. Very cool!
Others, though, argue that the FaderND can make color correction a problem later on. Indeed, the quality of your lens is reduced if you put inexpensive glass in front of it. (Or, as Shane Hurlbut warns, "beware the reaper of cheap glass"!) So if you do want to be careful, you would need to budget between $275 and $450 for a set of high quality Tiffen "Water White" IR ND filters.
If you've got multiple lenses with different filter ring sizes you'll need to purchase step-down rings. But for now, we're assuming we only have one lens.
Let's throw caution to the wind and go with the Fader ND. That puts us at $3355.
We also need to power the camera and record to something. So we need some CF cards and we need some batteries.
We would obviously need batteries if were were going with a more all-in-one solution (i.e., an actual video camera) like Sony or Panasonic. But in my experience the batteries supplied by these manufacturers last about 2x as long as those supplied by Canon, in part because the Canons weren't really built for, you know, constant video footage. And, a manufacturer like Sony or Panasonic supplies an AC adapter so you can run your camera off wall power. Canon does no such thing. So to be fair, we'll add the cost of two batteries
As far as CF cards are concerned, for a starter package, we'll figure you need 32GB of CF memory. That's about $77
What are we up to now? $3588.
Finally, in my experience, I've found you need some sort of way to monitor your footage. The on camera LCD focusing system is not large enough to accurately focus on the fly. And it is often impossible to use in broad daylight.
The focusing issue is, for some, a real deal breaker, and for good reason: Everyone I know that has used this camera has shot footage that appeared to be in focus but, upon later inspection on an actual monitor, learned that the take was a bust. You have to be very careful about monitoring your footage, and you need to check every shot on a large monitor (Hurlbut recommends a 24" LCD) before you move on to the next setup.
I'm not going to include the cost of the 24" LCD. We're going bare bones here. So we're going to use a Zacuto Z-Finder ($395), which magnifies the camera's LCD viewfinder.
Another option is to use an external monitor while shooting. The advantage is, obviously, a larger viewing area to judge focus. The disadvantage is that once you add an external monitor (with battery pack, HDMI cable, and hardware) you lose the small, stealthy DSLR form-factor. Good monitors are expensive, too, often averaging around $800-$1000. The cheapest possible monitor option, however, gives the Zacuto Z-finder a run for its money. That monitor is the Lilliput 669GL.
The Lilliput is only $220, but you'll need a battery solution. I recommend the Ikan 107S or P ($68) depending on whether you already might have some Sony or Panasonic batteries. And you'll need a special MiniHDMI-to-HDMI cable ($12). And you'll need an arm (Ikan's MA206 is the cheapest somewhat decent solution at $70) to mount the monitor to your camera.
The total cost of the Lilliput option as I've described it is around $350. If you need Sony or Panasonic batteries to power it (and a charger to charge the batteries) then your total will exceed that of the Z-finder. So let's just add $395 for the Z-finder and be done with it.
By the way, I've not been tallying shipping costs on these items, but lots of places like Amazon, B+H, and Adorama offer free shipping on certain items, so you might get lucky.
I think this does it for a bare bones kit. Remember, my estimates do not include the things you'll need to actually shoot for an entire day -- things like extra batteries, multiple CF cards, a camera bag or case(s), a shoulder mount, or a tripod. Nor does it include things like quick release plates for your tripod and shoulder mount. Nor does it include any sort of rod system or a follow focus, which you may want since the whole purpose behind using these cameras is to have that all-important shallow depth of field.
The final total? $3983.
That's twelve dollars cheaper than Panasonic's HPX-170.
So the question is, which do you want?
