THE ONLY THING THERE IS TO FEAR IS...

Over the summer I enjoyed what I thought would be a nice 13 episode season of reviewing episodes of NBC's watered down Masters of Horror variant, Fear Itself. However, it seems the show has been buried alive with only half it's episodes aired. I assume we'll see the rest on DVD, but in the meantime here are my reviews for the first bunch over at Slant Magazine...READ MORE...

CHE?

So, Steven Soderbergh just premiered his 4 hour plus some change film about the professional revolutionary in Cannes. The reactions have been quite hostile to it, for the length, the lack of conventional dramatic conflict or even, as some suggested, any drama at all. Now, in all fairness, the film is supposedly TWO separate films for release, titled THE ARGENTINE and GUERRILA, the first described as an action story and the second, "more like a thriller". I certainly doubt that it's either. What it might be, however, is an original cinematic experience from a chronic experimenter like Soderbergh and perhaps a film that may take some time to sink in. Certainly the performance of Benicio Del Toro has been praised and he has gone on to win the festival's award for BEST ACTOR, an award that has some merit this year as none other than SEAN PENN was the head of the jury.

At the press conference, Soderbergh expressed his frustrations much as Francis Ford Coppola once did regarding his lambasted ONE FROM THE HEART:

"I find it hilarious that people always complain about movies being the same, and then when something different comes along — a film that deals the cards in a different way — they say why isn't it more conventional?"

This is a valid point, however, I think the problem is that audiences don't REALLY want to see anything really different, they just want the same served up with clever variations or a fresh angle. Like a child at bedtime, they want to hear the same comforting story again just because they KNOW and LIKE that one.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD!

Coen brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson drinks YOUR milkshake! This is the best film of 2007. Hands down. It’s not a perfect film by any means but it comes about as close to perfection as Orson Welles did when he made that obscure biopic Citizen Kane.

Superficially, this belongs in the Kane genre. A character study/profile of a self-made man whose very ambition, greed, misanthropy and ego get the better of him, it’s also the story of the beginnings of corporate America and it’s shadowy reflection, corporate Christianity. The character of Daniel Plainview is meant to be many things at once, not the least himself and is one of the most vivid ever recorded on film. Larger than life, cartoonish and yet real as any nightmare, Plainview stalks across the screen with such clarity that he seems like he’s talking directly to you.

Anderson’s screenplay is a startling adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel Oil!. Another muckraking novel of corporate injustice like his more well known The Jungle, Oil! has been considerably altered by Anderson to concentrate less on digging up the political dirt than on the psychology and sheer existence of the kind of man who creates his own isolated empire.

To read the rest of the review click HERE

Lost in America

Whatever you do, don't push that reset button!!! Or if you are Damon Lindelof, J.J. Abrams, and Carlton Cuse, then by all means keep hitting it over and over! The RESET BUTTON TECHNIQUE is one of the most important tools of television writing and even more important when the series is in the form of a serial. Lost uses a minor version of this over and over, starting up mysteries only to have them reveal a new mystery within, like a chinese box, changing the nature of the drama. But this season's change is one of the biggest. Starting with last season's cliffhanger, they shifted the present tense of the drama completely, creating a new tension. Instead of having the scenes on the island play as present tense with flashbacks to the character's pasts, this season, the characters have already been rescued and are living at home. So this is the new present tense and the flashbacks are scenes on the island. The show's been flipped inside out and it's context reset. Very clever.

FIREFLY Filmmaker Peter Marcy

One of the most interesting films making the rounds on the international film festival circuit is Peter Marcy’s Firefly. An enigmatic and hypnotic tale of four people who find their lives intertwined by a mysterious incident on Halloween night, Firefly displays a genuine command of cinematic craft which often eludes even the most seasoned filmmakers.

It is a low-key film driven by storytelling, through the withholding and releasing of information at exactly the right moments. Its structure is mysterious at first as the film leisurely crosscuts the daily lives of four separate characters, all of whom seem headed for some kind of mystical epiphany on Christmas Eve.

Susan (Lindsay Hinman) believes she was raped on Halloween night and is frustrated in her attempts to get anyone to believe her. Brandt (Pete Marcy) suspects that his girlfriend Rachel (Sara Persons) is cheating on him, and goes to desperate measures to find out. Del (Chris Marcy) is a roofer and amateur filmmaker who makes schlocky sci-fi films with his ever reluctant friends. The fourth character is the most mysterious of all: Arnie (Devon Jorlett), a bald young man who seems committed to using his powers of clairvoyance to save lives.

