The heck with camera gear - "Escape from Tomorrow" Sundance sensation

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
This may be behind a paywall for some, so I apologize, but here's an article about a film making a lot of noise in Sundance, "Escape from Tomorrow"

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-randy-moore-release-20130118,0,1748760.story

Just a few quotes - try to see how many rules this thing breaks:

"About three years ago, Randy Moore, a struggling screenwriter living in Burbank, had an out-there idea: What if he took a tiny camera and, without asking permission, began shooting a narrative movie at Disney theme parks?
Moore had been visiting Disney World in Orlando, Fla., with his now-estranged father since he was a child, and he’d also begun taking his two children, then 1 and 3, to Disneyland. He thought that juxtaposing the all-American iconography of Mickey Mouse with a dark scripted tale would be cinematic gold, or at least deeply weird.

So with the help of an extremely small Canon camera and some very game actors and crew, the director began shooting a movie guerrilla-style.
The result of Moore’s quixotic dream is “Escape from Tomorrow,” a Surrealist, genre-defying black-and-white film that was shown for the first time at the Sundance Film Festival on Friday night and that was primarily shot across the vast expanses of Disney theme parks in Orlando and Anaheim. There is Buzz Lightyear Space Ranger Spin and Space Mountain, Tiki Room and teacups, princesses and a Main Street parade. At one point, Epcot Center blows up.

It is one of the strangest and most provocative movies this reporter has seen in eight years attending the Sundance Film Festival. And it may well never be viewed by a commercial audience."

1)Made with ridiculous gear "extremely small Canon camera" - well, it wasn't a C100, or a 5D, or any interchangeable lens cam... it was a point and shoot. I think DVXuser community has a collective heart attack.

2)Made with zero permits of any kind - ZERO. Completely underground - 100% stolen footage

3)So legally encumbered, it may never see any distribution. The very purpose of shooting your own film and the dream of every filmmaker is to get distribution. The F*** with that!

4)Black and White.

5)No clear genre.

So what happens? It actually gets into Sundance. Not only gets in, but gets huge buzz. Career launcher.

Ladies and gentlemen - exhibit A for breaking the rules. Folks here have argued for practically every point here - and the guy defied each and every one. Permits? We don't need your stinking permits. Legal will shut down any distribution? The heck with that - we can get success with zero distribution, we can get into the world's most prestigious festival and get buzz and go from there. Gear? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Of course, there is ONE thing - he did spend a ton of money... which most here don't have.

Still: FTW - STORY. EXPERIENCE. TALENT. AUDACITY. MAKE YOUR OWN RULES.
 
Wow amazing, I hope the film sees the light of day. I wonder if he could even give it away for free, or if Disney could even squash that?
 
OldCorpse said:
Ladies and gentlemen - exhibit A for breaking the rules.
Click to expand...

Sure, if you want to pretend that the Powerball-odds exception is the norm. That's what people argue against, not that you should never, ever break the rules -- and also against the general notion that you should trespass, steal, do whatever you want, because it's all good; you're making a movie and it might get you noticed. That's simply not a professional way of conducting yourself.

I mean, you even kind of defeat your own purpose when you point out:

3)So legally encumbered, it may never see any distribution. The very purpose of shooting your own film and the dream of every filmmaker is to get distribution. The F*** with that!
Click to expand...

He's lucky Disney is letting it screen at Sundance, let alone anything else.

Which, of course, is a separate issue, because there are the artistic rules -- which is more of a set of guidelines of what works and why -- and then there are the rules of conducting yourself in civil society.

Artistic norms can be challenged all day long, refined, re-tested, reworked. It's still one in thousands who do something truly revolutionary and make it work, but you don't hurt anyone by trying.

But when it comes to things that affect other people -- the trespassing, the stealing, whatever -- that's just being selfish, disrespectful, and unprofessional. You don't need to do that to push any artistic envelopes, and the art doesn't justify it.
 
OldCorpse said:
So what happens? It actually gets into Sundance. Not only gets in, but gets huge buzz. Career launcher.
Click to expand...

Well, you don't actually know that this will launch him any kind of career in this business, nor will you probably ever do follow up to see if your call was even correct or not.

Like those guys who shot the video at the Dallas-Forth Worth airport that got a ton of buzz a few years ago. What happened with them? Nothing.
 
Everyone gets out of this what they see. It's about your perspective. I'm humble enough to realize when I've been outmatched. For example, I was one of the few voices here who always bridled at the sanctimonious insistence "get permits!" "get insurance!" blah, blah, blah. I thought that was bunk. You certainly are taking a risk going without those, but you take a risk walking out of your house in the morning. It's all about odds. I would not do fireworks without permit or insurance, nor would I do risky stunts (or stunts of any kind!), BUT an industrial area or abandoned warehouse for some quick stuff, sure, why not - of course things can go wrong, but hey, you might get hit by a meteorite also. You must be the judge of risk - fireworks, stunts, NO, abandoned warehouse, sure. All life is risk and there are no guarantees, and you trade risk for reward... there's an old rule about risk/reward in business, wall street and moneymaking - if there is little risk there is usually little reward, and vice versa. Personally, what this guy did goes beyond my risk tolerance - my loss.

