Scott Kirsner wrote a book called “Inventing the Movies” which details the history of cinema from Thomas Edison to Steve Jobs. Within the book he describes three types of people - those who innovate, those who persevere and those who sit on the sidelines waiting. When I read your critique of the NYC DIY Dinner it is clear you fall into the preservation camp. Personally, I love films and prefer to see them projected when I can and when it makes sense. But I also grow tired of watching filmmakers struggle to get their work seen and to sustain. And the sad truth is that many talented filmmakers have fall prey to exploitation.
The reality is that the system is overloaded. Everyday 50,000 more videos are uploaded to YouTube. There are more choices (tv channels, countless blogs / sites, dvds, VOD etc.) that compete for peoples time. Theatrical bookings are very difficult. I know, I’ve personally booked my films into art-house and independent cinemas across the country. I’m a fan of independent cinemas and even though my work has cross-media components it will always have live event elements, and those live events will include theatrical screenings.
But this I think is our key difference and correct me if I’m wrong. But I don’t consider myself a filmmaker – I don’t shoot on film, I don’t cut on film and I don’t work on a single medium anymore. I believe in story and the emotional connection that an audience experiences from great writing, strong direction and wonderful acting. But I also believe that the form is changing and that is what excites me. It’s not one way or the highway. It’s a reality. Art forms change and audience’s relationships to the way stories are told change. The birth of 16mm cameras ushered in cinema verit. Desktop systems and advances in imaging technology have empowered a diversity of voices that have never had access. Last month, I was in Copenhagen for a film festival and I connected with friends from all over the world, many who I met online or via social networks. One friend is from the Philippines. In the last 12 months there’s been an explosion of DIY filmmaking there - doc, narratives, experimental works. The films are unique, artful and passionate. But yet they have not been seen here in the states. We live in a global film community, it is not just about the US it is about allowing voices to be heard all over the world. The social networks and online outlets that you consider to be nothing more than popularity contests are so much more. They are a voice, a way for people to connect. Yes some people use them for status but others use them as a way to understand other cultures and share experiences. It’s not a contest its a connection.
And when it comes to brands let us be honest. Many of the films that you love from well know writers and or directors were brought to you by some brand some where along the way. It might have been a critic, a well know film festival, or the publicity machines that rollout films both big and small or maybe even the art-house theaters that screened them. The fact of the matter is that “filmmakers” need to take some time to understand how various aspects of the process work. If you want to be a good director you need to understand the roles of your collaborators. And similar to how you crew up for a film ( producer, production designer, dp, ad, gaffer etc.) when we discuss the role of technology or branding or marketing we are calling attention to a part of the process that needs new “crew” positions. We’re not saying that an individual “must master” them or they are destine to fail. What we are saying is that if you ignore or consider it to be someone else’s duty or job then often you will be disappointed with the results. What is often ironic is that I’ve know many filmmakers who entered into deals with distributors only to find themselves doing a loin of the share of the work anyway. In some cases out of despration when they realized for whatever reason that their film wasn’t getting the push that it really needed. It is about understanding what is needed and having an open discussion about it. That way new processes can be discovered. Learning from each other is what will make the stories better, our work stronger. We need to build an infrastructure that will in turn help to establish a foundation for a truly free film community.
We are standing at an unprecedented time in history. We can for the first time reach and communicate directly with our audiences. There doesn’t have to be gatekeepers or middle men or filters. It can finally be about connections. People connecting to the stories that move them. So in some ways maybe you’re feeling overwhelmed by the possibilities - many within the industry are. But in uncertain times some amazing things have been innovated. In the economic downturn of the 70’s, apple computer which started in a garage and was born out passion, creativity and a desire to empower people. The beautiful thing is there are no rules, no right or wrong way. There is just progress. In the end the audience will decide what they want to see, how they want to see and where they want to see it. So I say its time to innovate and seize the opportunity instead of waiting for someone else to shape the future for us.
And Brent I’m more than happy to answer any technical questions you may have. And over at the Workbook Project we have a number of folks who know how to use social media, build audiences, create brands and release films in alternative ways - all of them would be willing to do the same. DIY DAYS, the Workbook Project and From Here to Awesome are based on open source philosophies, ones that encourage community and sharing. That being said, now seems like the perfect time for this new emerging truly free film community to help each other make great films - we just need a little bit of innovation to make it possible.
