Butterflies in the Wind in pursuit of happiness

filmman

filmman

Veteran
http://www.releasing.net/

My feature film BUTTERFLIES IN THE WIND is now ready for marketing. The movie had its world premiere at the Ava Gardner Film Festival last year. It was invited after the festival director saw a trailer of it.

The movie is a 97 minute 35mm feature film shot by a one man crew, yours truly. It was :violin:an artistic decision. The fact that it was a no-budget movie had nothing to do with it.

Now, some of you might say, "how could it be a no-budget movie if you shot 35mm?" Good question. My definition of no-budget is you don't do a budget; you shoot without one.

There are many reasons why I don't do a budget before I start. The main one is that every time I did a budget, I got scared and did not shoot the movie.

I would appreciate it if the dvx users would take a look at a movie clip on http://www.releasing.net and give me some feedback.

This clip is not a trailer. It's actually a clip from the movie. I did cut a few trailers, but none of them have done the job. I never got any offers from distributors based on the trailers. Recently a distributor turned down the movie based on the trailer, the poster, AND the synopsis. He didn't even think the synopsis was good.

I did not write the movie ... or the synopsis. However, I did shoot it with a 2c MOS, recorded the sound on a MiniDV camera after every take and edited the movie -- essentially dubbed it.

Now I'm beginning to wonder if I should re-edit the movie and turn it into an experimental movie, where I pull every trick I know to make the movie as avant garde as I can.

I'm a new Final Cut Pro user. My program is the FCP 5.04 Studio. My computer is a G5 dual processors 2.7 gH, 4 MB of Ram. I know only basic Motion, STP 1, Compressor 2, DVD SP. I have a few plugins that I bought from someone. I hope to purchase a used Magic Bullet with Looks so I can use the film effects and make the movie as wild as I can make it :violent5:

Any suggestions, comments or criticisms will be appreciated.
 
Hey Vic I own this on DVD. I bought it from you a few months ago. I was wondering how you did the audio because it is off track in a few places.

You said you recorded the sound AFTER the actual TAKE... so you just had the actors read the lines into a miniDV camera? That's incredible.

Also there seems to be a lot of grain or dirt on the film. Was that an artistic decision or the camera? Because it has a very 70's look to it and I mean that in a good way.

Anyways I've watched it twice all the way through because there are a lot of interesting things going on. There are however some moments that are a little jarring and the pacing is off here and there, but I enjoyed it.
 
I didn't know, Aurant. Thanks! I appreciate your comments. Yeah, I shot the whole movie practically hand-held and I would usually shoot the camera first and then record the sound with the MiniDV. the MiniDV was also my "work print" until I had enough money to order a work print from the lab.

Since I was working alone and my two leads were sort of like method acting, if you know what I mean -- I didn't know what they had said on the picture take. But the interesting thing was that I found out why Fellini dubbed everything he shot. He also shot MOS as you know. Well, it gave me another chance to direct the actors -- this time for sound, but still I came up with other ideas. So of course I ended up with some sound takes that were very different than the picture takes. I knew I wasn't going to end up with too much lip-synch, but then I kind of also tried to synch the dialogue as much as possible -- spent two years on it -- argh! I think I made it worse; I should have let it go way out of synch, at least everyone would know it was my intention to do a foreign dub type of movie. LOL

The grain and dirt on the movie was an artistic choice -- ahem -- well, actually after I finished editing the movie in 35mm, I got this FCP and the G5 Mac as a present, so I thought, why not edit the sound in FCP. So what happened is that I managed to learn FCP while doing the sound and the music after the 35mm picture track and the 35mm mag were edited and telecined to DVCAM.

I liked the look of the telecined workprint with all the scratches and dirt on it. I found out on user groups that everyone was spending a fortune on plugins trying to add the film look to their digital movies. I already had this, so I figured just go with this version of the movie until the movie finds an audience and maybe a distribution deal. Well, this is where I'm at now. I still haven't cut the negative.

So now I'm thinking, buy a Magic Bullet and add more film look effects to the movie and re-edit it altogether. I want to know what are the jarring moments, because that's what I'll work on the most. I already have some ideas. I might have to cut the movie down to 80+ minutes. It's bound to improve if it's shorter.

Thanks again for the comments. I really appreciate the fact you bought the DVD also. It's now on Amazon.com as download too. But the sales are so slow. I need to get myself to an international market. I used to be in distribution for a few years. I can sell a small movie like this for a few hundred thousand dollars in one week, but the markets are running about $30,000 each. Ouch :-)
 
wow, vic. i really admire your balls-to-the-wall tenacity in getting this thing made as a one man crew. thats really impressive. do you have plans for a follow-up feature?
 
Thanks, Zak!

