Up 2 35

M

Mac

Well-known member
Many of the posts I've read over the last year are by people who intend to shoot a feature with the DVX or the XL2 with a view to blowing up to 35mm for theatrical release, wondering if and how the image will be acceptable. I don't want to discourage anyone, but I think someone needs to point out the realities in this process.

Many refer to Nancy Schreiber's success with NOVEMBER. She has, for some, became the Che Guevara of the indie DV movement. But, remember, in her speech at Sundance she ended by shouting "Film lives!!!" That would be like Che saying "Up with capitalism".

The problem is, how many of you have actually seen NOVEMBER in a theater? The posts I've read all refer to seeing the film on DVD.

NOVEMBER is a good film with name actors, shot by an ASC Director of Photography that won Best Cinematography at Sundance, but it did not get a general theatrical release in 35mm that I know of.

Even if your film is great, the majority of people are going to see it at home - Almost all film festivals accept DVD submissions now - The first question a theatrical distributor always asks is "who's in it?". Those distributors are generally even distrustful of films shot in super16 and blown up to 35 - There are many good films shot with Panavision equipment that have not gotten theatrical release and are collecting dust on shelves.

If you want to get nominated for an Academy Award, you gotta make a 35 print, though, and pay to screen for at least a week in a theater in LA or NY. Fine, but stand on a hill in a rainstorm and you've got a much better chance of getting hit by lightening...

Blowing up a feature length film costs about the same as a high-end SUV with leather. You can buy blank DVDs at Costco for 60 cents.

I'm like the rest of you, an independent filmmaker who harbours the dream of making the "Great American Independent Film". But I think this underground DV guerilla movement should be looking toward creating a new form of distribution - a massive market for DVD sales aimed at people with plasma screens in their homes.

Let Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise and all the other Toms have the theaters, we need to take over the living rooms.

Buy and rent lots of obscure movies on DVD, not because they were shot with the DVX, but because they were made by creative people telling personal stories without stars, films that may be a little rough around the edges sometimes, but films that view the world through a different set of lenses.
 
Re: Up 2 35

"If you build it, they will come..."

If your movie is really good... REALLY good... then it will find a way. It has to be a killer screenplay, and have superb directing and acting. If ANY of these elements are not 100% perfect, then the film will most likely fail. But if it's all there, it'll get seen.

Shoot in DV, 35mm, Super 8, whatever. The medium is unimportant. Tell a mind-blowing story using a Canon Z40, and it'll find it's audience.
 
Re: Up 2 35

True, a good film will find it's audience. What I was trying to say is that the audience need not be in a theater. I would hate to see anyone sucked into the expense of a 35 blow-up on a dream. If a distributor is excited and wants to front the bill, that is great.

I am currently in a hotel room, on a shoot, philosophizing on my Powerbook while my soundman finishes breakfast. I love filmmaking and do it often 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for a living.

I know personally the thrill of seeing a film I made projected in a packed 1000 seat house - there is nothing like it in the world.

I also know the ache of that same film playing for an audience of 12 after spending thousands on promotion and getting rave reviews in the trades. I have a garage full of 35mm prints, they take up a LOT of room. Once in a while I get a retro screening and that is great.

The point I was trying to make is that there are enough people out there creating new and exciting product for there to be a fresh approach to distribution - we are the filmmakers AND a big part of a whole new audience. I just hope that someone with a sense of business sees this and puts the pieces together so that Blockbuster and Hollywood Video will consider more than just the Hollywood mainstream.
 
Re: Up 2 35

Shoot in DV, 35mm, Super 8, whatever. The medium is unimportant. Tell a mind-blowing story using a Canon Z40, and it'll find it's audience.
Click to expand...

Blairwitch looked like ****. My grandma could of shot better but like quoted above it doesn't matter whats its shot on its your story,content. Blairwitch ended grossing 200mil. People didn't go watch it for its cinematography or its big name actors. It was the story that brought people to watch this movie. Porn flicks are the #1 money makers in media. I don't think Bob really cares if porn was shot on 70mm film. :)
 
Re: Up 2 35

With Digital projectors coming to scene, blowing up to 35mm will be past.
Scotland has started this digital revolution, and soon all other countries will follow. The main reason Scotland went that way was because of documentaries and independent films. In England they have been talking about it, so it isn't going to be to far away.

