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

[David G. Smith]

Why do you think anyone's forgotten that?

Mostly David from the tone of the comments dismissing this film. I am like everyone else here and grew up on and love mainstream movies, and that is where my filmmaking aspirations are mostly centered, but there is a whole other world of filmmaking out there, with a magnificent history, where the goal is not a career path to a multi-picture deal with the majors but to say something with moving pictures and sounds; the most powerful communications medium in history. I find it very frustrating sometimes on DVXUSER that the work, sometimes great work, of many film artists of the Avant-garde, the Underground or other non-commercial cinema is just not acknowledged or appreciated but, in many cases, disparaged or dismissed out of hand. I think that is unfortunate.

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, I do not understand your insistence that the production of a film of personal expression must be done as a solo effort. Film is an inherently collaborative art form. Films of personal expression also do not have to be "No Budget" affairs, and from the articles above, I am of the opinion that "Escape From Tomorrow" was a production budgeted at well North of six figures. The like-minded collaborators the director was able to gather around himself did not work for free, I'd bet. I would also bet that they did not make anywhere near as much as they would have made on a similarly scheduled well-budgeted mainstream media production. However, there are a whole lot of very talented film crafts persons who have some time while they are waiting for that call from the next similarly scheduled well budgeted mainstream media production that are more than willing to work hard on a project with a dedicated, disciplined, organized creator who wants to make something different and who is not just paying in pizza, credit and a DVD. This is very much the case with "Escape From Tomorrow", IMO. To be honest, the fact that Randy Moore spent the money that he did on this project, which he had to know would never receive distribution, just "Because", is admirable. The thing is Gary, Randy Moore made what he did for his own reasons, with the resources he had available, and produced a creative work that he is proud of. That creative work has punched its way through the "Noise" that you cited and is enjoying recognition and accolades. Why can't we just acknowledge the filmmaker's accomplishment so far and applaud him?

The corollary of which there is now much craft with no art, story, substance, or originality.

Double Plus!!!

 

[David G. Smith]

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.

How exactly did Randy Moore put anyone else besides himself at terrible risk more than anybody else making a low budget film?

 

[David Jimerson]

Mostly David from the tone of the comments dismissing this film.

I didn't "dismiss" the film.

 

[Gary Huff]

How exactly did Randy Moore put anyone else besides himself at terrible risk more than anybody else making a low budget film?

I don't think anyone was saying that. It was more of a response to OldCorpse who apparently believes that his lack of success in the filmmaking industry is due to him not having the money for permits to shoot on property he doesn't own, and insurance to protect cast/crew who might possibly become injured on set.

To be honest, the fact that Randy Moore spent the money that he did on this project, which he had to know would never receive distribution, just "Because", is admirable. The thing is Gary, Randy Moore made what he did for his own reasons, with the resources he had available, and produced a creative work that he is proud of. That creative work has punched its way through the "Noise" that you cited and is enjoying recognition and accolades. Why can't we just acknowledge the filmmaker's accomplishment so far and applaud him?

That's fine, I totally recognize that shooting the movie the way he did was ballsy, and I appreciate that aspect of it. But, three things. First, the only clip I've seen is probably the worst piece of footage you could release to show people. It doesn't interest me at all. Where's the trailer?

Second, Sundance is using this film to promote themselves. They are using it to generate buzz for Sundance, not for Randy Moore. If you don't believe me, then think about it this way: you can ask almost anyone and they've heard of The Blair Witch Project, but can you off the top of your head tell me who directed it? I can't. And they haven't gone on to anything except lower budgeted films that I've never heard of or seen. And yet, for a brief sliver of time, it was the talk of the country. But it was buzz for generated by Artisan, for Artisan. I see a similar analogy with this situation.