Traditional low-level professional camcorder: - not a stills camera - less cinematic depth of field - fixed lens - somewhat video-ish handling of light + actual HD resolution + accurate focusing + less pronounced jell-o problems + single-system sound with XLR inputs +/- all in one build (pros: it's meant to be used this way; cons: looks like a video camera) + solid HD codec + stability/durability as a camera intended for video
Canon DSLR: + great stills camera + cinematic shallow depth of field + option of interchangeable lenses + beautiful handling of light - difficult-to-edit codec with "reversal film" (i.e., limited) flexibility - less-than-HD resolution - issues obtaining accurate focus - aliasing and moiré problems - jell-o problems - double system sound with separate sound recorder +/- modular build (pros: pick what you need; cons: you're only a strong as your weakest link) - some overheating problems*
* Did I mention that there have been some issues with overheating since video on these DSLR's is so demanding? If the camera overheats, it may not work for a while. One solution is to have another camera body on hand (+ $1700).
Look, I'm not advocating one camera over another. And I am not trying to diss on the DSLR revolution. I'm just trying to cut through the hype to talk realistically about the choices that exist for a low-budget filmmaker.
Cameras -- like life, art, and love -- are full of compromises. The question is, what are the compromises you can deal with, and what are the deal breakers?
Just how badly do you want that bokeh?
Are you willing to sacrifice reliability?
Are you willing to risk losing half a day's worth of work?
Are you willing to endure slow-downs because you have to re-shoot footage?
If so, how much?
I don't have the answers. At the beginning of this series I said I was ambivalent. And I meant it. I haven't made up my mind about these cameras. I doubt I will. It will be a case-by-case, project-by-project thing.
I think there will be some times where these cameras are appropriate for me to use. They're great for clandestine filming. I like them for filming in/with/around cars. I like the way they handle close-ups. If I was single-handedly making a shot-for-shot remake of The Passion of Joan of Arc, this would be my camera. (Hmm…)
But if I had to choose only one camera to own, a DSLR would probably not be it. I won't even consider it for documentary, or documentary style, filming because of the shallow focus and overheating issues, never mind the moire and jello.
Do I think DSLRs are game-changing technology? Only sorta. These cameras have been handicapped by the corporation that produces them. Whether intentionally or not, it doesn't matter. Either way, it's the same old corporate routine. Call it the corporate camera cha-cha: One step forward, one step back. What has people intrigued about DSLRs is that the steps forward and back are not the ones we're used to.
With time maybe I'll come around to love these cameras whole-heartedly, but even if that happens I will not argue that DSLRs have "democratized" filmmaking in any meaningful way:
First, as I think I've demonstrated, at their current price point these cameras aren't that much cheaper than other things on the market. When we talk about "democratized technology" we must be talking, on one level, about cost. And on this score, they do not pass the test. (The T2i makes a somewhat better case, but it's also the most handicapped of the bunch.)
Secondly, DSLRs -- as they are currently designed -- actually require more know-how to use effectively than other cameras that can be used for filmmaking. In this sense, DSLRs are actually less "democratic" than other existing movie-making technologies.
Finally, even if -- especially if -- I allow that these DSLRs are getting more people to make movies, let me address a bigger point:
"Democratized" technology serves little purpose if it isn't being used in the service of stories that otherwise couldn't be told. Otherwise, what's the point of democratizing it?
Put another way, if you have the means to make a movie, and you only use that technology (not to mention your time and talent) to make another frigging zombie movie, well, pardon me for not caring. If the storytelling is out of focus, who cares how beautiful the bokeh is?
DSLRs, Democratic Technology and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 1
DSLR filmmaking has been much ballyhooed in the last year or so. Cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D have been hailed as the lastest in a long line of "democratizing" motion picture technology -- inexpensive cameras that produce cinematic, shallow depth of field images that seem to rival the look produced by cameras costing many times more. There were two reasons I was didn't jump on the DSLR filmmaking bandwagon from the start. For one thing, in the last year I have been working on a lot of other projects, none of which involved needing to worry about how to use a new camera (finishing up a documentary and two DVD releases, raising money for a feature, and writing a script). Another reason was, frankly, I was skeptical. I saw photos of filmmakers dressing the cameras like this:
If that's what you had to do to get it to work, I wasn't interested.
As I mentioned in my previous post, though, I did recently decide to experiment with these cameras. And my uninformed skepticism has developed into experience-grounded ambivalence.
After a few months of wrestling with the cameras (especially the Canon 7D), I find them as frustrating as they are inspiring. Yes, I love the way they handle light. I love the lens interchangeability. I love their form factor, (at least initially).