This guy went way, way, way, way beyond what I would dare. If you told me that your plan was to shoot at Disney with zero permits, I'd say your'e insane. I wouldn't do it. But see, the guy has the kind of daring I apparently lack. And now that he's succeeded, I would STILL not dare do what he did. That's when I know someone is better than me (in this case: has more guts).

Is it a case of "lottery winner" as David says? Probably. But hey, this is a lottery kind of business. Almost all successful indie self-funded movies are miracles and lottery winners when you really look into it... comes with the territory. If you only want to play it safe, you may need to look into another line of business - I suggest dry cleaning.

Well, you don't actually know that this will launch him any kind of career in this business

Totally. Who knows what happens. But let me ask you this: would you rather have a film with a ton of buzz in Sundance, or would you rather have nothing? The point being, is that nobody's project is guaranteed to bring them success. But that the methods this guy employed - including breaking all the rules - brought him much closer (Sundance!), than a million guys who employed conventional methods. Guts and imagination and talent are no guarantee that you'll succeed, but they give you a fighting chance.

What moral can we draw from this? Perhaps this: rules are only relevant in a given situation, and every situation is special. Don't let someone's conception of supposed "hollywood rules" stop you - those may, or may not be relevant.
 
OldCorpse said:
This guy went way, way, way, way beyond what I would dare. If you told me that your plan was to shoot at Disney with zero permits, I'd say your'e insane. I wouldn't do it. But see, the guy has the kind of daring I apparently lack. And now that he's succeeded, I would STILL not dare do what he did. That's when I know someone is better than me (in this case: has more guts).
Click to expand...

Where does that follow? He has some recognition because he's in Sundance? Big deal. Unless and until he manages to use it as a stepping-stone to a career, I'm not impressed in and of itself (I skimmed the links, couldn't find a trailer, but would be interested in seeing one). This could be nothing more than a PR coup for Sundance and then he fades back into obscurity. If that happens, is it really anything to feel bad about?


Who knows what happens. But let me ask you this: would you rather have a film with a ton of buzz in Sundance, or would you rather have nothing?
Click to expand...


I would rather have a film that I could sell so that I wouldn't have to have a normal 9-5 instead of being able to support myself while I work on my next film.

But that the methods this guy employed - including breaking all the rules - brought him much closer (Sundance!), than a million guys who employed conventional methods. Guts and imagination and talent are no guarantee that you'll succeed, but they give you a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

I still think you are arguing on a hypothetical. Why do you think it's impossible to make a film and do it properly (with insurance, permits, ect.). Because raising money via investors is hard? Well, if you want to do it easy, may I suggest another line of business. Dry cleaning perhaps?

Don't let someone's conception of supposed "hollywood rules" stop you - those may, or may not be relevant.
Click to expand...

Until your not letting the "rules" stop you results in someone getting hurt without insurance to pay for their medical bills (after probably working for "credit, copy, meals" of course).
 
Last edited:
Why do you think it's impossible to make a film and do it properly (with insurance, permits, ect.)

It may or may not be impossible - if you're born rich or have the social situation to raise those kinds of funds, obviously it's not impossible. But for many people it is indeed impossible. And the history of film is stuffed to the gills with people who started out the only way they could - by skimping on "rules" such as insurance and permits - because it was either skip or have nothing... in other words, it really was impossible. And you can go down the line of guys whether Tarantino or Rodriguez, or Jarmush or a million others who made it. They started - not all, but most - by skipping what would have been an impossible requirements. And that's OK in my book.


 
OldCorpse said:
It may or may not be impossible - if you're born rich or have the social situation to raise those kinds of funds, obviously it's not impossible.
Click to expand...

Like Sam Raimi? He had his crew raised $100,000 in 1970s money for their film. I guess he was "born rich" and had the "social situation"?

That sounds completely off-base to me.
 
Wow, has everybody here forgotten or never heard of "Underground Films". Has everybody here forgotten that low budget independent filmmaking is not just an alternative to the corporatized mainstream film industry, or, as it seems most hope, the entry level to get into that industry, but can be a means of personal artistic expression?
 
Last edited:
David G. Smith said:
but can be a means of personal artistic expression?
Click to expand...

In my opinion, films take the combined efforts of many people over a relatively length amount of time that make it more of a business than an artistic pursuit. If you want to engage in personal artistic expression, then paint, write, draw, sculpt, ect.