Third, what's the point of making a film that you can't show? I think one of the underlying reasons any of us get into the above-the-line aspects of filmmaking is that we want others to see the work and respond the way they hope they will. That's an incredibly powerful feeling, and I find it odd that Moore made a film that he will be, Sundance screening being the exception, unable to show. I'm curious if he actually ever thought about the legal aspects of being prohibited from showing his work due to the nature of how he filmed it. From the review it seems like he tried to keep anything that overtly said "Disney" out of it (bleeping the word and such, but apparently there are copyrighted characters and very recognizable portions of the park in scenes) in order to have more leeway, but that he failed. Perhaps he should have spent some time playing by the "rules" of getting advice from an entertainment lawyer before proceeding so he wouldn't have had a film that will be stuck in limbo?

 

[Gillvane]

The clip is pretty, nice camera work and editing IMO, it's interesting. I like this style of film making. It's reminiscent of french films, and not just because they are singing a French song. As to the story, probably sucks if there even is one, but I do like the way it looks.

IMO, the issue isn't shooting at Disney. I don't really care. So Disney gets upset, whatever. This guy wanted to tell a story and needed Disney for his set. Shooting in the backyard wouldn't tell the same story, so he went for it.

IMO, this is the real issue in this story:

He largely financed this film's budget, which he pegs at under $1 million--and generally supported his family over these three years--with an inheritance from his grandparents. (There is some but not a lot of green screen and sound stage work that can be more costly.)


Is "under a Million" low budget? Well sure, 5 million is low budget these days. I think it's still low budget till you et to 20 Million. But this ain't a guy with a camera and a computer, a million bucks is still a million bucks no matter how you slice it. Disney ads some serious production value for free, but who's got a million bucks to self finance a feature?

 

[Gary Huff]

I guess when you have inheritance to finance your film, you don't care if you just piss money away on a film you can never sell.

 

[Gillvane]

Third, what's the point of making a film that you can't show?

It's showing at Sundance, so looks like he CAN show it? What if it is only available on the black market? That's a huge draw for the cult market, better than any advertisement you could buy.

Who here has a film that's shown at Sundance? I'm betting most people here would love to get a film shown at Sundance. I imagine he could do a successful kickstarter (or Indiegogo) for his next film right about now with the publicity, if he doesn't get some sort of Hollywood deal.

 

[Gary Huff]

It's showing at Sundance, so looks like he CAN show it?

I specifically mentioned the exception, Gillvane. It seems like that's the only time he can ever show it.

I imagine he could do a successful kickstarter (or Indiegogo) for his next film right about now with the publicity, if he doesn't get some sort of Hollywood deal.

Seriously? I bet he couldn't. How many people do you think actually know of this? Only people who care to keep up with news about Sundance. And by the time he could possibly put together a Kickstarter campaign, even those would have already moved on to the next "success" story.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

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?

I wouldn't want to play in the underground film field myself.

 

[MattinSTL]

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.

Still: FTW - STORY. EXPERIENCE. TALENT. AUDACITY. MAKE YOUR OWN RULES.

Reading through the thread I guess it was shot w/ 5D... also... viewing the clip... crane shots!? How sneaky could the production have been?

Also gotta' say that I can't call black and white particularly impressive... not on the heals of The Artist... which I'd wager is 99% the inspiration for this film. Notice the over-emphasized splash of the girls in the water (audio)... it's exactly like the moment in The Artist where sound comes painfully crashing down on Jean Dujardin (the lead character)... the difference being that the sonic drama is motivated in The Artist... vs. here where I suppose we're supposed to feel a Lolita moment through this guy? (Hey don't look at me funny... he's the one "posing" at the pool edge and the intro shot is the two girls undressing).

*Shrug*

It looks like it may be an okay Sunday afternoon film... sure it may be rule-breaking... but I wouldn't say ground-breaking.

Reminds me of a little saying I've heard around production... r.e. getting the shot... a million times... "Better to ask for forgiveness then ask for permission"...

 

[Gillvane]

It looks like it may be an okay Sunday afternoon film... sure it may be rule-breaking... but I wouldn't say ground-breaking.

