FEATURE: STEP OFF (was "Battle") - Narrative Feature

[tieuellegacy]

To be fair, I did a piece for CinemATL on this movie already and was tried to ask about ethics without really asking and it seems to have come up with the audience here in ATL.

I was supposed to be at this screening but opted out yesterday as I can see it Saturday but I feel terrible as I included it on a rocommended film list and hope nobody that went upon my recommendation got hurt or even frazzled as that is not the experience one should expect at a film screening.

-Martin

This walks an interesting line. I read about this film a month or so ago and I wondered how it would be received.

We've seen this story before. It's a combination of "Blair Witch Project" and "Gangtapes". Gangtapes was also distro'd by Lionsgate around 2002. A camera is stolen and then you see the innerworkings of the group. That's the part that makes it so real at times. If the audio on this one was so good though, it makes me feel that the movie is semi-scripted. This is exactly what happens in "reality TV". They place you in situations and ask you to react. Think about it. If they were really filming reality television, the people in the background would always look into the cameras just like news segments or professionally televised games.

Other issues are that if all of these things were real then they have incriminated themselves. That defeats part of the purpose. Also when a call is made in "reality television" you typically hear both sides of the exchange. There's no real way to get all of that coverage on say a Housewives of Atlanta. They would have to send a camera crew with every person and wait for the phone calls. Then they have to be in place when the fights happen.

Filmmakers do have a responsibility. They should tell their story. Some people will like it and some people won't. I knew that this was going to be a gruesome story and I am in Texas. Why didn't the people in the audience understand that before they went in? Was there a parental advisory posted anywhere? Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the QA at the end to address the issues of the film? I don't agree with filmmakers confronting the viewers (if that happened) as they walk out but I do think that it's important for filmmakers to get feedback. I've watched a lot of drug use and a lot of gunplay in film. I just saw fake pics of Osama's murdered corpse. Those things are equally as gruesome. We aren't in an uproar about those things though. We've celebrated the death of the man without knowing if he's really dead or not.

Also, it's my opinion that it might've been necessary to have a kid play with the drugs. That is in my film as well. It's one of the only ways that I feel people who use the drugs will pay real attention. Otherwise, it seems like another movie with drugs in it.

I would like to see the film to see if it's really that realistic. Is it any worse than Scared Straight or Gangbanging in Little Rock (or whatever the title is)? Was there a message in the end that they all missed because of the fight?

Tieuel Legacy! aka The Devi's Devil's Advocate

 

[Martay]

You have to read the fine print. The ones that I've seen allowed films that were produced, directed, and written by people of color. Some may go as far as to say "african descent". However, if you're not willing to be judged on color first, then Hollywood Black Film Fest, American Black Filmfest, and many others aren't where you wanna be. The key criteria is to have filmmakers that are of the race that they intend.

Martay mentioned a filmmaker named Kelly McClung. Unless he's cajun or something, I'd look at him and say that he was white. One of his films was at the ABFF HBO competition. I'm not sure if and of the other filmmakers were black but it made it around 2007.

Tieuel Legacy! aka The DDAd

True, his short 3 AM got on HBO from that competition. And he's white, the last time I spoke with him, which was recently.

-M

 

[Martay]

This walks an interesting line. I read about this film a month or so ago and I wondered how it would be received.

We've seen this story before. It's a combination of "Blair Witch Project" and "Gangtapes". Gangtapes was also distro'd by Lionsgate around 2002. A camera is stolen and then you see the innerworkings of the group. That's the part that makes it so real at times. If the audio on this one was so good though, it makes me feel that the movie is semi-scripted. This is exactly what happens in "reality TV". They place you in situations and ask you to react. Think about it. If they were really filming reality television, the people in the background would always look into the cameras just like news segments or professionally televised games.

Other issues are that if all of these things were real then they have incriminated themselves. That defeats part of the purpose. Also when a call is made in "reality television" you typically hear both sides of the exchange. There's no real way to get all of that coverage on say a Housewives of Atlanta. They would have to send a camera crew with every person and wait for the phone calls. Then they have to be in place when the fights happen.

Filmmakers do have a responsibility. They should tell their story. Some people will like it and some people won't. I knew that this was going to be a gruesome story and I am in Texas. Why didn't the people in the audience understand that before they went in? Was there a parental advisory posted anywhere? Wouldn't it make sense to wait for the QA at the end to address the issues of the film? I don't agree with filmmakers confronting the viewers (if that happened) as they walk out but I do think that it's important for filmmakers to get feedback. I've watched a lot of drug use and a lot of gunplay in film. I just saw fake pics of Osama's murdered corpse. Those things are equally as gruesome. We aren't in an uproar about those things though. We've celebrated the death of the man without knowing if he's really dead or not.

Also, it's my opinion that it might've been necessary to have a kid play with the drugs. That is in my film as well. It's one of the only ways that I feel people who use the drugs will pay real attention. Otherwise, it seems like another movie with drugs in it.

I would like to see the film to see if it's really that realistic. Is it any worse than Scared Straight or Gangbanging in Little Rock (or whatever the title is)? Was there a message in the end that they all missed because of the fight?

Tieuel Legacy! aka The Devi's Devil's Advocate

I'll definitely give you a report after I see it Saturday night.