All four stories come together brilliantly in the last 10 minutes to reveal the meaning behind the intricate pattern of clues strewn throughout the film. From Susan’s obsessive morning jogs to Arnie’s violent coughing, random details suddenly reveal to be part of a masterful narrative plan that’s executed with great confidence and skill.

Shot in Marcy’s hometown of Minnesota for the low budget of $5,000, Firefly is a testament to creativity, ingenuity, and plain hard work. That’s something that’s not often spoken of when independent films are discussed. Without the large crew and other resources that can be provided with Hollywood backing, filmmakers are forced to do much, if not all of the work – raising funds, directing, editing, PR, administrative work, etc.. There’s a kind of DIY street cred that comes as a fringe benefit from such work, but the real benefit is the freedom to create as artists are meant to, freely and without compromise or consultation from a committee. The drawback, of course, is the dearth of financial resources.

Financial pressures often force filmmakers to work 9 to 5 jobs and shoot on weekends, sometimes over years in order to shoot all the scenes required to tell a feature length story. Commitments from actors and friends may dwindle after long days of volunteering, and hairstyles may begin to defy any attempt at continuity. When the shooting is done, hours and hours in front of the computer are ahead, laying in each of those pieces, each carefully designed sound effect or music track to a film that may never see the light of day let alone the silver screen.

A strong sense of self-confidence, powered by a willing self-delusion, is an absolute requirement for the lone filmmaker. How else can someone obsess over a project that may be the worst film ever made, starring no one in particular, from a filmmaker no one’s ever heard of and perhaps never will? Digital filmmaking has provided independent filmmakers with the tools to produce watchable films – but then there’s the matter of enticing people to actually watch them.

Hopefully, Firefly will be an exception. Back in ‘97 or ‘98, it could have been the toast of Sundance with a front page article in Variety, reporting on its $1.5 million sale to the Weinsteins. But the current state of independent cinema is full of more creative opportunities than financial rewards. Distribution dollars have dried up and films with higher profiles than Firefly are finding it hard to get released.

Edward Burns’Purple Violets, which stars himself and Debra Messing, received strong reviews at the Tribeca Film Festival but could not close a deal. Rather than accepting a small theatrical run and DVD release for a meager return, Burns is now releasing the film himself as a digital download on iTunes.

Marcy is part of a group of artists, filmmakers, and musicians who call themselves the Failure Boys. Some are his friends and several are his own brothers. All are very talented and contributed greatly to Firefly. It is precisely this personal, hand-crafted touch that gives the film its real charm. With a story that is as gripping as a Hollywood thriller, Firefly also displays a genuine personal style and wit. Recently, talked with me about Firefly, making films in Minnesota, and the ups and downs of doing it all yourself.

To read the interview at PopMatters.com, click HERE

SCARY MARY

I'm sure many of you have already seen this mock trailer elsewhere but it's worth putting up here to talk about how much one can do when editing to create an effect on the audience. I'm in the middle of editing my own trailer so this is very much on my mind. The work done here by editor Chris Rule uses every technique imaginable, from filtering the audio to the slow fade ins and outs, and the use of musical stingers to create jolts. There's been lots of these trailer mashups done lately, like transforming The Shining into a romantic comedy but I think this one seems to be the closest to actually looking like a real movie. If you never heard of Mary Poppins this might look like a really spooky late '60s-early 70s horror movie about a demonic nanny with telekinetic powers who terrorizes her wards. All of the tools of horror filmmaking are largely plastic and can be placed onto images to create the efffect as you can see here. Is it me or doesn't Julie Andrews look really creepy when she looks in the mirror? I've watched this several times and there seems to be an odd effect here that makes her head turn really unnatural.

AWESOME Indie Festival Announced

Lance Weiler, the self-distribution pioneer and director of The Last Broadcast and Head Trauma(Read my Review and Interview with Lance for PopMatters.com), has teamed up with colleagues M. dot Strange(We are the Strange and Arin Crumley(Four Eyed Monsters) to create a new online film festival that's designed specifically to find outlets for distribution. It's called FROM HERE TO AWESOME and it certainly sounds like an awesome opportunity for filmmakers. Weiler states that, "We’ve been working on a new social experiment for the last six months and this coming Thursday it will take its first steps. From Here to Awesome is a discovery and distribution festival. The hope is that by bringing together audiences, films, promotional partners and distribution outlets, FHTA can create opportunities for filmmakers that enable them to control their own rights and receive a direct financial return from their work. The festival will screen films in theaters, living rooms, online and via mobile devices starting in April.