Never ever ask a fellow film maker what they think if your film. They will not like it because they did not make it. Film makers are the worst audience you can possibly get. You always have to find your audience, the people that are interested in what you have to say whether it's surreal, horror, drama, women's rights, etc., and that audience will never be film makers. Just something to keep in mind when you're making films.

 

[Guest]

it was a point and shoot. I think DVXuser community has a collective heart attack.

*smile warm feelings of dvx nostalgia*

What I imagine we would look like if we met in person:

 

[Guest]

Never ever ask a fellow film maker what they think if your film.

Phuh, isn't that true? I tear apart great films. We judge films like most people judge a sports play from the couch, political decisions, or our parents.

For example, I didn't like the short film that won the documentary category in the Vimeo fest.

 

[David G. Smith]

Here is an interesting short featurette about Randy Moore and "Escape From Tomorrow" from Trailer Addict.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/escape-from-tomorrow/featurette-meet-the-artists

And the New York Times piece on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/movies/escape-from-tomorrow-at-sundance-scrutinizes-disney.html?_r=0

 

[Chris Santucci]

The biggest thing for me (as mentioned):

"While Disney has yet to respond to the movie's existence, any distributor willing to tackle this one will need a very tricky legal strategy."

I suppose having a "cult" hit has some value for sure, and in the end, it'll be the story telling and the buzz that will get this guy any access. These days, having some kind of hook is almost a necessity for getting the attention of major festival programmers, so good on him for finding one because he's getting all kinds of attention now.

The obvious advantage of B&W that stuck out to me was white balance, and since he was shooting the way he was (with little if any control), I'd say that was a smart choice up to the point where B&W may not be interesting enough to audiences who watch color films.

 

[Kholi]

My only response as of now is that the title of the thread is a contradiction to the essence of the story: it's still gear-related, in a sense. One side of the story/making of--which is likely one of the major reasons why it's getting press seeing as how the only clip available looks pretty technical (crane etc), is the gear. iPhones for scripts, a small point and shoot that noone recognizes shoots video, etc. It may not be expensive gear, but I would wager that, in many of his interviews, the filmmaker goes on a small blurb about how the gear enabled him to be discreet.

Naturally, as much as I have come to realize the gear has been-there-done-that and you really SHOULD concentrate on executing something that sits with an audience even for a single day, the gear IS part of that equation. It's low hanging fruit to want to rebel against the gear lust.

 

[Postmaster]

Crane shots? Really?

Don't think that pool scene was shot at Disneyland.

 

[Batutta]

When the article says the budget was pegged at "under a million", I was like, what the hell did they spend a million dollars on if they shot it with unknown actors guerilla style on a tiny camera? Then I remembered, they paid tickets to get a cast and crew into Disneyland day after day for weeks. That alone would cost a million dollars.

 

[David G. Smith]

When the article says the budget was pegged at "under a million", I was like, what the hell did they spend a million dollars on if they shot it with unknown actors guerilla style on a tiny camera? Then I remembered, they paid tickets to get a cast and crew into Disneyland day after day for weeks. That alone would cost a million dollars.

I bet a lot of folks here could shoot a feature with just their cotton candy and sno-cone budget!!!

Of course, from the featurette below, studio rental, for green screen work, post work in South Korea, and an orchestrated score aren't available for free.

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/escape-from-tomorrow/featurette-meet-the-artists

 

[nothing]

Interesting that so many filmmakers here have so little understanding about Sundance. Here's the bottom line: this man has a career now, regardless of whatever else happens to this particular film. Whether he chooses to squander the opportunities he now has is up to him.

If you want to engage in personal artistic expression, then paint, write, draw, sculpt, ect.

Don't make a film.

Thank god that so many film artists don't feel the way you do. The whole of film history would be impoverished if they did.

My only response as of now is that the title of the thread is a contradiction to the essence of the story: it's still gear-related, in a sense.

This story is very much gear related - this film could not have been made without the camera technology we have today.