They did continue the screening and have a Q & A. They lost a chunk of the audience in the confusion but they did finish the screening.

The folks who covered that story will be doing an interview with the filmmaker about the incident so I'll lookout for that article and post it here too.

-Martin

 

[CRProductions]

Well that's good, I will submit to festivals...I guess looking at it from a different angle, I WANT to help usher in a wave where people are comfortable seeing a film by a black film maker and seeing all white cast or crew or whatever and not thinking twice about it, will that ever happen? I dunno...but I hope it does. I guess in a weird way, I DO want to be noticed due to my skin color, hell I don't know anymore...I just want to make movies EVERYONE is willing to give a chance, regardless of the films "race" or mine!

 

[tieuellegacy]

@Martay. Good. I'm looking forward to reading it. I'd like to know if the audience felt the same way at the end as they did at the beginning. Sounds like it was "too real" for too many. Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[tieuellegacy]

Well that's good, I will submit to festivals...I guess looking at it from a different angle, I WANT to help usher in a wave where people are comfortable seeing a film by a black film maker and seeing all white cast or crew or whatever and not thinking twice about it, will that ever happen? I dunno...but I hope it does. I guess in a weird way, I DO want to be noticed due to my skin color, hell I don't know anymore...I just want to make movies EVERYONE is willing to give a chance, regardless of the films "race" or mine!

That time is already here. Many people don't notice the difference in a film made by a filmmaker of another race. F. Gary Gray left the "black film" label years ago. There was a movie called "The Fourth Kind" that was made by a man of African descent (his name is clearly from Africa or an island).

I believe that if you think about yourself as a filmmaker that employs people then you will receive the chance. If you are writing work that only includes a certain demographic, you will be known for that demographic. If you're black and you make films about eskimoes, people are bound to notice. It's unusual. People expect us to cover our own. On the other side, if a white man makes a "black film" (Color Purple), you sometimes here comments about that also. That's usually if the dialogue doesn't seem fitting. The Color Purple was widely accepted but he had to go through great measures to make sure that it was honest. You would think that Spielberg was black.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[Martay]

@Martay. Good. I'm looking forward to reading it. I'd like to know if the audience felt the same way at the end as they did at the beginning. Sounds like it was "too real" for too many. Tieuel Legacy! Motion

http://dailyfilmfix.com/?p=1410

Here is a follow-up interview about the incident at the screening. Ironically, I was there when this was filmed. I was meeting up with friends of another movie but came upon the interview as it began.

Again, I'll see the movie on Saturday night.

-Martin

 

[tieuellegacy]

http://dailyfilmfix.com/?p=1410

Here is a follow-up interview about the incident at the screening. Ironically, I was there when this was filmed.

-Martin

It's something that we've seen before again. Really, it's a mockumentary. They don't wanna say what's real and what's fake because the mystery will be gone. I can see that. At the same time, they have to be responsible and say whether it's "based on a true story" or it's a "true storY".
I do believe that "it's JUST a movie" doesn't cut it for many people. People are led to believe that it's real because it's a documentary. If the job is done good enough then people will believe that. That's the intent. With this story, people probably have to be educated on what's real and what's fake.

Maybe the guy was trying to sabotage it. If not, he owed it to the filmmaker to ask questions at the end.

Carry your favorite Louis Vuitton bulletproof Martin.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[jls4]

Well that's good, I will submit to festivals...I guess looking at it from a different angle, I WANT to help usher in a wave where people are comfortable seeing a film by a black film maker and seeing all white cast or crew or whatever and not thinking twice about it, will that ever happen? I dunno...but I hope it does. I guess in a weird way, I DO want to be noticed due to my skin color, hell I don't know anymore...I just want to make movies EVERYONE is willing to give a chance, regardless of the films "race" or mine!

That time is already here. Many people don't notice the difference in a film made by a filmmaker of another race. F. Gary Gray left the "black film" label years ago. There was a movie called "The Fourth Kind" that was made by a man of African descent (his name is clearly from Africa or an island).

I believe that if you think about yourself as a filmmaker that employs people then you will receive the chance. If you are writing work that only includes a certain demographic, you will be known for that demographic. If you're black and you make films about eskimoes, people are bound to notice. It's unusual. People expect us to cover our own. On the other side, if a white man makes a "black film" (Color Purple), you sometimes here comments about that also. That's usually if the dialogue doesn't seem fitting. The Color Purple was widely accepted but he had to go through great measures to make sure that it was honest. You would think that Spielberg was black.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

Agreed, several movies including "Alpha and Omega" and the "Fantastic 4" series were all black directors. Right now there hasn't been a "break out" blockbuster director that has been black and has a mixed raced film where the main stars weren't black or black themed. But they are coming...

 

[jls4]

http://dailyfilmfix.com/?p=1410

Here is a follow-up interview about the incident at the screening. Ironically, I was there when this was filmed. I was meeting up with friends of another movie but came upon the interview as it began.

Again, I'll see the movie on Saturday night.