We’ve tried to bring our collective DIY experiences and resources into the mix. Myself, Arin Crumley (Four Eyed Monsters) and M dot Strange (We Are the Strange) built FHTA as an outlet that encourages filmmakers and audiences to interact directly. In a sense the festival assists filmmakers in building audiences and in the process turns audiences onto new films. FHTA has attracted a number of excellent promotional and distribution outlets. There are NO submission fees and we don’t take a percentage of anything. All sales and deals are handled directly between the filmmaker and the distribution outlet.

The driving force behind the fest is to experiment with how work finds audiences, ways to distribute films directly and how to sustain as a filmmaker in a rapidly changing industry.

We need your help to make this social open source film festival work.

WANTED: films, panelists, keynote speakers, panel topic suggestions, volunteers, comments and suggestions on how to better improve FHTA."

What I really like about this idea besides the obvious benefits of media exposure is that it makes use of existing systems to control the floodgates. Initial submissions are uploaded to YOUTUBE and/or MYSPACE for the general public to view and vote before making it into the festival. This is very smart thinking and a perfect example of turning the web's outlets to your personal advantage. Of course the fact that there are NO submission fees is fantastic. The only excuse I have for not submitting my feature is that I, of course, am not finished the damn thing. Maybe next year.

For more details on the festival visit FROMHERETOAWESOME.COM

3:10 to Yuma Review

Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) is a notorious outlaw, the kind that inspires tall tales of incredible carnage and brutality. His gang of ruthless thieves and murderers have been laying siege to the Southern Railroad for months when Wade is suddenly captured. Civil War veteran and struggling rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale), desperate for money and his family’s respect, volunteers to escort Wade to the town of Contention where he’s to be placed on the 3:10 train to Yuma on his way to a swift trial. Evans joins an old Pinkerton man (Peter Fonda), the railroad’s representative (Dallas Roberts) and a timid veternarian (Alan Tudyk) brought along for first aid. Their journey becomes especially dangerous when Wade’s gang, led by the intensely loyal Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), vow to free him and kill anyone who gets in the way. When Evans’ oldest son William (Logan Lerman) joins them, full of naive admiration for Wade’s guts and prowess, the rancher must deal with his own fears and the self doubt that he will be able to get them through the mission alive.

The western has been buried and revived so many times in recent years that it’s beginning to resemble one of George Romero’s stale zombies, stumbling about with only a trace memory of it’s former self. The trouble lies in the very idea of a “revival”. As director James Mangold mentions himself on the DVD commentary, this inspires contemporary filmmakers to make westerns that are about other westerns and the genre itself rather than simply going about the business of telling their own story. The films end up being crushed by the weight of their own self-importance, filled with empty and soulless homages to The Searchers or A Fistful of Dollars instead of inspiring anything real.

To read the rest of my review click HERE

SWEENEY TODD Review

Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham-Carter have made so many films together that they’re starting to resemble each other. Depp has now made 6 films with Burton and it always seems as though he’s playing some hyper-real and slightly paler version of the ghostly director. As for Bonham-Carter, this is either her fourth or fifth round with Burton depending on whether you consider her voice acting in “Corpse Bride” an appearance and as his “life partner” and mother of his two children, she’s on her way to becoming the living embodiment of one of his cadaverous drawings.

All three seem like a traveling band of Grand Guignol performers just looking for the right gloomy play that requires frizzy black hair and dark circles under the eyes. Luckily, they found Stephen Sondheim’s brilliant 1979 musical “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” and lucky for Sondheim that he found them. Not since Francis Ford Coppola signed to direct “The Godfather” has there been a more perfect match between artist and material.



To read the rest of my review at BeyondHollywood.com, click Here

GREEN SCREEN is the new REAR SCREEN

At Scott Kirsner's blog CINEMATECH yesterday, Kirsner wrote about the new Cinital system for real time greenscreening. As Scott points out the novelty of the company's approach is that, "the camera can move anywhere it wants -- or change focus -- and the background responds appropriately."

This makes the use of green screen more attractive in that filmmakers can no longer complain about the lack of spontaneity in the process. A filmmaker can now shoot actors in front of a simple greenscreen set up, place them anywhere in the world or beyond using a single background plate, and then just shoot it like it's a real location, going handheld, zooming in, out, panning around and the program deals with making the background change to fit the image.