Just write a good script and make the film with whatever medium you can afford. Stop making this type of comparison, because it will soon be over because distributors will start accepting digital films.
 
Re: Up 2 35

BLAIR WITCH is a perfect example, actually. The "shitty" look and no-name actors were integral to the story-telling process. That film wouldn't have worked with recognizable talent and a phony Hollywood home-movie style. But that is a rare exception and it has already been done. It is quite different to try and compete with the "big boys" telling a sensitive story or something that demands crystal clarity.

The old joke is "Cinema Verite in Hollywood means put the camera on a dolly and shake the set".

Robert Rodriquez is the real guru here. He shoots in HD and defies the traditions. But now he gets names attached before he wastes his time. That is the process if you want to deal with real distributors...

With EL MARIACHI Rodriquez had the three necessities of independent breakthrough - TALENT, A UNIQUE POINT-OF-VIEW, and LUCK. Even he would admit to the luck part - being in the right place at the right time.

And, yes, digital projection is the wave of the future for theatrical distribution, but you're still going to be dealing with the same distributors.

Look, I've been there - I've had 3 scripts optioned, 2 by Disney - I have over 100 film festival awards - I've had 2 documentaries in "limited release" in theaters (that means they probably never showed up at a theater near you). I've had 5 documentaries in prime-time on national television, numerous others on regional PBS (APT).

I know how these people think, and, like it or not, they aren't anxiously seeking the next Quinten Tarrentino. They want re-hashed versions of what's already been done, they want name talent, a name cinematographer, and a cheap director just out of USC, NYU or UCLA.

I am not trying to rain on anybody's parade. Read my posts! What I'm saying is that we have a new future available to us, but we have to actively be a part of forming it instead of just sitting around and waiting for MIRAMAX (I think even they are dead meat) to discover our little gems.

And, please, don't include pornos in this discussion. It is insulting and degrading to those of us who are serious about the future of maverick independent film production!
 
Re: Up 2 35

[quote author=Mac link=board=XL2;num=1100915632;start=0#7 date=11/20/04 at 19:18:46]
And, please, don't include pornos in this discussion. It is insulting and degrading to those of us who are serious about the future of maverick independent film production![/quote]

Not that I can speak for him, but I think bluespider was just using porn as a tongue in cheek example that the media used is not important to the audience and depending on the content, different forms of media is needed.

Now that said, you will need to take any and all comments here with a grain of humor and try not to take offence or in return make offence. We tend to be a light hearted group. You can have fun and still take a serious path and make positive gains. :)
 
Re: Up 2 35


Mac,

Like it or not, if we are talking about cinema here, and not television, then seeing it at home, on a dvd, even on a widescreen plasma screen is not really a true (or truly cinematic) alternative to a screening in a theater. We're talking about movies, in a communal, public space, on a big screen. One of the most devastating trends in a lot of movies, especially mainstream movies, is the shift towards television values, in characters, in plots, in cinematography, in editing, etc. Watching a movie at home on a TV set is not how it's supposed to be watched. Yes, everyone does it, for convenience sake, but so much is lost in that convenience that the experience is deeply and radically different. If independent films start to mold themselves for a pure TV output, then they're lose their status as cinema as we know. And I don't mean this in the semantic sense. But films made for theaters, and shows made for television have to play up the various qualities of their projection/broadcast formats. If you make a TV film, you know that it will be shown only on television, and so you exploit the experiences of watching something on TV, the feeling of watching something on TV. When you make a film for a theater, you can exploit the experience and feelings that accompany watching something in a theater, like the crowd of spectators, and the excellent sound system, the huge screen.

It sounds like you make documentaries only, which would be an exception to the rule, at least in some ways, as documentaries of all kinds have played on TV over the years, and are not just becoming popular with a large theater audience.