I have some great projects. Some of them are felliniesque in style and I would be able to run wild with them.

But three projects are fabulous screenplays and need to be done the classical Hollywood style with a full crew and a decent budget.

If I can get one of my two new movies sold by the beginning of the year, I'll shoot one of the big projects. If I don't, I'll shoot another felliniesque, experimental feature. This time I'm going to shoot digital and try to get as much production value for as little money. I haven't picked the script yet or the story yet.

Even when I'm improvising, I like to have a complete script as back up. Most actors like to read a script before they take a role seriously. I don't mind that as long as the actors are capable of doing something from scratch, improvise and take direction.

Again, I appreciate your comment. I think you're one of the most focused filmmakers I've seen on these forums.
 
Well I can't tell what you movie is about. It's odd. Your actors look odd, your posts are odd, but for some reason I find myself looking at your movie and reading your posts. So I think there's something here, I just have no idea what it is. Whatever you are doing, keep doing it.
I like the LA/Socal vibe to it.
 
Thank you Brian! I don't know what to make of your comments, but I'm encouraged :-) Weird is good ... for an indie movie. Maybe I'll be able to sell this movie after all. LOL
 
Yeah you're definately wierd Vic, but so am I. I live in Burbank and so I recognize some of the exteriors you were using... the hospital near NBC. IT's also fun to watch how you cheated that location.

I think the jarring moments of the film have to do with the audio because it isn't perfectly matched to lips. I found it to be charming as well. Like i was watching a foreign film dubbed in english.

The acting is wooden in a few parts and it's ultra dramatic in places too, but I find enjoyment in the bad parts as well.

The whole film has a dream-like feel to it.... And I've been waiting to get your Feliniesque Players movie just so I can have a few beers and trip-out to it.

And i suspect that your wife is the woman in the beginning talking to the little kids. I suspect that because she's also in Feliniesque Players... correct me if im wrong.

As far as selling this movie I can understand why you've had a tough time. It's not very accessible to the everyday movie watcher. For me it plays as a movie catering to movie enthusiasts, which can be good… because Fellini isn’t all that accessible either.

If i could throw a little advice your direction it would be....

Shoot your next project on an HVX (or equivelant), maybe with a 35mm adapter and Lav Mic your actors so you can continue with your gorilla-one-man style, but you'll capture that raw and synched audio, which will also save you tons of time in the edit.
 
Last edited:
So right, aurant. I'm more than encouraged; I will take your advice.

Felliniesque Players is really my best movie; it's the most entertaining anyway. My wife stars as the Red Queen in it. It's the battle between Demonis and the Red Queen over the souls of some rock'n'roll kids.

It will go well with beer and pretzels. LOL

It means so much to me that you enjoyed Butterflies in the Wind. I won't be shooting another 35mm movie on no-budget again soon. It was a great experience nevertheless; I got to play Fellini one last time. LOL

For me it's not only making money or even making successful movies, but living the life of a filmmaker. To me this is all there is. Nothing else is worthwhile :-)

Also with Felliniesque Players i'm hoping a European festival will accept it, so I can go to Europe on a "triumphal tour" LOL.
 
I agree. There is a pleasure in making movies that is hard to describe. From the script to working with the actors, working on set, to shooting it, to editing... I really do enjoy all the parts of it. Especially when you're able to work with friends and there's a certain degree of levity on set.

And it's fun to watch someone's work who I can tell gets the same kick out of it as I do. Eventhough the movie might not be up my alley, it's still enjoyable for me to watch the end result.

Here's what I used. I was able to hold up the camera with my right hand because there was a spring-bar connected to my waste. That made it so i could rack focus with my left hand. It works and you don't really need a crew for the stuff you're doing.

l_f6a980e4601449108f69e6d520811f69.gif


And I dig how you're just doing what you love and doing it your way.... and you have a good attitude too. That's always key.

Keep the dream alive!!!
 
Last edited:
Thanks Aurant. I like the shoulder brace and the big monitor on the side -- wow! I bet that's an HD monitor. And the box in the middle, that must be a 35mm lens adapter? You know, I've never asked or read about them. I figure if I want the film look, I'll just pull out my 35mm Arri 2c and shoot the movie that way.

If I have to shoot digital, then I'll put up with the look of it, whatever it may be. Also, isn't Magic Bullet a good way to get the film look? I've never used it and I don't know what the looks are all about, except for some observations I've made watching certain TV shows that look manipulated.