-Martin

This has always been one of my concerns in filmmaking. There is a line of what "Should be said" vs "Just saying anything for shock." Whether or not the film is "real" or "fake" is to me a pointless conversation. The conversation should be on the damage that is done to people by watching the movie. And before anyone says that filmmakers shouldn't be responsible: there are reasons why companies pay millions of dollars for product placement in movies. They understand that most people are influenced by what they see whether right or wrong. They are influenced. Heck many politicians asked James Cameron to pull back on some of the "Save the Planet" undertones of Avatar. The audience can be influenced. I'll leave this at that.

 

[Martay]

Okay, in full disclosure mode, I'll give everyone the skinny on how distribution works.

I'm fairly certain that we've lost many On Demand outlets as of yesterday.

I know we lost COMCAST. It was a 50 day Run that started March 15th and ended on Cinco De Mayo. I don't know the windows of the other On Demand outlets as yet.

So, now Step Off is available on DVD...On Demand outlets will be iffy at this point.

-Martin

 

[tieuellegacy]

Agreed, several movies including "Alpha and Omega" and the "Fantastic 4" series were all black directors. Right now there hasn't been a "break out" blockbuster director that has been black and has a mixed raced film where the main stars weren't black or black themed. But they are coming...

Really? I thought that F. Gary was doing pretty well with The Negotiator, Law Abiding, and The Italian Job. What do you mean by "break out"? Fantastic 4 "Silver Surfer" went pretty well. Wasn't that Tim Story?

It really comes down to definition. What will we call black? What is a latino film? How do we define urban? What is a christian film? Why are Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence, Bill Cosby, and Will Smith not considered black when it comes to films? I've asked people this and there's no clear answer outside of the money that they bring into the box office. Would it be strange if 50 Cent got a few blockbusters and they didn't consider him black/urban anymore?

I got into a discussion with a filmmaker here in Houston that wants to be the 1st black director to win the Best Director category. Why? What does it matter? I'm not against the award but do most people really wanna curtail their films to fit something that would be in the Best Directory category? They do have good films there sometime. We might even say great. There are a lot of excellent directors that either never received that award or that waited until the end of their careers to receive it.

Would you rather have a $100million box office hit movie or the best director award? Does that award guarantee future looks from producers?

Oh. Just thought of something. Was Spike Lee not considered a breakout hit? He did "Do the Right Thing" and "Inside Man" (which made the most of all of his films). Just curious.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[tieuellegacy]

You Cut Out a Lot

You Cut Out a Lot

This has always been one of my concerns in filmmaking. There is a line of what "Should be said" vs "Just saying anything for shock." Whether or not the film is "real" or "fake" is to me a pointless conversation. The conversation should be on the damage that is done to people by watching the movie. And before anyone says that filmmakers shouldn't be responsible: there are reasons why companies pay millions of dollars for product placement in movies. They understand that most people are influenced by what they see whether right or wrong. They are influenced. Heck many politicians asked James Cameron to pull back on some of the "Save the Planet" undertones of Avatar. The audience can be influenced. I'll leave this at that.

My disclaimer. I know that a lot of people are sensitive on this site as a whole. I'm not picking on one person. I do want people to see the big picture though. The things that affect me in movies won't affect others. Some moviewatchers are hardened to situations that others cry about and vice versa.

@Jls4...With this you've pretty much limited yourself in terms of the films that you "should" produce. You've basically taken out several genres: documentary, horror, and narrative films based on true stories. That's your choice to do so. It will come at a price because most people aren't going to give you money for a project that doesn't have "shock value" at some point. Don't get me wrong. I still believe that filmmakers have a responsibility but I believe that viewers have a responsibility as well.

It's simple. I don't agree with smoking weed, shooting people that aren't trying to shoot my family, or dropping babies out of windows. Showing mobsters or Taliban activity don't encourage me to do those things either. The spectators are supposed to decipher the diference. If they aren't old enough to do so then they shoudn't watch those movies or even play certain games that we have out now.

If the audience isn't influenced, in one way or another, you don't have a film. You won't get funding for a project that won't influence anyone. Also, if you don't have an interesting antagonist or plot elements then you REALLY don't have a story. Filmmakers in most cases can't show you anything that hasn't happened in real life. These things are often shown in the news. Avatar and those other animations are an exception but they still draw from real life situations.

The freedom of speech issue is easy so I'll go another route. If we continue to show the same films repeatedly without a shock value, then we'll be arguing why there isn't any realism and diversity out there. I think that we're arguing that with Tyler Perry (or we have been in the last few weeks). And not to undermine anyone's beliefs on homosexuality, some people believe that homosexuals shouldn't be shown on television because so many people are SUPPOSEDLY becoming involved. Notice that many of these reality shows have homosexual characters in them now. It doesn't make me change who I lay down with but obviously more people are encouraged to be in the open. Is that wrong?

Even if a person writes a song or makes a movie highlighting how to rob a business or how to they accidently shot there brother in the foot with a loaded gun, it should still help people in some way, shape, or form. Filmmakers, and singers, are giving you a story for you to decide what is right and wrong. Not every film will be like Akeelah and the Bee, Remember the Titans, or Pride which are feel good stories. Those filmmakers will probably tell you best that the funding for those films are tough to attain as well. We beg for feel good movies but we often don't support what we ask for. Look at the numbers when you get the chance.