But, as has been well documented elsewhere, these cameras have serious issues. Focus can be a challenge with their small LCDs. They're prone to the "jello" effect. They shoot on a codec that is a challenge to edit and even more challenging to color grade. And, most frustratingly, they have major issues with aliasing, particularly moire, which is often not even observable while shooting.
Sure, I've had busted takes with other cameras -- under-exposed shots on film that didn't come out, shots that were a little soft in HD, or whatever. But DSLRs are built (or not built) for movie-making in such a way that you can very conceivably shoot for a significant period of time only to later discover that all of your footage is unusable. Not "disappointing" -- unusable. Or perhaps you find something like this acceptable. (Note: I did not shoot this.)
To put it bluntly, these cameras have more red flags than a month's worth of World Cup games. They carry a lot of risk for any serious project.
Because there are some undeniably awesome uses for these cameras, though, I have educated myself -- by reading, by watching, by shooting -- to find ways of working around their many, many problems. And I've learned to produce some nice footage.
But many of the techniques I've used to mitigate the problems involve spending more money, making the cameras bigger, and so on.
Fixing the problems often means taking away the very properties that make these DSLR cameras so seductive for filmmaking in the first place.
So in this post and the next I want to deal honestly with the basic costs of DSLR filmmaking and to consider whether these costs are worth the benefits.
It's possible some DSLR acolytes will disagree with, or even have their feathers ruffled, by my writings about this technology.
That's fine. These are my opinions alone and no camera is right for every person, at every time, for every project. But I think that by now this blog has established my credentials as a champion of smaller, less expensive, and simpler technology for movie-making. If I'm being critical, it's probably for good reason.
So, today's post will begin to consider the "cost of bokeh", since their shallow depth of field is often touted as the leading reason for using these cameras.
My next post will finish pricing out the camera and accessories. I'll also offer some thoughts on the notion of this technology as a "democratizing" force.
But enough prelude. What do we need to shoot motion pictures effectively with a DSLR?
Let's start by going with a Canon 7D
(By the way, if you want to consider the costs with a 5D Mark II, which has an even larger sensor, add about $800 to our totals.)
Then you need a lens. If you want to want to get that shallow DoF then you need a lens that opens wide. And since many people have had good experiences using Canon's Image Stabilized lenses, which seem to reduce some of the jello effect, we'll go with Canon’s 17-55 IS f/2.8 lens
Since we're trying to do this inexpensively, we're only going to use one lens. If you want to take advantage of the Canon's interchangeability (with, say, a cool Tokina 11-16MM
Some DIY filmmakers looking to get by on the cheap blanch at paying $1100 for a lens, but that's nothing compared to a cine lens. In fact, just because you spent $1100 on that 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't mean it'll necessarily look sharp on the big screen. Shane Hurlbut, ASC argues that the only lenses Canon makes that are sharp enough for big screen work are their L-series primes. (Expect to pay $1300 or so for each prime and only the longer range lenses have Image Stabilization.) But we're going to trust others' reviews of the 17-55, which say it's one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes.
(As a side note, you could go with Nikon AI-series still lenses. They're both cheaper and are said to be sharper. But in my experience, you'll need to buy a good Fotodiox Pro adapter
We're doing good so far, but sound, as they say, is half the picture.
While, technically speaking, one may record sound with the Canon, its sound capabilities are far from what you'd get with a prosumer camcorder (e.g., no XLR inputs, no level control, etc.). There is lots of work on Vimeo featuring beautiful shallow-focus images of flowers and so on, much of it set to cool music. But if you want to make movies, you know, where people talk and stuff, you've got to upgrade your sound.
I'm not going to count the cost of XLR cables, microphones, etc. since you would need that stuff with a traditional camcorder. Instead, we'll just look at adding an adequate sound recording device. A lot of people using the Canon for DSLR cinema use the Zoom H4n
With the Zoom recorder (or similar) remember, you're shooting double system. As such, you'll need to slate your shots and spend lots of time in post syncing up your slates. (Or, if you don't, reading peoples' lips.) A time-saving solution is PluralEyes, which syncs your double system footage for you. Your time is worth something; PluralEyes has valued it at $150.