I guess all my ramblings boils down to the fact that I don't agree with you. I don't think people need to blow their DV films up to 35, I agree with you on that. Most film festivals have the ability to project digitally, and I think that's what most people make DV films for, to submit to festivals, to get exposure, and to hopefully work on film later, or at least a better HD camera. But I don't agree that films should be made for a strictly DVD release. That's a huge compromise that represents the Hollywood juggernauts winning out over small and serious filmmakers. It's us giving in to them. The American corporate culture that has been ushered in by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now Bush again seems to be one of the main causes of the problem. And many others. In the 60's and 70's the art house circuit flourished across America and film culture in America flourished as well, as studio's tried to cash in on that culture with riskier and art-conscious directors. I don't think the public has gotten dumber and more close-minded (that's always the excuse of the studio's though - "we're just giving the public what they want"), I think it is the fact that with only a few enormous media conglomerates controlling nearly all the media we are exposed to, little independents don't have much a chance. And if they just throw in the towel, and give up on cinema, then we'll all continue to be fed the same studio garbage in theaters for years to come. Without a heavy advertising budget, which of course there wouldn't be, then little movies, even on DVD wouldn't do very well. Why would Blockbuster choose to stock a local indie over the latest Jerry Bruckheimer piece of garbage that has a 40 million dollar advertising budget. It's just moving the distribution away from theater chains, and into the hands of DVD rental stores, and then the problem is still there. I agree that distribution needs to change. But I think the change will have to come in Washington. When the corporate hold over America is weakened, I think indie will start to be seen again in more places. Whether in a theater or on DVD, without those changes, I just don't see it happening.

I think it all comes down to Nader 2008. ;)
 
Re: Up 2 35

[quote author=Mac link=board=XL2;num=1100915632;start=0#0 date=11/19/04 at 17:53:52]Many refer to Nancy Schreiber's success with NOVEMBER. She has, for some, became the Che Guevara of the indie DV movement. But, remember, in her speech at Sundance she ended by shouting "Film lives!!!" That would be like Che saying "Up with capitalism". [/quote]

I find this amusing because its true, she has. She was also an early user of HD when shooting the interviews for Visions of Light...an AMAZING look at cinematoghers and our craft of making motion pictures.

Why do I find this amusing? Because if you ever talk to her in person (had the honor of working with her a few years ago) she'll flat out say she hates video. :)

Perhaps her view has changed slightly, but I doubt it.
 
Re: Up 2 35

And, please, don't include pornos in this discussion. It is insulting and degrading to those of us who are serious about the future of maverick independent film production!  
Click to expand...


Thanks dakotapod, sorry if that offended you and believe me mac I'm dead serious about my profession which is filmmaking.  Relax.  :)
 
Re: Up 2 35

I'm glad that my post has stirred up some controversy and some thinking. Tongue in cheek or not, thinking in this medium is a good thing.

Fact is, I don't only make documentaries. I used to be a DP and still make national and regional commercials to pay the bills. I have made quite a few dramatic shorts, corporates and 2 features. Pre-MTV I made many what were then called "rock & roll films". I just prefer documentaries because I like working without a crew and a grip truck following me around everywhere - and I like "real" people (not that some actors aren't real people, a few are).

The issue here really is cost. $30,000 to $50,000 is what it costs to make a 35 interneg and a 1st trial (and it is not an "uprez" that can be done at any post house or lab - it is a highly specialized process that involves very skilled colorists and audio technicians), then you have to make release prints at about $3000 @.

When I read posts from people trying to lowball buying a DVX or an XL2, complaining about a $1500 difference in cost between the two, then in the same post they state that they want to make a 35 print - well, I just thought a dose of reality would be useful.

I teach cnematography occasionally at a university and I regularly judge student film festivals, high school and college. I see many really good films. amazingly good in fact. Shot on everything from handycams to Arri SRs. There is a lot of "product" out there - feature length and shorts - that never gets seen. For 30 years I've hoped that a distribution network would develop to showcase all this talent - it almost happened once with Janus Films... I thought this forum would be a good place to revitalize that idea.

I said that there's nothing like having your film projected to an audience in a theater, it's a real rush. But, short of that, wouldn't it be nice if there were other options?

Now, I'm done writing in this thread, I am going to pick up my new XL2 and go out for another long day of shooting. That's the part I really like. And, yes, I really like the XL2.
 
Re: Up 2 35


Mac, you should check out a buddy of mine's website called Film Fights. It showcases, in a sort of online film contest format, a bunch of indie shorts by various film groups on a regular basis. While most of them are not real high-end and done by a younger crowd, there are some very good short films there from time to time. I think a site like this is somewhat related to what you're speaking about in regards to getting the new digital medium out.

Link: http://www.filmfights.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top