You can make an argument that you're not making films based of what everyone else thinks about showing t&A, guns, and drugs. That's fine also. However, most of these people in this thread, Corrado's thread, and Deuce's thread are interested in the numbers. How do I get funding? Who do I talk to? How many people saw your film? Truth of the matter is most people are influenced by the negative things that were in that Snow mockumentary.

Remember that scene in Set It Off where there were cleaning the building with the kid around? The kid drank the cleaning fluid and was rushed to the hospital? How is that different from the kid in "Snow in the Bluff" dabbling with crack? You didn't see the kid drink that cleaner solution but you knew it would happen.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[tieuellegacy]

Black Filmmakers

Black Filmmakers

Absolutely.

I produced a short film with a friend who is a black frenchman by way of Ghana. He's completely a French filmmaker by sensibility and the short we made "Spleen" was cast with white actors. So obviously if nobody knew the director, they'd just assume it was an indie drama.

We eventually did get some festival play but were turned down by more than one Black film festival because of our cast. So, even though it technically fit the requirements of the festivals, we were told that they weren't going to show the film because of the casts' race.

-M

@Martay...IN many ways, this is what black filmmakers have been asking for...to be judged on the work and not the colors of the skin. And we all can argue that we want a combination of that and a "black" film at some points in our careers. 1) We wanna be able to screen in AMC and others across the nation. 2) We wanna do something that will make black people wanna see it (I'm assuming that most of us do).

Those fests usually have requirements explained in the app. What fest were you applying to? I haven't seen a lot of minority fests but the ones that I've seen usually want someone in a key position (director, producer, writer, lead actor).

On another note, is Spleen online anywhere? I'd like to see it.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[jls4]

Really? I thought that F. Gary was doing pretty well with The Negotiator, Law Abiding, and The Italian Job. What do you mean by "break out"? Fantastic 4 "Silver Surfer" went pretty well. Wasn't that Tim Story?

It really comes down to definition. What will we call black? What is a latino film? How do we define urban? What is a christian film? Why are Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawrence, Bill Cosby, and Will Smith not considered black when it comes to films? I've asked people this and there's no clear answer outside of the money that they bring into the box office. Would it be strange if 50 Cent got a few blockbusters and they didn't consider him black/urban anymore?

I got into a discussion with a filmmaker here in Houston that wants to be the 1st black director to win the Best Director category. Why? What does it matter? I'm not against the award but do most people really wanna curtail their films to fit something that would be in the Best Directory category? They do have good films there sometime. We might even say great. There are a lot of excellent directors that either never received that award or that waited until the end of their careers to receive it.

Would you rather have a $100million box office hit movie or the best director award? Does that award guarantee future looks from producers?

Oh. Just thought of something. Was Spike Lee not considered a breakout hit? He did "Do the Right Thing" and "Inside Man" (which made the most of all of his films). Just curious.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

You make good points. And everything is always opinion. Firstly both Fantastic 4 movies were barely successes, making the final bit of money on DVD/Video not a runaway blockbuster hit like a Star Wars, Harry Potter, Avatar, Termanator, Matrix, etc.

As for Actors I don't think it's the actor that signifies a "black or white" movie more so the subject matter. Even this weekend with "Jumping the Broom" in the trailer they mentioned Black and White differences on more than one occasion. That in itself is the problem. Someone said on another thread that stuck with me a long time, even if you have a secret ageneda your pushing in your movie, put it in the undertone of the movie not the overtone. Black films are too in your face with the message they are pushing, instead of putting it in the background.

I'd rather make $500 Million per film than anything else, but generally if you make that kind of money you will eventually get a Best Director award. Films like Lord of the Rings do win Best Director awards.

But ultimately thats' what i'm talking about. The Big ideas, the Big concepts, New Technology (Like Lucas when it comes to sound, Virtual Backlots and James Cameron with the new 3D camera). Right now Black Filmmakers seem to be happy just to tell a basic story instead of pushing the envelope of what a movie is.

Currently my drive is to do Sci Fi/Fantasy movies which if you did research not only are Sci Fi/Fantasy movies the most profitable (9 of the top 10 movies are Fantasy or Sci Fi) but they also help to define the future in which people see themselves. I know I've already talked about Product Placement, so you have to understand that Sci Fi films work the same way. What people "see" will affect them. Many people to this day believe that if we didn't have "Deep Impact", "5th Element" and the TV show "24", Barack Obama would have never become president. People need to see it first so they can believe. When I talk to theblack filmmakers about Sci Fi they blankly look at me, not even fully understanding the impact of it. Even the "famous folks" I'm working with now would rather do a screwball comedy or black drama. These films "preach to the choir" what we need is to "preach to the populous".

That's just my .02 cents.

 

[jls4]

My disclaimer. I know that a lot of people are sensitive on this site as a whole. I'm not picking on one person. I do want people to see the big picture though. The things that affect me in movies won't affect others. Some moviewatchers are hardened to situations that others cry about and vice versa.

@Jls4...With this you've pretty much limited yourself in terms of the films that you "should" produce. You've basically taken out several genres: documentary, horror, and narrative films based on true stories. That's your choice to do so. It will come at a price because most people aren't going to give you money for a project that doesn't have "shock value" at some point. Don't get me wrong. I still believe that filmmakers have a responsibility but I believe that viewers have a responsibility as well.