What's the tally so far? $3230.
Oh. But we're ready to make movies, right?
Yes and no. We may have picture and sound, but it may not be useable yet. But we'll save that discussion for the next post.
My Two Favorite Resources on DSLR Filmmaking
My absence for the past few months has been due to the fact that I've been woodshedding, as folks in the Jazz world would say. One of the things I've been doing is writing. When I'm writing, I find this blog takes a back seat. Sorry, dear readers. That's the way it goes. As for what I've been writing, well, maybe one day you'll see…
In my spare time, though, I've spent a lot of time playing with these newfangled DSLR cameras. Though I've bought one (a Canon 7D), I'm not sold on them. I know I'm late to the party in discussing them, but better late than never. I'll post my thoughts in a few days.
In the meantime, there have been several resources for DSLR filmmaking that, time and time again, I've consulted as I've been experimenting with these cameras. I want to give a special shout out to two of them:
The first is Ryan Koo's fantastic DSLR Cinematography Guide. I always enjoyed Ryan's writings on the now-defunct DVGuru blog, and this reminded me of that. Ryan has done the legwork for novices, compiling information from all over the 'net. If you are new to DSLR filmmaking and have time to read only one thing, read this. It's free, but if you send him a donation you'll get a PDF of the whole thing. I did.
The second resource is Shane Hurlbut, ASC's invaluable blog. I knew Hurlbut was a champion of the Canon DSLR cameras since at least last summer. What I didn't know until recently, though, was how generous of blogger this guy is. How does a guy in the ASC have time to write as much as he does while I'm making my first post in, what, three months?
Both Ryan's and Shane's willingness to share their knowledge and mistakes so freely (as in "openly" and as in "without compensation") has rekindled my love of internet.
But for now, it's back to the writing room.
By the way, for more on woodshedding, check this out.
Film Festivals, Energy Drinks and Playing the Odds
Attending a film festival is exhausting. You race around town to screenings and stand in lines throughout the day. Then at night you run around town to parties, sometimes several of them. I’m not about to complain. Leading a life in film is an immense privilege and I try to remind myself of it all the time. But there’s no question that festival-going can take its toll on your body. On more than one occasion at SXSW, I thought that there should be festival volunteers on 6th Street handing off Gatorade to badge holders. Kinda like a marathon, only minus the running.
Instead, in reality, the sponsors of film festivals are always trying to ply you with massive amounts of incredibly unhealthy stuff. Among the free “refreshments” offered at SXSW this year were cigarettes, fried fish, inordinate amounts of beer, whiskey and tequila, and an “energy” drink with so much caffeine that its container cautions to “limit intake to maximum one bottle per 4 hours.”
I’m not saying I didn’t partake of some of this stuff. I’m just… well, I’m the son of a nutritionist. I think about these things.
I also think about the health of film festivals and the filmmakers that they host. Seeing the long lines and sitting in (or being shut out of) the many sell-out screenings in Austin certainly confirmed that SXSW has a healthy prognosis.
For filmmakers, though, I’m less certain.
As the barriers to making a film continue to be lowered, I fully expect submissions to SXSW to double within three or four years. Assuming the number of films being programmed remains the same, the acceptance rate will drop to something like .5% or even lower. That’s not a typo. That’s half of one percent. SXSW is not alone in this; other, similarly prestigious festivals will have roughly the same odds of acceptance.
I grant you, the odds of getting your film into SXSW (1% this year) are better than, say, the odds of winning the Powerball Jackpot (1 in 195,249,054). But, then again, the cost to play is higher for festivals. I’m not just talking about festival entry fees. First you’ve got to make your film.
Similarly, the payout ratio for the Powerball ($1 for a chance at +/- $350,000,000) is far better than that of making a movie. Most filmmakers and their investors would love to just double their money. As we all know, many films don’t make their money back at all.
