"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Chinatown is a perfect example of a Hollywood Factory project- a powerful producer commissions a screenplay written as a vehicle for a big star and then assigns a craftsman filmmaker to direct. On one level, this is collaborative work at its best, but as usual with Polanski, it's also a great work of personal art. The Polish auteur seems unable to shoot a film without dealing with its themes and ideas personally. So Chinatown, while boasting a brilliant screenplay by Robert Towne, is haunted by the director's trademark sense of paranoia and alienation.



I think that the two images above say almost everything about the film and expresses Polanski's very personal view on man's inability to control the chaotic universe around him. Not to mention that it's one of Jack Nicholson's greatest moments onscreen. The intensity of his desire to finally stand up and do the right thing, to try and make a difference in the first image followed by the shattered emptiness, the blank nothingness of the second image which follows the death of his lover Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) and the secret victory of her vile father, Noah Cross (John Huston).

In an matter of seconds, Nicholson as private eye J.J. Gittes is shown how small his place in the world really is and how ineffectual his actions are in controlling the course of events even on a minor scale.

"Forget Jake. It's Chinatown."

Chinatown has just been released in a special edition DVD. Click here to read my review of it for CinemaBlend.com.

STANLEY KUBRICK'S XANADU

Last night the Sundance Channel ran the fascinating documentary by Jon Ronson, Stanley Kubrick's Boxes which was a fine, though far too brief, look at the many thousands of boxes Mr. K kept in storage at his home in England. These boxes contained vast amounts of material, all carefully catalogued and organized, pertaining to all facets of the man's career and life.

It's strange that this private man of whom so much gossip ranged regarding his lunacy and hermitage can be seen so nakedly through his calculated filing. The image one gets is not one of a man OBSESSED but of a man of great intellectual curiosity and method. An obsessed man would merely seem eccentric and quirky in his desire to control the world around him. Kubrick went round that bend and into something far closer to a scientist of the physical universe. This was a man who questioned everything from the font on a movie poster, to the size of his newspaper ads, to the kind of ink best used for writing and the construction of these archive boxes themselves. It appears Mr. K was frustrated with the way the tops of the boxes worked and was intent on finding a design that would allow the lids to sit securely but loose enough to slide off easily. It's most telling that the company constructing the boxes left a random note regarding the box construction that supposedly read, "Fussy customer".

Kubrick didn't think wanting things to work the right way to be fussy and this is the same attention to detail that went into all of his films and which makes them so very unique to this day. He believed that either you care or you don't, there's no in between. That kind of pride and dedication to one's work is something I must say I admire greatly.

I thought that Ronson made a fascinating film, particularly when he played detective and hunted down some of the people who sent Kubrick letters which the director filed as "crank" letters.

If you missed it, here it is:



Or you can find the entire thing on google video:
HERE

THE KEY TO HITCHCOCK

Martin Scorsese has been well known for his efforts in film preservation. But as he says in the really great short film, The Key To Reserva, "It's one thing to preserve a film that's been made, it's another thing to preserve a film that's not been made." Apparently the Spanish wine company Freixenet comissioned a commercial from Scorsese and the result is this fantastic 9 minute short in which the Academy Award winning director attempts to film 4 pages of a "lost" Hitchcock film called "The Key To Reserva", Reserva being the company product, of course. Scorsese attempts to "save" this work by shooting it, "The way Hitchcock would've made it then, today. If he was here today but making it then."

 

This is, of course, all just a put on, but it's also a dazzling lesson in cinematic technique. Hitchcock's use of the subjective point of view shot to propel the action is as exciting and relevent a technique now as it was then. There is nothing that can put an audience more directly into a cinematic situation than to show something from the point of view of an onscreen character and then reveal his or her reaction to it. The filmmaker is able to do in seconds what literature needs pages to describe and a play cannot even achieve. Hitchcock spent his entire career making films that were built around people looking instead of talking, conveying in a series of brief cuts what other filmmakers could not without resorting to long scenes of verbal exposition.



Scorsese has everything just right. From the opening credits which mimic Saul Bass's innovative title design for North by Northwest, to the Bernard Herrmann music cues, the short is perfect. Even the color grading captures the look of Hitch's work in the mid to late 50s with cinematographer Robert Burks.








The entire set up at the Orchestra concert is an homage to The Man Who Knew Too Muchwith a cool blonde in the audience who reminds me of Eva Marie Saint in Northwest. Simon Baker seeks for the hidden key as all kinds of Hitchcockian intrigue goes down. There are references to Young and Innocent, Dial 'M' for Murder and evenThe Birds. Check it outHERE.

Scarlet -- RED Pocket Professional Camera?