Don't make a film.
 
I have no idea what Raimi's situation was, and why he was able to raise the money, but good for him. Equally clearly not everybody is in the same situation, and what works for one person may not work for another. That's the entire point of this thread - that there is no sense in rigidly holding onto rules "always raise money, or give up film", "never raise money, you must film only guerilla style", because every situation is special. The point is the exact opposite - it is do NOT be stopped by rules, do NOT hold rigidly to rules; be flexible, obey them when it makes sense, but equally break them when it makes sense - and DON'T break them when it doesn't make sense (and exposes you to too much risk). Where that dividing line lies, depends on the project and on the person. The risks this guy took would have been too rich for my blood and out of my comfort zone; but then, I probably (probably!) have more risk tolerance than Gary Huff. Everyone finds themselves along a continuum of risk from close to zero all the way to insanity.

Bottom line - when someone preaches "rules", listen politely and definitely consider in good faith what is being said, and then make your own decision. Maybe you'll go along, and maybe you'll consider "nah, that's BS".

I tend to think it's better to risk a bit (not excessively!) rather than have nothing - others may say "either the conditions are right and I do it the right way or not at all", it takes all kinds. I always remember: do you want to regret the things you did, or the things you didn't do?

I'll roll the dice - though not as much as this guy. But in the end, results is what counts - so good on him.
 
Gary Huff said:
In my opinion, films take the combined efforts of many people over a relatively length amount of time that make it more of a business than an artistic pursuit. If you want to engage in personal artistic expression, then paint, write, draw, sculpt, ect.

Don't make a film.
Click to expand...

I vehemently disagree Gary. Cinema is too powerful of a means of communication not to be used for personal artistic expression, especially now where the advancement of technology has made it more and more accessible to more and more people. To paraphrase Francis Ford Coppola from the documentary, "A Decade Under The Influence", "To only make films for popular commercial entertainment would be like the pharmaceutical industry only making tranquilizers and Viagra".
 
David G. Smith said:
Wow, has everybody here forgotten or never heard of "Underground Films". Has everybody here forgotten that low budget independent filmmaking is not just an alternative to the corporatized mainstream film industry, or, as it seems most hope, the entry level to get into that industry, but can be a means of personal artistic expression?
Click to expand...

Why do you think anyone's forgotten that?
 
David G. Smith said:
Cinema is too powerful of a means of communication not to be used for personal artistic expression, especially now where the advancement of technology has made it more and more accessible to more and more people.
Click to expand...

And now, more than ever, there is a ton of utter crap out there that is not even worth your time to waste watching.

Let's be clear here: we're talking about features, not video in particular. If you want to be artsy with a short, fine. It wastes someone's weekend to help you out with that (unless you've come up with a way to destroy the professionalism of movies forever using just yourself for the entire process). Otherwise, we're talking about weeks, or even months of shooting to get enough footage to have a length of 80+ minutes (on average), and even then, with your "art" not being backed up by money that would like to have a return on investment, you're going to be limited on exactly what you can show and do.

Frankly, with all the "noise" out there in our technologically advanced communication medium, I tend to immediately dismiss anything that lacks in craft, which is where 99.999% of attempts artistic expression fails...too much "art" with no craft.
 
Gary Huff said:
I tend to immediately dismiss anything that lacks in craft, which is where 99.999% of attempts artistic expression fails...too much "art" with no craft.
Click to expand...
The corollary of which there is now much craft with no art, story, substance, or originality.
 
Hmmm. The "official clip" shown is basically implying pedophilia. At DisneyLand. Can't imagine how Sundance would have possibly passed on that!

On how Raimi raised the money: we don't have to guess, it's public knowledge. Three high school kids made a little Super8 film to demonstrate their skills. Then they went and bought suits and briefcases and went to every doctor, dentist, lawyer and businessman they could find and showed their work and sold them on their vision. They raised $300,000 this way, and used it to make "Evil Dead."

On rules: I guess some people are rebellious enough to break rules to further their own self interests. Maybe that works out for them, maybe it doesn't. Breaking rules might get you to Sundance, but there's another place rule breakers go: jail. It really does matter, very much, which rules you choose to break. If someone is hurt or damaged because of your attempt to further your filmmaking career, then you are not a "rebel indie artist"; instead, you are a selfish reckless @$$hole. Is there a fine line between the two? I would argue the line is pretty thick, actually.

Penn & Teller once explained their philosophy of how they would decide whether to proceed with a gag or trick:
they evaluated it against the standard of "no permanent damage." if the gag had the possibility of causing anyone any permanent damage, then they wouldn't proceed. Period. No gag was worth that risk.

I think living in a functioning society requires us to abide by at least that much. If your filmmaking pursuits put someone else or their property at risk, especially without their permission, and you have no insurance to remedy that, then you simply should not do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top