This isn’t an argument for quitting film and instead playing Powerball. Most people making films at this level aren't solely in it for the money -- they're in it because they have stories to tell. At least, that's why I'm in it.
But considering financial sustainability has to be part of the equation too. If it's not, well... it's not sustainable.
And part of that means that filmmakers these days need to ask tough questions both of themselves and of film festivals:
-
When you consider the costs of festival entry fees, festival travel and lodging (if not provided), food, and promotion (posters, etc), how much are you paying, per head, for each audience member that saw your film?
How much are you paying for each review or blog post that fest screenings generate about your film?
If your film sells out a screening, where does that money go? Will you see a penny of it?
Are you comfortable paying for people to pay others to see your film?
In the final cost-benefit analysis, are festivals worth it?
What do you get out of the deal?
I mean, of course, in addition to the free cigarettes, beer, and energy drinks.
We’ve known this for a while, of course, but it bears repeating: For the independent filmmaker, festivals used to be the answer. Now they’re the question.
SXSW Observations, Pt 1
The Year SXSW Got Big. While I don’t agree with David Lowery that it’s (yet) in danger of becoming Sundance, attendance swelled this year. The growing pains were sometimes apparent, especially with sell-outs and long lines. From my perspective, I think sell out screenings are good, both for the fest and for the filmmakers. But more than a few noteworthy films were only programmed once during the main festival (Fri - Tues) and others were booked at venues that were far too small for the demand. In previous years, these issues wouldn’t have been a problem. This year, though, even with a Gold Badge, if one hoped to attend a screening it meant standing in line for more than an hour. Needless to say, all that time spent in line cut down on the films one could see. I took it in stride, in part because my badge was complimentary for moderating the Cinematography for Improv panel. It wasn’t hard, however, to hear the grumbling of others standing in line. As long as I’ve been attending, SXSW has been well-run, so I’m hoping that this is just a hiccup and I'm optimistic that festival organizers are looking for solutions for next year.
Two Highlights. Of the films I did get to see, the highlights were Justin Molotnikov's Crying With Laughter and Jukka Karkkainen's The Living Room of the Nation, both of which stand a good chance of making my Top 20 list at year’s end. The former is a Scottish thriller set against the backdrop of stand-up comedy. The centerpiece of the film is a tour-de-force performance by Stephen McCole. Living Room, on the other hand, is a deadpan chronicle of the lives of ordinary Finnish citizens in their homes. Shot with an almost entirely static camera, the film has a mix of comedy and desperation that is hard to shake.
A Few Disappointments. When I come to SXSW I especially seek out the regionally-produced independent narrative films. In the past this has been, for me at least, one of SXSW’s most distinctive areas. This year the handful I caught were somewhat disappointing. My policy on this blog is not to write negative reviews -- particularly for small movies that need all the help they can get just to be noticed by audiences -- so I won’t name names. That said, I was surprised that the low points of the festival were all centered in this area. Perhaps it was just an off year, or maybe I just saw the wrong films?
Did I mention I missed a lot of films? With a fest this big, it’s easy to miss movies you really want to see and this year I missed more movies than I saw. I missed some, as previously mentioned, because of sell-outs. Others I missed because of time conflicts with other movies, or conflicts with my panel. Regardless of the reason, here are some films I’ll be eager to see in the coming year: Audrey the Trainwreck,Cold Weather, And Everything is Going Fine, Myth of the American Sleepover, Lovers of Hate, Tiny Furniture, and World Peace and Other 4th Grade Achievements. That’s a lot to look forward to.
Cinematography for Improvisation: Post-Panel Links
The Cinematography for Improvisation panel that I moderated was a blast -- and, while I felt like it was a success, the one hour we had to dig in flew by. I personally could have listened to Andrew Reed, Allison Bohl, and Justin Molotnikov talk shop for another couple of hours. There were easily 100 people in the crowd on a Monday afternoon and the feedback after the panel was very positive. Here are the links, as promised:
Justin Molotnikov
Crying With Laughter -- Justin showed clips from this film, which had its North American Premiere at SXSW.