I've shot features when working in Norway during the 70s that played theatrical. Also, I've shot a few movies independently in the US that played theatrical. I shot second unit for Tobe Hooper on Eaten Alive (Nevil Brand, Mel Ferrer, Shirley Jackson, Robert Englund and a few actors he brought from Texas Chain Saw Massacre -- which I still haven't seen :-) in 76, and I shot Killzone and Super Spy in 35mm, which had limited theatrical runs. However, now things have changed. Audiences and gradually even distributors don't care about cinematography. Movies look different; the old rules of cinematography are totally relaxed -- lots of hand-holding, zooming in the middle of a scene, going from a two-shot to a close up and then panning between two people talking back and forth without cutting!

In a way, it's better. I think it's easier to do unusual movies if the photography isn't judged by stills standards for lighting and composition.

If I get enough movies in distribution and some decent revenues I'll shoot some Hollywood Standard movie. I know how to shoot on major sets and how to direct union crews and SAG actors. Until then I'm going to have fun shooting my no budget non-union movies and posting stuff on the Internet :-)
 
Actually the digital cameras are delicate. I once used a different MiniDV tape and the sound heads got gummed up. So now I stick with one tape -- Sony tape, and I've had no problems. Other than that I like shooting digital because the image quality is acceptable and I can concentrate on getting the best performances and making the most entertaining movie.

I love watching people react to my movies, especially when I've done something unexpected in the storytelling process or made some unusual juxtaposition of images.

With 35mm film it's necessary to set up the shot according to acceptable industry standards and then rehearse and shoot the scene in a very controlled way. It's just a different criterion for making movies.

Digital frees one from adhering to any set of production ideas or entertainment standards, especially since there are still distributors who don't talk to a filmmaker with a digitally originated movie.

Also with only 10% of theaters geared for digital projection, it's nearly impossible to get a digital movie screened in theaters without spending an additional $100,000 on the DI -- assuming there is interest in the movie in the first place.
 
filmman said:
Also with only 10% of theaters geared for digital projection, it's nearly impossible to get a digital movie screened in theaters without spending an additional $100,000 on the DI -- assuming there is interest in the movie in the first place.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with your basic premise that at the moment, 'shooting film', may allow one access to theatrical distribution easier, if at all, 'for the price'...

However, when I watched your film, and also looked at the 'felliniesque' clip... how shall I say it... well... in the Felliniesque film there's a number of shots with various 'interesting' people... yet, it seems that the 'coverage' is skimpy, and in one case, where the women wasn't coverd on top I had to get out my magnifying glass to determine whether I was seeing things correctly... if one is going to shoot film, of big busted women... well Russ Meyer comes to mind, get in there close and be the proxy for us viewers... and put those sorts of shots 'in our face'... So, I'm thinking, is this on film, and because of the low budget, not enough was shot...

On the "Butterflies" clip... boy that first scene of the car taking off... what is with that 'bush' that hides the car moving out onto the road... Now far be it from me to not get a 'bush' reference... but the subsequent shots didn't seem to pay off in any sense of sexual bush reference, or even a presidential Bush satire...

So, I'm thinking... if only the camera was on the side of the road to the rear of the car as it sped off, to give the next sequences of shots of the guy driving some sort of 'establishing shot... of 'crazy' driving, or 'speed kills', or whatever... or alternativelyl, camera forward of the car's direction of travel on taking off, with a short lens... sort of a cheap mid-60's sort of 'road rage' style... repopularized by say, 'Death Proof'(2007)... of course the driver would have to make sure not to kill the camera or the camera crew...

The point here being, that if one is shooting film, and film has an expense of stock + development + equipment for edit + 'digitize' for Internet... why not be shooting in the digital medium in the first place... Then again, perhaps you own a service that does have digital transfer capability... so, on the weekends... it may be 'free' to do the conversions...
 
J1, I'm so thrilled that you took the time and trouble to look at my clips. I'm really not being facetious....

You made reference to all those films and style of shooting ... I'm speechless: my little clips inspired you so much? ! Thank you, thank you; you like me!

But seriously, I must apologize -- I'm getting old, my eyes are real bad now, and I'd stayed up until daybreak (I started shooting from night time so it was a marathon day; I was about to drop) ... I didn't see the topless chick or cared to notice perhaps. I was concentrating on the shot -- shooting by myself and all.

You do understand that I shoot cinema verite style, don't you? I don't have script, budget, cast or crew -- whoever is there ... that's my movie!

I don't even call "action" anymore; I just roll, man. And I love it :-)

But I appreciate the comments you made about Butterflies in the Wind. There was no thought in my head regarding the bush; the bush was there and that's why it ended up in the shot. However, I like the shot with the dust rising and covering the car. I figure everyone's seen cars taking off (you know, what with the 60's road rage movies and all :-) so the dust ... actually that's what my character's life is like; he's sort of always like in a dust storm, you know what I mean? Yeah. I just can't get over how you saw all those things in my little movie clip. Thanks, really. I mean, it might sound like I'm being ironic or something, but you don't know me -- I really like feedback from young people, especially film students (even though you don't get to shoot film anymore, it's ok, we can still call it filming and filmmaking because, well, I mean tape is a sort of film too -- you know, magnetic film and all.