It's simple. I don't agree with smoking weed, shooting people that aren't trying to shoot my family, or dropping babies out of windows. Showing mobsters or Taliban activity don't encourage me to do those things either. The spectators are supposed to decipher the diference. If they aren't old enough to do so then they shoudn't watch those movies or even play certain games that we have out now.

If the audience isn't influenced, in one way or another, you don't have a film. You won't get funding for a project that won't influence anyone. Also, if you don't have an interesting antagonist or plot elements then you REALLY don't have a story. Filmmakers in most cases can't show you anything that hasn't happened in real life. These things are often shown in the news. Avatar and those other animations are an exception but they still draw from real life situations.

The freedom of speech issue is easy so I'll go another route. If we continue to show the same films repeatedly without a shock value, then we'll be arguing why there isn't any realism and diversity out there. I think that we're arguing that with Tyler Perry (or we have been in the last few weeks). And not to undermine anyone's beliefs on homosexuality, some people believe that homosexuals shouldn't be shown on television because so many people are SUPPOSEDLY becoming involved. Notice that many of these reality shows have homosexual characters in them now. It doesn't make me change who I lay down with but obviously more people are encouraged to be in the open. Is that wrong?

Even if a person writes a song or makes a movie highlighting how to rob a business or how to they accidently shot there brother in the foot with a loaded gun, it should still help people in some way, shape, or form. Filmmakers, and singers, are giving you a story for you to decide what is right and wrong. Not every film will be like Akeelah and the Bee, Remember the Titans, or Pride which are feel good stories. Those filmmakers will probably tell you best that the funding for those films are tough to attain as well. We beg for feel good movies but we often don't support what we ask for. Look at the numbers when you get the chance.

You can make an argument that you're not making films based of what everyone else thinks about showing t&A, guns, and drugs. That's fine also. However, most of these people in this thread, Corrado's thread, and Deuce's thread are interested in the numbers. How do I get funding? Who do I talk to? How many people saw your film? Truth of the matter is most people are influenced by the negative things that were in that Snow mockumentary.

Remember that scene in Set It Off where there were cleaning the building with the kid around? The kid drank the cleaning fluid and was rushed to the hospital? How is that different from the kid in "Snow in the Bluff" dabbling with crack? You didn't see the kid drink that cleaner solution but you knew it would happen.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

I don't think people should just totally "safe" ideas but I do think there is a responsibility there for what you show. For instance, like you said showing homosexuality is not going to convince the average heterosexual to start engaging in homosexual activity. But violence does tend to start more violence among those who are violent to begin with. Overly sexual tones does in fact create a more overly sexual environment. But neither of these things makes for a good movie. I've never seen a movie that was good based on shock value alone. Never. What I've seen is good movies that have a little of something that may shock some.

But also everyone is different as well. What you feel as personal responsibility and what I feel as personal responsibility is different. I had the pleasure of being able to speak to a "gangster rapper" one time who had a couple of no one hits. He was no longer making music. He told me he ran into a guy that said before he did anything "bad" he would get hyped up on the "Gangster rapper's" music. The rapper told me it crushed him - he had only done that type of music to make money he didn't think people really paid attention to it. My movies will have my heart in them and I'll try my best to keep certain things at bay; if that's not your cup of tea you can make your movies in the way you see fit. I'm hoping I can run across people who will say "Before your XYZ film I wasn't happy, but now I have hope." Whoopi Goldberg talks this way when she talks about the TV Show "Star Trek" the Original Series.

Going back to what you said about fundraising - You don't get money because of the shock value of your script or the grittiness of it. You get money based on How good the script is; your track record; and who you know. (my opinion) Again fortunately I've been able to work with some celebrities (names withheld). Trust me when I tell you they call their friends looking for scripts and projects. Most comes from "within" not from "without". Almost every person that seems to have "popped up" as a filmmaker is related in some way to another person or project. It's extremely rare for someone to make it all the way alone without the help from someone on the inside.

Robert Townsend was helped by Eddie Murphy. Tyler Perry was helped by T.D. Jakes. F. Gary Gray and Hype Williams both worked their way up through music videos. Other directors like the one who did Drumline worked the "Whusssssup" commercial for Budweiser. There are those who break free almost on their own, but they are rare. Even Robert Rodriguez knew an agent personally at one of the top film agencies in the country.

There are levels to everything both financially and politically. Some of the people I'm working with now can do things I can't. We were on set one time and I was left in charge because of the the Celebrities had to leave on a flight (but he was directing) one of the other Actor/Celebities got mad at him. He was like "jls4 is capable - he's good." but it didn't matter because the person didn't know me and I didn't have a track record.

As for the other threads - Everyone is interested in numbers!!!! Myself included. But large numbers don't come because you can pay a girl to take off her top. That's not going to make your movie a million dollars. After that 5 to 10 seconds what else happens? Why will the audience tune in for the other 89 minutes? Oh having a child snort crack? Hmm what else do you have? And then you run the risk of loosing people, like in the article (the reason for the fight) - for those who don't want to watch that.

 

[Martay]

Okay, good weekend, lots of things related to our discussions here.