Synchronicity Films is Claire Mundell and Justin Molotnikov's production company. For those of you that attended the panel, Claire sat near the front of the room and shared some thoughts from the audience.
Finally, the improv film webisodes from the Wickerman Music festival that Justin briefly mentioned can be found at www.wickerman.tv.
Allison Bohl
"Blessed Be, Honey Bee" -- This is the music video that we saw behind-the-scenes stills for, but which we didn't have a chance to screen during the panel. Allison directed and shot this video.
Allison's reel is also on Vimeo. The reel features, among other things, selected shots/scenes from "People of Earth" the feature that Allison showed a clip from on the panel.
I Always Do My Collars First - website for Allison's first documentary
Andrew Reed
Quiet City -- Andrew showed a clip from this film, which had its World Premiere at SXSW in 2007.
Cold Weather is the new film by Aaron Katz, shot by Andrew Reed. The trailer can be found here.
Paul Harrill (moderator)
Obviously, if you are here, you have found my blog. Information about my own work as a filmmaker can be found here.
Tax Tips for Filmmakers
It's getting close to tax time again. As I prep stuff to send off to my accountant I thought I would re-post (with a few revisions) some tax tips that I shared four years ago. As I wrote in '06, I know hardly anything about taxes, but I find that the little I know is still more than many of my filmmaker friends. That said, as should be painfully clear, I'm not a professional tax advisor. I'm not even an amateur tax advisor. These are just "bare minimum" tips, and all the standard legal disclaimers apply. If you end up getting audited or, worse, sharing a cell in the slammer with Bernie Madoff it is not my fault.
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. No matter how much this blog concern self-reliance, there are some things, I think, that you should leave to others. If, like me, you believe that accounting is one of those things, skip down to Step 2. If "choice A"; is more appealing, you are even more self-reliantly inclined than I am. I encourage you to consider a career as a CPA.
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.
Here's 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 start with someone that lives in the same state since you want someone that understands your state's tax code (if your state collects income tax). That said, I've lived in three different states and kept the same accountant the entire time, so it really depends on how comfortable your accountant is with different state codes.
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 less. The amount you pay is going to be somewhat proportionate to how well organized you've kept your records throughout the year. The bottom line with expenses, though, is that you should not be paying equal-to-or-more than the accountant can secure for you in the form of a refund. The idea here, after all, is that you're paying someone to save you money.
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.
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.
Of course, what these tips don't take into account is where the money for your taxes go. Warning: Following the previous link may make you want to join these folks. I suppose it could also make you want to join these folks. Or maybe not.
Cinematography for Improvisation - SXSW 2010 Panel
Though this will be my third SXSW as a panelist/moderator, this was the first time that I've ever proposed a panel. Selecting the panelists was a collaboration between me and the SXSW organizers, especially Jarod Neece. I'm very excited about the people we've got on board to tackle the subject. If you're at SXSW, check out the panel on Monday, March 15 @ 2pm.
Panelists/bios:
Allison Bohl Allison Bohl makes movies with a natural look and creative touch. With experience in documentaries, experimental films, and features, she has become known for capturing beautiful images with minimal equipment. She is based in South Louisiana, but has worked internationally.
Andrew Reed Andrew Reed is the cinematographer of the feature films Cold Water (SXSW '10) and Quiet City (SXSW '07), both written and directed by Aaron Katz.
Justin Molotnikov Justin Molotnikov is the writer/director of the feature film Crying With Laughter (SXSW '10).
Here are some clips of their work:
Gina, An Actress, Age 29 on The Auteurs
For some time I've debated putting my short films online. My work is often quiet, has relaxed pacing, and it can be dialogue heavy. That, combined with the fact that some of my films are over 20 minutes probably makes at least some of my work not the best candidate for online viewing. I've been impressed, though, with what The Auteurs is doing with online video. Their catalog caters to cinephiles, and their site's design and interface encourages people to pay attention to the videos they're watching. So I'm happy to say that my short film Gina, An Actress, Age 29, was recently selected for the site. It's just gone "live", and the timing is fitting, as the film premiered around this time of year in 2001, at Sundance.