- Lance Weiler
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thanks for responding Lance!
I realize this dinner was about distribution, but again, certain things were off-putting and in my mind a bit off topic, although I don't think they were intended to be. I personally was put-off when discussions teetered on an idea that passive films and their audiences have no more place in the world, nor does the concept of a singular work with boundaries. Yes, I know there are new opportunities for artists to find their voice and new means of expressing themselves, I just don't believe that a certain kind of film is dead.
I agree it's not one way or the highway, but it isn't always stressed.
New technology wonderfully expands possibilities but doesn't kill old film languages, styles, techniques, etc. All cinema didn't become verite as you know. Painting didn't die with the invention of photography. It allowed those interested in a more accurate depiction of reality to embrace photography, while allowing those interested in the qualities only painting has to better their craft, as they say, opening it up, freeing it from the duty of duplicating realism. Both art forms grew, but neither died.
There are new avenues for people who are excited by them, but does this all really mean an old art form is dying? I think this will all better refine each distinct medium and let artists better define their practice.
All this in regards to the content of a film. This is not a reaction against the distribution of a film, which, believe me, I am onboard with what must be done in that regard. There is so much in these discussions that encourage me, I just want to make it known that other parts may be alienating for the wrong reasons if we're not careful. As I'm sure you're aware, the discussion can stress this newly evolving technology's ability to better refine the artforms it becomes as well as branches out from.
I'm totally with Brent on this subject. What he's talking about preserving is true film art. What Lance and the Mumblecore guys and the like are doing really doesn't qualify. If their works are as good as can be done today, than cinema really is dead. Where are the truly special American art films? Very, very few are being made.
I'm with Brent, too. I think the only change will be that more people will watch traditional art films at home. But that's a change that's already happened, so that's not news.
And I agree with Anonymous above, that America has really fallen behind in what I would consider an art film. Japan, Korea, France are far ahead. But maybe it's just that the films we're talking about aren't getting our attention.
I love work that pushes the limits of creative expression. I'm a fan of films that break form and challenge narrative conventions. Many of which are in fact “art films.” All I'm saying is to be aware of new opportunities when making work. That these emerging technologies and forms that some chalk off as marketing, promotion or distractions from a work are actually the opposite. Sure they can be used to promote work, build audiences, and assist with the distribution and delivery of one’s work. And for the moment let’s put aside that they serve audience needs and provide new potential revenue streams. Let’s instead focus on the creative elements.
I personally see them as new narrative devices, which enable me to be creative in many ways - a chance to bring other forms to the work. It is not for the faint at heart. It is often more work but for me personally it is creatively exhilarating. For instance when building a universe around a project it gives me an opportunity to bring things into the story that have been left out of the script. It might be elements that I cut for time due to the fact that a feature film has certain limitations due to form and structure. A character that was dropped, a scene I wish I could have expanded, or a storyline I wish I could extend. Or in other cases it creates an opportunity to build experiences in the real world that some might consider to be similar to experimental theater. Where audiences come face to face with characters and engage with them sometimes realizing it and other times not knowing until days later.
This is hard to express in words but I’ll try. It is important to break away from the literal. Elements that surround a storyworld don’t have to take away from the experience they are intended to enhance it. At the center is the story. Not to mention that many of these storyworld elements can be placed into the process of creating the work itself. And many will say well making the film is already a Herculean task. But there are many ways to build a project universe that don’t have to take away from the “film.” But I'll save the production concepts for another day.
The problem I see is that this type of experimentation with narrative form has been marginalized to the concept of being marketing and promotion, something that is shoehorned into the process and forced. But when you design from the beginning many things can be part of the process, save you time but more importantly help you to flush out elements of the story and characters. I know there are elements of this process that would excite you once you understand the full possibilities. The desire is actually the same between those making “art films” and those who embrace this transmedia form. It is to invoke an experience that resonates long after the film has played and the lights have come up.
These are the things that excite me and they are not a gimmick or an afterthought they are a part of my creative process.
Post a Comment