1st saw Snow on the Bluff without incident on Saturday night.

2nd Watched Tyler Perry's latest as well as Jumping the Broom back to back. Have thoughts.

About Snow on the Bluff. After seeing the film, I still have very mixed feelings about the whole thing. At the Q & A there was more heated discussion about content.

I guess I should back track and give my general take on it as a movie, since that's what is supposed to be important. I have to judge it as a Narrative Film since that is what is purports to be and in general I believe that's what it is (more on that later). I found the subject matter fairly repetitive. The main character does things repeatedly. So I felt we spent a feature long duration covering the same cycle over and over. I honestly nearly fell asleep. The infamous crack scene was far more benign than I expected it. It actually almost played as screwball comedy which lends more credence to it actually being a narrative movie than some found footage piece. There wasn't anything specific that was "shocking" in the movie if taken as a narrative film. We've seen shootings, robberies, drugs, depicted in far more graphic detail in other movies. So, in that respect, it almost fails as a narrative to cover new ground. The characters spoke differently than most film characters but not different than people from similar areas I've encountered in real life. So to that extent, perhaps the film does break ground in the language department. Ultimately, the story fails to compel in my opinion. It seems to play out as a tragedy ultimately but without a strong story arc or momentum to earn it as such. The film does "appear" to be realistic, so in that respect they succeed fairly well. This film could be convincingly real to a general audience. And if taken without the grain of salt that it is a narrative film, might cause a viceral response for an audience. I don't know if I should talk specifically without revealing SPOILERS about the movie.

So, that's my take on the film. However, my take on the way the film is being presented is a little less than enthusiastic. First, let's talk about the screening. At the screening, the director, Star, and many of the "cast" were present. A short film featuring Michael K. Williams played prior to Snow on tha Bluff. Well, much of that short was drowned out due to the "cast" cutting up and ready to see themselves on the big screen (believe me, I understand the feeling. I LOVE seeing my movies on the big screen too). Then comes Snow on Tha Bluff, the audience mainly watches respectfully and laughs at a few mildly amusing scenes early in the film and then mostly quiet for the remainder of the film. The cast and crew (perhaps understandably) laugh and cheer much like a summer blockbuster action picture might be received. The film screens and like I say, I'm trying to stay awake as the repetition of situations gets monotonous. So, the film ends and then comes the Q & A.

First the fans..."When will this be available to buy?" Some random southern accented preppy white guy asks enthusiastically. The director informs him that they're talking to distributors. I forget the next couple questions but I ask trying to confirm my suspicions that is a narrative "What kind of camera did you use and how did you capture sound?" (see there are scenes in which characters are shot from afar with many people in the foreground yet we don't hear the people close to the camera we hear the conversation of the two character perfectly clear) Director says that he shot some kind of Sony camera that the star had already been shooting with, a camcorder and that mics were rigged on the cameras...Yeah right. Was my thought.

Then come the other questions which starts it all degenerating. A woman asks, "What are you trying to say with the movie?" The director shrugs, "I don't know" and there's a silence for a few moments before one of the "cast" helpfully preaches "We are trying to show what goes on every day in our neighborhood. Cause people don't know what goes on everyday. We just want you to see how life is in our neighborhood. How many in here know what goes on in the bluff before this movie?" and so on and so forth. Then a couple of other "cast" members less articulely try to add to that. Finally the lady who started the answer says "Does that answer your question?" Not really it seemed but the woman says "yes".

Then comes another audience member, who basically expresses displeasure with the film "I'm so tired of seeing movies like this..." is what he says and adds that anyone with intelligence knows that the things in the film do go on, but the film offered nothing of value other than a report of something we already know. So then the director again doesn't say much, actually what he does say is a bit condescending, "Sorry we didn't make a movie that depicts life how YOU want to see it." And then the cast comes back with their same point about How people just don't know what goes on, etc. They preach to the man, "the movie might be hurtful to watch" (didn't seem to be hurtful to the cast) "So if it is hurtful to watch, do something about it" "Invest in your community if you don't like what you see!" And so on and so forth. The man protested that we already know these things, what value is the movie bringing?

So, that goes on for a few minutes and the original white dude responds with a dismissive, "Then don't pay your money to see it, then". Luckily it wasn't audible to more than a few people as that added nothing to the conversation.

The Atlanta Film Festival moderator tries to move on.

Another audience member asks, "What genre is the movie?"

Again, the director, "I don't know, you tell me."

Now, the reason I'm giving a little blow by blow is that the way the Q&A went down makes me even more negative on the movie itself.

Come on! You don't know what genre it is? You don't know what you wanted to say with the movie?

A director should at least have the guts to answer those questions truthfully. Stand up for your movie.

The only reason not to is to allow more controversy to brew...let your "cast" defend themselves. And of course, the cast members are not filmmakers and don't understand some of the questions that a director is expected to answer about a film. It's exploitative in some respects to pit a group of non-actors who may not realize what people are seeing as flaws with the film and see criticism as an attack on THEM against the critical questions of the audience.

I felt bad for both the audience members who genuinely wanted answers as well as the cast members who were defending themselves moreso than the film in question.