Click on the image to view Gina, An Actress, Age 29 on The Auteurs.
For now, the film is free for the first 1000 viewers. Spread the word, tell your friends, and become a fan of it if you like.
One way or another, if you do watch it, I hope you enjoy it!
Facebook Safety
Since social networking is, for better or worse, part of filmmaking these days, this NYT article on Facebook privacy settings is worth a look. The most web-savvy of you out there have already made the changes recommended by this article (or have decided to throw caution to the wind), but others may find this useful.
Eric Rohmer (1920-2010)
Filmmaker, critic, and French New Wave pioneer Eric Rohmer has died at the age of 89.
Rohmer was one of the great filmmakers, and his films have been a deep source of personal and professional inspiration to me. My personal favorites are My Night at Maud's
If you are a fan, I recommend Colin Crisp's superb book, Eric Rohmer: Realist and Moralist
Best (and Worst) of the Decade
I love making end-of-year lists, but I've decided to forego drawing up a "Best of 2009" list, at least for now. I've seen far too few of the films that are getting attention this year. Living in the sticks as I (proudly) do means, among other things, I only see small-release (i.e., good) films weeks after release, on DVD/streaming, or when I travel to larger cities. Instead, I offer up 30 films that meant something to me over the past decade.... as well as a few other lists.
I make no claim that the thirty films listed immediately below are the "best" films of the decade. These are the films that meant the most to me, either because they were fabulously entertaining, deeply moving, unforgettably thought-provoking, personally inspiring, or professionally inspiring to me as a filmmaker. In some cases, a film might have been all of these things.
Top 30 of 2000-2009 (chronological, then alphabetical order): Beau Travail (Denis, 2000) Croupier (Hodge, 2000) Chuck and Buck (Arteta, 2000) The Gleaners and I (Varda, 2000) Yi Yi (Yang, 2000) Mulholland Dr. (Lynch, 2001) The Poor and Hungry (Brewer, 2001) About a Boy (Weitz Brothers, 2002) Adaptation (Jonze, 2002) Far From Heaven (Haynes, 2002) Raising Victor Vargas (Sollett, 2002) Ten (Kiarostami, 2002) To Be and To Have (Philibert, 2002) Capturing the Friedmans (Jarecki, 2003) The School of Rock (Linklater, 2003) Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Gondry, 2004) Sideways (Payne, 2004) War (Mahaffy, 2004) I am a Sex Addict (Zahedi, 2005) The Puffy Chair (Duplass Bros., 2005) Dance Party USA (Katz, 2006) LOL (Swanberg, 2006) Pan's Labyrinth (del Toro, 2006) Frownland (Bronstein, 2007) Ratatouille (Bird, 2007) There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007) Zodiac (Fincher, 2007) The Dark Knight (Nolan, 2008) The Wrestler (Aronofsky, 2008) St. Nick (Lowery, 2009)
+ 2 BBC documentaries (These aren't films, but I watched them under film-like circumstances and without interruption.) Planet Earth (multiple directors/BBC, 2006) The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom (Curtis/BBC, 2007)
In addition to the films listed above, here are just a few of the acclaimed films from the past decade that I've not seen -- many of which sit next to my DVD player. I expect that after watching these more than a few will wind up on an amended version of the list above:
In the Mood for Love, Platform, Syndromes and a Century, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, In Praise of Love, The Son, Kings and Queen, Werckmeister Harmonies, Waltz with Bashir, 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days, Tropical Malady. Making this list has pushed me to make watching these films a priority.