Ok, enough excitement for a day .... I won't say thanks again; you might think I'm being ungrateful....
 
filmman said:
JThere was no thought in my head regarding the bush; ....
Click to expand...

I didn't get any sexual or political message from the bush. I just got an nice nostalgic LA vibe. I dunno if it was even filmed in LA, but that's what I felt.

I sense a lack of contrivance and I like that. A lot of stuff here, including my own work suffers from that IMHOP.

Yeah, IMHOP.
 
Thanks Brian!

I shot that scene in Palmdale. I love that location; it's so desolate looking.

I took my actor out there and said to him go through the whole story in your head, and I filmed him in different places and while driving.

I kept telling him to do this and that. It came so natural for me; it was all I'd though about when doing the movie. My actor loved the freedom to improvise. Then I had myself a group of scenes that would act as a vehicle for the whole story. It was innovative and very enjoyable.

I do that sort of thing even when I'm shooting 35mm. But to be honest, I don't try to do too much coverage even though I'm improvising (if it happens it happens), so it's a compromise by choice.

I appreciate the positive feedback.
 
filmman said:
I really like feedback from young people, especially film students (even though you don't get to shoot film anymore, it's ok, we can still call it filming and filmmaking because, well, I mean tape is a sort of film too -- you know, magnetic film and all.

Ok, enough excitement for a day .... I won't say thanks again; you might think I'm being ungrateful....
Click to expand...


Well... I'm not young... one of the reasons why I didn't pursue 'film' back when I was young, was the cost of 'real' film. For some reason, I absolutely hated 8mm and 16mm hand cranked films. They looked so shitty, cameras handled by people who probably had much too much speed for their health... and even if all I could afford was a handcranked Bolex, then there was the processing fees.

Tape... old timey video, what a even more piece of **** than hand cranked Bolexes...

So, it has remained until digital for me to move forward in 'film'...

Some people get all misty eyed over film film... I don't... I don't use my 4x5 view camera any more... so, why would I worry over 35mm 'toy' film sizes...
 
Oops, sorry, J1, I didn't mean to put you down. I'm always impressed by students who know so much of the theory of filmmaking. If you shot 8mm then that definitely puts you in my generation. Well, you're right, 8mm and 16mm even are difficult to shoot because of the small size of the film strip -- hard to handle, especially if dropped in the dark (aarrggghhh!) I used to work at labs.

Digital has definitely some big advantages for filmmakers these days, and I'm sure once more theaters install digital projectors, there will be a revolution in the number of movies exhibited in theaters. Who knows what will happen? These projectors are running about $85,000 each at this time, so I think it will take a decade or two before this transformation takes place.

However, meanwhile 35mm prints are the way to go for producers interested in theatrical release. Personally I don't shoot 35mm because of that, because my movies are extremely low budget. I shoot short ends (I sell short ends, so I get a great price break on film stock), and I also have all the production and post production equipment for shooting 35mm. (I sold all my 16mm equipment, except for a 16-35mm optical printer) and I do my own negative cutting -- so for me 35mm is still less of a headache. I don't like dealing with crazy fractions that don't make any sense even to experts, like 29.97 frames per second. What is that?

But since FCP deals with that problem for me, and I already have FCP (a gift, mind you; I don't like to be jipped out of .03 piece of a frame every 30 frames I shoot :-), but what I like most is that I can upload my movie clips to the Internet and place the clips in my web pages. It's like having a private movie channel. Of course, it will cost a fortune to promote a web page. How do I advertize my web page to a mass audience?

But these are minor details; the main thing is to make movies now and find the best way to get them out there for audiences to see.

Thanks again for your comments. I've learned quite a bit about digital filmmaking on this website. You may know that I shot Felliniesque Players with my Sony Z1, don't you? Great camera; I love it. I can shoot any time I feel like it. Great camera for cinema verite style of shooting. It has a Zeiss lens too. The camera was a gift also.

For my serious movies, I'm going to shoot 35mm though, as I said, I need to get my movies on the theatrical screen over the next ten years. After that, well, if it's digital screening, that's fine by me. I'll probably be too old to shoot then :-)
 
It occurred to me a few days ago that I always wanted to make a movie about my shooting a 35mm feature film solo. Of course, I'd want the movie as a digital feature documentary. Then I'd want to have the movie edited very creatively mixing some 35mm shots in the movie. I think it would make a great collaborative effort between some highly creative filmmakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top