This should have immense effects on low budget films and the television industry as pretty much anything that can be imagined can be effectively composited in real time on the set.


In many ways this could bring back the studio control employed by filmmakers like Alfred Hitchcock. In almost all of his films, scenes taking place outdoors or in crowded resturaunts were shot on rear screen projection stages with just the principal players sitting at a table or park bench. This way the actors and director could focus on getting the best performances and the cleanest sound recording since the crowd and outdoor ambience would be added later. Watch the following video to see how this effect worked then and how it could be done with much more precision now. Besides the opening shots of Bergman and Grant in the car where the use of rear screen is obvious, the scenes on the park bench and at the racetrack are very interesting, with the use of a handful of on set extras to fool the eye.

Notorious - Use of Rear Projection

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Stanley Kubrick also used this method for some shots in EYES WIDE SHUT particularly one in which Tom Cruise is seen walking in a tracking shot on a NYC street. Kubrick put Cruise on a treadmill while greenscreening a moving plate of the sidewalk and street behind him creating the impression of a perfect, smooth backwards track.

Of course this also allows a filmmaker to easily grab a reshoot since there is no need to build an elaborate set or bring a large crew on a location that must be blocked off or lit. I'm not suggesting that everyone turn into George Lucas and shoot their films on stages, but for certain scenes or for certain projects it may be just the right technique.

SUNSHINE Review

The serious space movie is one of the most limited genres around, with virtually the entire ground having been covered by Stanley Kubrick’s 2001:A Space Odyssey”. The rest being taken up by Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris and Ridley Scott’s Alien. You get pretty much what you expect each time out:

1. The loneliness of space travel.
2. A pleasant but suddenly disobedient talking computer
3. A technical malfunction that threatens the lives of the spacemen followed by a tense spacewalk to repair the damaged ship
4. The tragic death of one of the protagonists who sacrifices his or herself for the greater good of their colleagues and/or humanity itself.
5. Cabin fever tension between the shipmates courtesy of Jean-Paul Sartre
6. A touch of the spiritual in probing that which “man-was-not-meant-to-know”

Sunshine fulfills all 6 of these expectations but within a more intensified context. Alex Garland’s screenplay sets the story 50 years from now as, yet again, mankind faces extinction; not from a meteoric Armageddon, or the inconvenient truth about the environment, but from the death of the sun itself. A second ice age threatens to end life as we know it and so mankind looks to its last hope for survival, a spacecraft christened the “Icarus II”, which carries a nuclear device the size of Manhattan intended to be fired into the center of the dying star to relight the burner.

Since the “Icarus I” clearly failed in its maiden attempt, only a single nuclear device remains. If the crew of the “Icarus II” fails as well, there will be no more chances. Understandably, the weight of this responsibility hangs heavily on the multi-racial multi-national crew. These seven men and women know that they are nothing but expendable. It causes them to question every decision in a philosophical light. Anything or anyone who stands in the way of the success of their mission must be avoided or stopped. But must Mankind prevail? If there is a greater plan, what exactly is man’s place within it?

To read the rest of my review, click HERE

ZODIAC: THE DIRECTOR'S CUT

Most serial killers operate in the shadows, simply wanting to satisfy their homicidal urges in anonymity. Any notoriety they receive is due to the quantity and/or gruesome depravity of their crimes. However, there are others who may not reach a particularly high body count or perversity but become notorious due to their desire to communicate with the public at large. Jack the Ripper, for example, not only sent letters to the police proudly claiming credit for his deranged crimes but also came up with his own distinctive tabloid signature.

The Zodiac was another of this breed of epigrammatic killer. Beginning in July of 1969, the Zodiac terrorized the San Francisco Bay area, killing at least five people while taking credit for many more through his letter writing campaign to the San Francisco Chronicle. It was the letters with their complex cryptograms that really put the spotlight on the Zodiac as a frightening West Coast boogeyman. It was less notable as a murder spree than a cat and mouse game of psychological warfare, the clues in the cryptographs creating a labyrinthine puzzle for a handful of obsessive detectives and journalists to get lost within. David Fincher’s film is really about how these increasingly desperate investigators chased shadows and phantoms for decades while trying to solve the elusive mystery, a case which “officially” remains unsolved to this day.

To read the rest of my review, click HERE

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.

THIS SAHARA THING COST HOW MUCH?