From 2000 to 2009 I saw dozens of great films made before 2000 for the first time. Here are a mere half dozen that meant the most to me:
Ruggles of Red Gap (McCarey, 1935) Winter Light (Bergman, 1962) The Parallax View (Pakula, 1974) The Whole Shootin' Match (Pennell, 1978) The Elephant Man (Lynch, 1981) Little Dieter Needs to Fly (Herzog, 1997)
I also saw a lot of movies that I disliked a lot or even hated. Listing the ones that everyone else thinks are trash isn't worth the effort, so here are my least favorite acclaimed films -- the "Bottom 10," as it were:
Ghost World (Zwigoff, 2001) What Time is it There (Tsai, 2001) Gangs of New York (Scorsese, 2002) Finding Nemo (Stanton, 2003) The Life Aquatic (Anderson, 2004) Last Days (Van Sant, 2005) Little Miss Sunshine (Dayton and Faris, 2006) Man on Wire (Marsh, 2008) Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle, 2008) The Curious Case of Benjamin Butthole (Fincher, 2008)
And, finally, in case you were wondering, here are my two favorite films produced from 2000-2009: Yi Yi and Mulholland Dr.
Tape is dead! Long live tape!
It struck me today that For Memories' Sake will probably be the last movie I'm involved with that uses videotape. Ashley began shooting the documentary with the venerable DVX-100 in 2006 and, for consistency's sake, we stuck with that camera through production. All the new projects that I have on the horizon will be shot with a tapeless cinema camera, whether it's made by Panasonic, Sony, or Red. So tape is dead to me. Or is it?
One of the issues, of course, about shooting tapeless formats is what you do with the data. While editing with tapeless footage, of course, I keep lots of backups on drives in different locations. But after the project is completed, using hard drives to archive the footage is not a reliable solution. Of course, I'll confess that this is what I've done in the past. But as my hard drives age, and as I amass more footage that I'll want to hang onto, I know I need to find another solution. Most pros will tell you that solution is (wait for it).... tape. Specifically, LTO or "Linear Tape Open."
Luckily, for us Mac users out there, Helmut Kobler recently did us all a service by summarizing how to get started with LTO4 tape archiving on a Mac. Kobler estimates the low-end price tag for a Mac-compatible LTO system as $3300.
That figure may seem like a lot to independent filmmakers. (I wonder how many fewer Panasonic HVX200s or Sony EX-1s would have been sold if this cost was factored into the purchase price?)
In the end, whether to spend this kind of money amounts to questions about risk and value: How much do you value your data? And how much risk are you willing to take that your data might be lost forever?
For me, that $3300 is starting to look like a decent value. Long live tape!
Take the Survey: 50 States, 50 Filmmakers
I've been looking over Ted Hope's blog lately and one thing he keeps returning to is the idea that in order for cinema to be truly free (i.e., liberated), we have to do our part to help film culture. I agree.
That's part of what this blog has always been about. One of the reasons I began this blog was to champion filmmakers working regionally.
But now I'd like to undertake a concrete project specifically dedicated to spotlighting filmmakers that live around the country. To do that I need your help. Not a lot of help, mind you -- just a few minutes.
I'm calling this undertaking 50 States, 50 Filmmakers.
It will probably end up being a series of discussions with filmmakers working around the country. I hope to talk with others about why they live and work where they do, the challenges and opportunities they face, the resources available to them, and how they support their work. Ideally, these discussions will include links that allow you to watch or purchase their work. And I'd like to do one for each state, in case the title didn't tip you off.
So, to restate, to do this project completely, I need your help.
I want you to tell me who you think is living and making interesting films outside of New York or Los Angeles. The films can be feature films, documentaries, or short experimental works. I don't care. "Interesting" and "not-New-York-or-Los-Angeles" is all I care about.
If you want to nominate a filmmaking team or filmmaking collective, that's cool. I'm open to doing a few historical surveys, too, so if you prefer to nominate someone deceased (say, Eagle Pennell of Texas or Colorado's Stan Brakhage), go for it. I just want some interesting ideas.
So, without further ado, CLICK HERE TO TAKE THE SURVEY.
Don't know 50 filmmakers in 50 states? That's okay. I don't either. That's why I'm doing the survey -- to fill in some blanks and to get some good ideas for this thing. Just take the survey and give suggestions where you can. You don't have to provide nominations for all 50 states.
And please pass this along to your friends. I'd like as many people throwing out ideas as possible. I'm going to leave this post up for a couple of weeks, after which I'll start compiling replies.
Again, here's the link to the survey.
Uwe vs. Indies
As far as boxing writing goes, it's not quite Ring Lardner