Well, the net's abuzz with the leaked "announcement" of the RED ONE's junior sized model, dubbed the "Scarlet". This is to be unveiled at NAB 2008 and is being referred to as a "pocket professional camera". "Pocket" suggests a small and possibly prosumer model, but it's possible that this is a real tweener, something less than the RED ONE's US$17,000 plus price tag but still more than the US$7,000 range marketed by Sony, Canon, JVC and Panasonic. If it comes with variable frame rates and some of the bells and whistles of the RED it may win the Pepsi challenge for many indie filmmakers. Here's the question: What features would it have to have to be worth more than US$7,000?

YOU'VE GOT YOUR IPOD IN MY YOUTUBE

Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com has written an article titled,BEYOND THE MULTIPLEX:THE YEAR IN INDIE FILM 2007 which once again asks the question of whether or not theatrical release will be or should be the distribution target for independent filmmakers. This is truly a confusing time for all media producers. The future is unclear as to what is to be made out of all the possible channels of distribution available and how they are to be integrated into or replace the current model.

Not much has changed since the earliest days of the film industry in terms of distribution. Films are still shot predominently on negative film, from which prints are struck and shipped all over the world to generate mass revenue. As new technologies emerged, they were simply integrated into the system through the creation of "windows" where each piece in the pipeline(DVD, pay-per-view, cable, Network TV) gets a certain window of exclusivity.

Experiments in collapsing the windows will be seen more and more in the coming year. But indie filmmakers should've seen the value of this long ago. With the lack of big stars, a huge promotional budget and wide scale release, most indie films vanish into thin air. Even after I read about an interesting film, it becomes an adventure to find the damn thing playing anywhere. It's only on DVD that it really becomes a viable product.

But DVD shouldn't be the only destination format considered. Once you've shot and edited your film, it has no market value unless it can find a market. Why would anyone want to see your movie when they have so many choices to watch now? What sets your film apart? Of course, the film festival route is a great idea to get your movie seen and talked about. And that's what you need, you need to build interest in the film so that you can market it.

There's no reason not to let people know as much about your movie as you can. There's no reason to avoid the possibility of allowing them to watch it in as many formats and venues as possible. With the right kind of film, breaking it down into smaller pieces to play online as a web serial or series may be one way to get people interested. Of course, your trailer should already be online on your clearly designed website as well as on YOUTUBE, REVVER, IFILM, METACAFE , SQUIDOO, MYSPACE and every other SPACE or FACE you can put it online. That said, the trailer is very Web 1.0-you need to give people more of what they will hopefully be interested in paying for-so, some scenes from the film, some interviews with the actors etc.

Remember, you do not have the ability to just let the film sell itself. Even the studios think that's suicide. The argument shouldn't be whether I self-promote/self-distribute or sell it to a distributor-you should do everything at the same time. Get into those festivals, play the movie online, make a version for Ipod download, arrange for screenings wherever you can, get the movie reviewed by sites that relate to your subject matter, try to exploit every market possible from niches like horror and microcinema itself. Those making their own microcinema epics will be curious as to what you did and how you did it, so sell to them as well. While you do all this, try and sell the film to a distributor for an advance, if not, go for a split. If you can see the advantages, burn those discs yourself and sell it on Amazon etc. through Createspace etc. Keep making films and promoting them and yourself. Making more films is always a good idea since a body of work is more valuable than a single film since an audience can be built through it and the rest will become easier.

ATTEND THE TALE OF SWEENEY TODD!

Hey, just to clarify the sneaky ad campaign Paramount is running for Tim Burton's new flick:Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a MUSICAL. As in it's got singing in it, lots of singing. It's a faithful adaptation of a great piece of musical theater by none other than Stephen Sondheim who mostly writes musicals. The thing is, Paramount backed this picture knowing full well that Johnny Depp would be crooning as much as he was cutting throats and instead of say, letting the public know what their product was about, they're playing some dirty pool and just conveniently omitting any mention of the singing aspect from their ads. The argument is that the public may want to see a singing and dancing Johnny Depp or they may want to see a fun Grand Guignol thriller with Johnny Depp camping it up as a homicidal barber but they probably don't want to see both at the same time. The Broadway production directed by Harold Prince also faced a similar problem of how to sell a very unique show that marries the penny dreadful with satire and tragedy but it was always understood that it was a musical. If some found it too bloody next to Oklahoma, well, this WAS the original poster-


Maybe Paramount has the right idea, though. If you've heard of Sweeney, you probably already know it's a famous musical. So, maybe you'll come with the "right" expectations. If you never heard of it before, then Paramount can hopefully con you into coming out opening weekend to see the spooky pic they're selling and by the time you toss your popcorn after hearing three or four fully sung songs it's too late they've got your money. The thing is, I always think these marketing gyus underestimate the audience. Who says there isn't a sizable audience that would be interested in seeing Johnny Depp sing onscreen. They came three times to see him play a pirate and a pirate is only half as cool as a mad singing barber out for revenge with a straight razor.