Making matters worse in my own mind is that the star (who actually did fall asleep and didn't really participate in the Q & A) has consistently claimed that HE SHOT all of the movie. Which itself is ridiculous because he's in the majority of the movie as a protagonist. Pancho is credit as a cinematographer along with director Damon Russell. So, on the one hand, they want the audience to believe how real it is, and on the other they want to call it a narrative film.

I think I dislike more how the film is being presented than I dislike the film itself.

However, the fact that it causes a lot of reaction is an acheivement in and of itself that can't be denied.

So, ultimately, I didn't appreciate the movie on it's own much but I think it was very effective in doing what the filmmaker intended to do. Even if the filmmaker is frustrating in his presentation of the movie.

I guess I'll deal with the Tyler Perry/Jumping the Broom discussion in another post.

-Martin

 

[Martay]

Okay,

Madea's Happy Family vs. Jumping the Broom

Well, here's two movies with a lot of similarities and a lot of differences.

Tyler Perry delivers more of the kind of comedy that his fans (and frankly his critics) expect from him.

It was a little raunchier than I expect from a Tyler Perry movie. Lots of sex discussions and a revelation about Madea being a fairly 'loose' woman in her younger years.

It had a few PSAs in the movie as well. So, all around it played like an extended version of his sitcoms with a stunt scene in the middle as its one movie set piece (as seen in the trailer, the Madea character drives through a fast food restaurant literally).

Most of the scene play longer than they should. They continue without advancing the story (which isn't very complicated to begin with).

It again features a daytime celebrity, in this case Maury Povich, as part of the storyline.

I have to admit, I didn't laugh much at all. Overall, once again, this proves to be a movie out of my zone. I did get to see an actor I work with frequently and know very well arrest Bow Wow, so that was fun.

Now, Jumping the Broom on the other hand. Was also a comedy based on family dynamics.

However, this film proved to be more subtle and nimble covering its subject matter and definitely even STRONGER faith based than Tyler Perry's movie.

I really hope this movie does well and connects with TP's audience enough to encourage studios (This was SONY-based Stage 6) to take chances on other films in this market. Even if it might be a cynical attempt to create their own Tyler Perry movies.

The cast was excellent. Loretta Devine stars in both movies but certainly delivers a more biting performance in Jumping the Broom.

Hard not to like Paula Patton, so no complaints there.

It was at times amusing and touching and really worked. And like I said, was a stronger nod to faith than this latest Tyler Perry movie. Of course, coming from a Minister T.D. Jakes you'd expect that but I liked that it was subtle in its presentation of its faith-based messages.

Definitely won me over.

-Martin

 

[tieuellegacy]

@jls4...We're both saying some of the same things. A large part of this is about perception. I mentioned Fantastic 4 "Silver Surfer" for a reason. I didn't like part 1. I happened to see part 2 several times and I liked it more. Then I'm pretty sure that I looked at the numbers and it did better from a monetary box office standpoint. I don't know what it did in terms of income because I think that part 2 was more expensive. That brings me to "barely successes". You will have a mark on your film that tells you what you consider successful. It might be that you want 400 students to see it. If 390 see it, that's still pretty good and you may agree that it's good. Then someone else says, "well I had 1,000 people to see mine so his or her movie wasn't as good". In discussing "black films" and ANY other film, that's what many people do. They won't see Hustle and Flow because a white guy directed a pimp with a mid-life crisis so they don't even know what that film is about. They won't see a film on Saddam Hussein because the government labeled him a terrorist. Therefore that person doesn't whether or not that filmmaker has found any good to a person that we generally agree is a terrorist. I'll speak on that part again but it would be shock value for most americans to find out that we gave weapons and training to someone that turned the gun, or plane, on America. Those types of tidbits can draw people to see it. Of course every person will have a different view on success. I may not like Donald Trump but he's been successful at creating a false fascade that the president was born outside of American.

I'm not sure what you mean about the b/w differences of Jumping the Broom. I will say that I saw the movie and there were some things that they added to play upon the differences in culture. That goes back to the point. Sometimes you have to take a look at films on your own to decide whether it is successful. I would think more than $13 mill worth of tickets would've been sold even with Thor coming out. We beg for positive movies yet we don't show up at the box office. I'll bet you that you know a handful of people with the bootleg by the end of this week though. That's another story altogether.

"I'd rather make $500 Million per film than anything else, but generally if you make that kind of money you will eventually get a Best Director award. Films like Lord of the Rings do win Best Director awards."- That's a pretty big generalization. You mean DGA's and not Academy Awards, right? In the last few years, I remember nominations of Christopher Nolan and Peter Jackson but I don't remember wins. Not saying that nominations aren't great but my thought is why would that be the goal? Out of 100's of films, they pick one. Would that mean that you're film isn't a great film if it's not selected as a filnalist or does that mean that THOSE JUDGES didn't find it worthy? Or did it mean that you didn't have the marketing dollars to build a campaign?

"Right now Black Filmmakers seem to be happy just to tell a basic story instead of pushing the envelope of what a movie is." I don't think that black filmmakers are very happy about it at all. I think that people are trying to work with what they have. Not everyone has creative scripts but that's not a "black thang" that's a "people thang". We're in an era of remakes, comic book adaptations, and reality shows.

