jump to navigation

The never ending rat race February 17, 2009

Posted by joost in : film, reflection , comments closed

What drives people to do what they do? More specifically, what drives me to make films? Or, when I’m in a more cynical mood, why do I even bother?

Like a lot of other things in life, making films is like taking part in a never ending rat race. The race starts out small, you experiment, try to learn, follow a path, backtrack and start all over again.

After a start somewhere in the maze of my life, I chose to focus on film making. I followed a formal and practical education at a film school. During that time I have tried to give it my best, to get the maximum out of what surrounded me in people and resources, and to translate this into delivering great work on/off set and on the screen. Looking back, I think I have done well. I was voted student of the year and film of the year, so that sort of objectively states that I belong to the top of my class.

Next up is promoting my graduation film and getting it screened. It has mainly been shown in a number of student film festivals so far, some of which I have attended. Within that frame of reference, I feel that the quality of my film is above average. It’s technically sound, has the right pacing, good acting, looks great and most importantly has an emotional punch (core, truth), more so than other student films I have seen.

This is my current position in the rat race. The course as far as I can identify it now looks something like the following. Please note that I will describe roughly the best case scenario.

Within the broader frame of reference of film festivals world wide, my film still has to prove itself. Goals that I want/need to achieve: screenings in more non-student festivals, ideally part of the competitive section, ultimately leading to awards.

The next part of the race is to repeat this step. Write a good script, find money, make another short film, have it screened at festivals, win awards. In the mean time join the sub rat race to apply for funding for new and more ambitious shorts.

All the while develop ideas, treatments and drafts of possible feature films. Network, surround yourself with people who are as talented or more talented / successful as you are.

Somehow – based on merits achieved with the short films – make a feature film on virtually no budget (as in: spend all the money you can find on the film itself), get it shown on festivals and get a distribution deal. Moneywise you’re lucky to recoup (other people’s) investments within a few years.

Garner attention with that feature, using it as springboard to finance the next feature, still on a small budget but where you might actually be able to pay the crew working on it. In that stage they are all professionals, possibly in a position “one-up” from what they usually do, hoping to advance their careers if this film does well. If the project is appealing more well known actors might be on board as well.
Again do the festival circuit, try to win awards, or perhaps strike a direct-to-DVD deal, or even a limited national theatrical release if backed by a proper production/distribution company.

With some low-budget features under your belt and a proven track record, you might be lucky enough to up the game yet again and develop medium budget sized films, with more creative control and chances of a theatrical release from the initial stages, backed with some modest promotion, and perhaps even releases in several countries. By now you are working with quite experienced crew members and possibly some A-list actors.

We’re getting to the top of the pyramid now: making feature films with a decent size budget. Note: I am avoiding the term “big budget” because it is a hollow phrase, all it expresses is that the pile of money involved to realize the film is high, but it doesn’t say if it is enough to realize the creative vision. Really there is no such a thing as “enough money”.
So, we’re talking about making films with full creative control, backing by the major players (studios, production and distribution companies), top talent above and below the line (key cast and crew) willing to work with you, within a reasonable amount of time.

Since this is the film industry, we now get to an endless loop in the rat race. On this level, you will have to repeat success and build a steady track record. This means moving within the spectrum of achieving critical acclaim (awards, reviews, industry praise) and commercial success (box office). I think there is some level of freedom between the two, but they are rarely mutually exclusive.

This is the rat race that lies ahead of me. I am sure that there are some hidden pathways to shorten the race, as there are no doubt also plenty of dead corners and traps. Why bother? Why participate in this rat race? My answer is threefold.

First, because it is my nature: I am ambitious, I want to excel, mediocrity is not good enough for me.

Second, film making is a creative endeavour, and more creative freedom and expression can be found further along the race.

Third, true to the nature of the rat race itself: everyone else is running, so I’d better keep up!

“Rule 2″ festival screenings in London February 6, 2009

Posted by joost in : film , comments closed

My graduation film “Rule 2″ will be screened during two film festivals for young film makers in London.

First off it’s the Future Film Festival at the BFI. My film will be screened as part of the programme Who We Are: “Collection of short films depicting the lives and ideas of young people today. Don’t believe everything you see in the news…”

The second screening is for the Eat Our Shorts festival on the 17th of February. Afterwards there will be a Q&A which I will be attending.

Now in 3D! February 2, 2009

Posted by joost in : film , comments closed

The biggest debate in the film (makers) world the past few years revolved around traditional vs. digital cinematography. Will digital cameras take over? Will celluloid survive? What are the pros and cons of the old and new way?
While this debate is nowhere near a definite answer (although it is pretty clear that both digital cinematography and cinemas will be here to stay), there is a new kid on the block to fuel the fire: 3D!

We all remember the old red and green stereo images (“anaglyphs“), but with the advent of digital projectors 3D has entered a new era after being discarded for over 30 years. So what’s new and exciting about this resurgence of 3D, and has it moved beyond the gimmicky use of objects protruding out of the screen, making the audience want to grab hold of it?

I’ve been bookmarking several articles that try to explain the ins and outs when it comes to 3D, especially from a film makers point of view, and I thought it would be good to share these with you.

Evangelists like Jeffrey Katzenberg (the “K” in Dreamworks SKG) compare the advent of 3D to nothing less than a revolution like the introduction of sound in the 30′s and the move from black & white to colour in the 40′s. See Empire Online Katzenberg’s 3D Revolution and BusinessWeek‘s Depth of a salesman.

James Cameron is considered one of the pioneers. Since Titanic (1997) he has focused completely on 3D research and development, building his own cameras and rigs etc. Variety has published a very illuminating interview with him, where he explains in detail how he as a director uses 3D. He talks about shot composition, lighting, cutting, directing actors, etc.

With a topic like this, manufacturers introduce competing 3D “standards” all in an attempt to become the de-facto market leader, or at least to get their piece of the pie. This Google Knol article explains not only the history of 3D (also see wikipedia of course), but more importantly describes the main 3D “standards”/versions (like Digital 3D, XpanD, RealD, Dolby 3D, IMAX 3D).

The implications of proper 3D go far beyond just showing a (moving) stereo image. fxguide has published a very thorough article that deals with the theory and practice of 3D filming, how to shoot in 3D, the post production challenges, technical gear and projection systems.

Related to all of this, and linking it to the broader analogue vs. digital discussion, is the rise of digital cinematography. The RED One camera kick-started a lot of the debate. Wired Magazine has an excellent article online on the birth of the RED camera.

2009 is promising to become a breakthrough year for 3D. This year promises to show that the technology really has shrugged of the failed introduction decades ago. More importantly, the early adopters claim that they understand 3D filmmaking better than before, that 3D should serve storytelling first and that the added dimensionality should offer an immersive experience, not a distracting one. Three films will be released this year that will function as a Litmus test:

Monsters vs. Aliens
Computer animated, released in 3D on 3 April 2009 (UK). Newsarama has published some background articles.

Coraline
Stop-motion animated, released in 3D on 8 May 2009 (UK).
The New York Times talks about Adding Dimension to the Storytelling.

Avatar
Live action and supposedly photo-realistic CGI, released in 3D on 18 December 2009 (UK).

All in all exciting times for film – now in 3D!