The Sundance Film Festival Doesn't Care About You

Isn't about time to just ignore the lameness that is the modern day Sundance Film Festival. Honestly, it's been years since anyone broke into the biz with a film that premiered there. As Sundance honcho Geoff Gilmore says, there are way too many submissions-8,500 or so trying to find a place with only 200 slots. And many of these are already taken up by films that have done well at the Toronto Film Festival or had powerful lobbyists from the mini-major studios and reps like John Sloss putting their heavy weight behind them. The concept of an INDEPENDENT FILM has shifted over the years to mean films in the 5-6 million dollar range with well-known stars trying to do a little acting. There is a chasm, a vast abyss of a difference between Little Miss Sunshine and Clerks or The Blair Witch Project. What used to be an INDEPENDENT FILM is now called MICROCINEMA and contrary to their claims, Sundance does not support that kind of backyard, DIY film anymore. Dust Sundance from your thoughts like that machine in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and put your energies into self promotion, online distribution and festivals that do support your efforts like South by Southwest or Cinevegas. Go to Filmmaker Lance Weiler's great WORKBOOK PROJECT.COM and learn more about what it takes to be an independent filmmaker 2.0

In the meantime, someone on the MYSPACE film forums posted their Sundance "Dear John" letter which must go out to about 8,300 folks right before Christmas. I'm sincerely sorry that he was rejected and hope he won't be too discouraged. Since I've never actually seen one of these, I really appreciate his candor in posting it. Perhaps it was cathartic for him. Here's the letter with a few comments from me that I think will help translate this from the language of B.S.

Dear John,

On behalf of our programming staff(Since I did not actually watch your film), I would like to thank you for submitting your film to the 2008 Sundance Film Festival. Unfortunately, we are not able to include it in our program this year(Nor were we ever really considering it-thank you for your $35 submission fee-we enjoyed the lunch). We received nearly one thousand more submissions this year (over 8,500 in total) than we did for the 2007 Festival(Which was really great for us, thank you, since that's another $35,000 in our pockets), so many tough decisions had to be made in order to narrow the field down to under 200 films. Please rest assured that your work was carefully considered by our programming team(And be comforted that we have not wasted your submission since Stan is now using your DVD as a coaster), and the decision was incredibly difficult to say the least(Well, that's the least we could say).

My sincere hope is that this decision does not discourage you in any way(But please, really, do the world a favor and stop making films NOW). I would like to wish you the best of luck with your film(Good Luck with that), and we look forward to having the opportunity to view your work in the future(We hope you will send us another $35 next year).

Sincerely,
Geoffrey Gilmore
Director, Sundance Film Festival

New MINI 35mm Adapter from Letus

Well, look at this. The makers of the Letus Extreme, a 35mm adapter with a built-in prism flip for larger sized cameras, have announced the release of their new product, the LETUS MINI. The MINI allows cameras with lens filter sizes under 43mm to take full advantage of the greater depth of field that can be achieved with 35mm lenses. Letus states that this adapter has “absolutely no vignetting” and excellent edge to edge sharpness. Ranging from $500 - $1500 and more, most of the small format 35mm adapters suffer one or more of the following problems: light loss, edge to edge sharpness, an upside down image, unattractive bokeh, and chromatic abrasion. If you trust the reviews online, it seems that the Letus Mini has solved most of these problems. Mount options include the Canon FD, Nikon AI, Canon EF (EOS), Pentax K mount, Minolta MD or the optional PL mount and OCT19 mounts. The price is listed at $1,099.00. Still a bit pricey for me, but if you are a kind and caring soul, you can send me an early Christmas present! Ho!Ho!Ho!




Go to LETUS35.comfor more info.

ROYALTY FREE MUSIC

Filmmakers are always looking for music to score their films and no one composer is always right for every film. JAMES IERACI does excellent work for my films but sometimes I need something a little bit off his beaten path. Luckily, the net is filled with composers just trying to get their work heard. With the rise of Creative Commons Licensing, all that's needed is a proper screen credit and the music is "free". One of the best is Kevin Mcleod of INCOMPETECH.COM. He has tons of high quality Mp3 files of his music, with pieces ranging from the epic, to horror, rock and roll and jazz.

But if you want something more "professional", then you can't beat this offer from MOBY-




hi,
i've recently started a website called www.mobygratis.com
it's pretty simple.
it's a website that provides free music for independent and non-profit filmmakers.
there's no catch.
if you're an independent or non-profit film/video maker you can go there and download free, pre-licensed music for your film/video.
see, i was a film student at suny purchase(back when they offered an experimental film major), and ever since i've had a lot of friends in the world of indie film. and their biggest complaint is that it's hard/onerous/expensive to try and license music for low budget(or no budget)films.
so that's why i started mobygratis.com.
free music for indie filmmakers.
i hope that you find it helpful.
thanks
moby