"Currently my drive is to do Sci Fi/Fantasy movies which if you did research not only are Sci Fi/Fantasy movies the most profitable (9 of the top 10 movies are Fantasy or Sci Fi) but they also help to define the future in which people see themselves. I know I've already talked about Product Placement, so you have to understand that Sci Fi films work the same way. What people "see" will affect them. Many people to this day believe that if we didn't have "Deep Impact", "5th Element" and the TV show "24", Barack Obama would have never become president. People need to see it first so they can believe. When I talk to theblack filmmakers about Sci Fi they blankly look at me, not even fully understanding the impact of it. Even the "famous folks" I'm working with now would rather do a screwball comedy or black drama. These films "preach to the choir" what we need is to "preach to the populous".---- Trust me jls4, I do a lot of research. That's part of what I do during the dayjob as well...research and crunch numbers. I'm gonna go out on a limb right now without looking at the latest numbers. Horror films may be more profitable. The final box office numbers (gross) don't matter as much as the net amounts. Sci Fi may be the most expensive to make and fewer are made every year because of that fact. Therefore when they fail, they fail horribly. If you make a movie for $200 mil and the box office is $240 mil, that's not considered as profitable as making a $200k film and getting $1mil in the box. Anyone on the backend of that first movie would probably not make a dollar. Those numbers that you see don't include final distribution and marketing figures. I'm pretty sure that Martay will tell you that with the Lionsgate deal (or anyone else in this forum that's distro'd through Codeblack, Sony Home Pics, Maverick, or the others).

If I can find this link to the budget for one of the last Harry Potters...I'll post it here. It may create a little shock value.

I see where you're going with the future and how people are defined. I probably felt more that way when I was in my teens. Sci fi movies can be really good just like others to me but I'm 36. I saw plenty of sci fi movies that made people think that certain things would be able to fly without planes and shoot lazers and all of that in the past. After 20 years, I realized that things are more the same than what many creative heads made it out to be. I do believe that it's important to see black presidents on TV and so forth and so on. I don't think that it had much of an impact on Barack being president. Just like I HOPE that television shows don't have the impact on him not being re-elected. That's a different documentary within itself.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion

 

[tieuellegacy]

@jls4... I never said that shock value alone made a movie good. I do believe that it can cause people to have a reaction. Not all good movies have a "feel good ending" and sometimes that's what shock does. It makes people uneasy. You take a film that's basically been seen before and flip it on it's head. Jumping the Broom had a little bit of that but it wasn't what I would call horrific. I'd call it added drama.

Violence doesn't create more violence...people create more violence. I'll say this again. I'm in Texas. I knew that the movie "Snow..." was supposed to have violence in it without me being there. What did the people that went to see the film think that they were going to see? Being irresponsible as a filmmaker would be telling the audience that they are about to watch a dramedy when they are really about to watch a cartoon. They should've known what they were about to see...for the most part.

I've spoken to more than one "gangster rapper" and usually they know what they are doing when they rap. All of it, to some extent, is about money. And in a lot of ways rap is held to a different standard than filmmaking. Rappers can't change characters on every album but filmmakers and actors CAN (sometimes don't) change on every movie if they see fit. It may not be make the most money but they can do it.

I'm not saying that people aren't influenced by art or music. I'm thinking that you're misreading what I'm saying.


"Going back to what you said about fundraising - You don't get money because of the shock value of your script or the grittiness of it. You get money based on How good the script is; your track record; and who you know."- Really? Who told you that? Have you not heard of people that shoot films without a completed scripts? Many times the script is nothing like what you see onscreen. The two sci fi movies Transformers 2 and Hancock are good examples of high budget movies that could be considered failures or triumphs depending on how you look at it. Transformers began shooting with about 14 pages of a script supposedly. Hancock had a totally different group of characters and storyline from the script that was purchased. The script floating around online that was purchased has been called a disaster...again depending on what you consider a great script.

"You get money based on How good the script is; your track record; and who you know." Partially true. So why don't these "famous people" write more scripts since they have the inside track? Actors complain that there aren't any scripts for minorities and women so why don't they write themselves? At least, write a logline and let a writer move forward on it. Truth is there are a lot of good scripts out there that will never see the light of day.

"It's extremely rare for someone to make it all the way alone without the help from someone on the inside." Someone has to give you a shot if you're gonna get major distribution. Of course. I mentioned Charles Stone somewhere on here and I researched the start of R Rodriguez as well. Eventually they did know someone but the agents didn't come until the projects were complete or fully drawn up. I don't disagree. You HAVE to meet people in high places eventually if you wanna make millions or a billion.

"And then you run the risk of loosing people, like in the article (the reason for the fight) - for those who don't want to watch that." You always run the risk of losing people. If a person walks out of your movie does it matter that they walked out because they were bored or because it was too violent? Chances are if either happens, you lost that person from your audience. I'm not sure why they fought but the director said that it started because he asked them to be quiet as they left (believe it or not). Then the guy confronted him. In the end, it wouldn't have made a difference. Why fight the director? I didn't call the Sex in the City director, writer, or producer to tell them that the movie had no point. I guess that I shouldn't have because I walked in without paying.

Keep pushin' it jls4. Make movies.

On to the next post.

Tieuel Legacy! Motion