It must be an amazing thing to be able to think in terms of millions of dollars and even more amazing to not blink when tossing that kind of money around on a whim. Glenn F. Bunting's article in the LA TIMES today breaks down the budget of the huge commerical flop SAHARA starring Matthew McConaughey. Due to budget overruns, even though the film was number 1 at the box office on it's opening weekend and grossed $150 million on it's release it was still able to lose $105 million overall! Hollywood holds these budgets tight to their vest, but a legal dispute between Sahara author Clive Cussler and the producers has brought this one out in the open. McConaughey was the highest paid at 8 million dollars with $833,923 in "perks" whatever that means. (I remember reading once in Julia Phillips' book about how Close Encounters of the Third Kind had a budget marked for Richard Dreyfus and the staff's cocaine "perks" though I have no idea what these Sahara perks were for. ) Penelope Cruz got $1.6 million with $835,561 in perks while third billed Steve Zaughn took home more regular than "perk" money with a $2.2 million salary and $264,153 in perks.(It's funny but women seem to be "underpaid" in Hollywood as well.) Oh, McConaughey's production company was also paid $250,000 for his role as "Executive Producer".

-An elaborate plane crash was apparently filmed and cut out of the final movie at the cost of $2.2 million!
-Part of the budget were also marked for "local bribes" in the Kingdom of Morocco where much of the film was shot.
-Ten screenwriters(including The Sting Academy Award winner David S. Ward for $500,00) were paid more than 3 million dollars to cook up the script. And promotional "partners" began to control the screenwriting process as well. From the article:

... with "Sahara," some creative decisions apparently took promotional considerations into account. For example, producer Karen Baldwin demanded script changes to accommodate DaimlerChrysler because the German-American carmaker negotiated to have its Jeep trucks featured in the film. "You can't have the truck get almost stuck," Baldwin wrote in a March 2004 e-mail to "Sahara" executives. "I would bet that Jeep will have a heart attack when they see that. They want to show how well the Jeep handles and responds — not that it will get stuck in a tough situation."

Four months earlier, when director Breck Eisner expressed concern during development of the film about problems with another sequence involving a four-wheel-drive truck, Baldwin wrote in a memo, "Can't cut it. Jeep to pay 3 million."

Ha! "Jeep to pay 3 million". But honestly, I guess if Jeep gave ME 3 million I'd also find a way to get a friggin' Jeep into my story and make it look cool. Not that Jeep would give me 3 dollars.

One disturbing item shows how a film which leaks money like a sieve, still has the forethought to screw local workers: a Moroccan "assistant propman" was paid the sum of $233.00 per week on a production with millions flying in all directions. I wonder if he got $2.31 in perks?

RUBBER ONE MAN BAND

At Eugenia's Rants & Thoughts I read a post recently called "The Trick to Smooth Pans". Even with a fluid head tripod it can be difficult to get a smooth pan and certainly difficult to achieve the kind of smooth start and stop that is seen regularly in Hollywood productions. Well, here you have a solution you can dig out of your kitchen drawer. It seems that an ordinary 2 inch rubber band wrapped around the fluid head handle may be the perfect solution. The tension allows for the pan to begin slow to catch up with your pull and naturally come to a soft and smooth stop as it slows to release the tension. You can see test shots on Eugenia's site.

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.

BETTER. STRONGER.FASTER

Almost every show today is some kind of serial story. Lost, Heroes, and even the new Bionic Woman(Read my review for Slant.com HERE)are all long form stories with endless subplots and intrigue. These shows are impossible to describe without going into incredible detail..."See, there's this corporation on this Island which may or may not be conducting an experiment on human beings...".

When I was growing up, TV was a lot simpler. Most shows just involved their characters in a new adventure each week without any plot strands left dangling episode to episode. It was in the 80s with shows like Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere and even Cheers that long form plot arcs took hold so that the serial format could be wrapped around the standard episodic structure. It was a way to addict fans of the show to longer story arcs like the Sam and Diane love story while also allowing for new viewers unfamiliar with the backstory to still watch a standalone situation.

The change is even noticeable in the credits sequences from the 70s. Above is one of my favorites, The Six Million Dollar Man. Basically, everything you need to know about the show is told to you in 1 minute 25 seconds. After watching this, anyone could sit down and enjoy Steve Austin's adventures as the Bionic man without having ever watched the show before.

By the way, did you know that the very familiar Six Million Dollar music theme wasn't the first one used for the series? Universal-TV produced two one-off TV movies starring Lee Majors as astronaut Steve Austin using this as the title theme complete with LYRICS sung by none other than Dusty Springfield! "HE'S THE MAN!"