A Change of Scenery

Though anything I write on this website is obviously coming from my personal point of view, I typically don't write much about my life unless its relevant to the aim of this site. I basically do this for two reasons: 1) why would you care?, and 2) I'm kind of a private person. Having said that, this is one of those occasions where I'd like to share some good news:

Starting this fall I'll begin a position as an assistant professor of Digital Film/Video production at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University -- Virginia Tech, to you and me. I've not yet begun the job, or even made the move to Virginia yet, but my colleagues are already showing me a warm, Southern welcome.

Though I've enjoyed my stint at Temple University immensely, as readers of this site know I'm committed to regional filmmaking. I'm excited to be heading someplace where my students understand this not as a concept, but as a reality. I guess they remind me a little of myself when I was an undergraduate at the University of Tennessee in the early 90s.

It's going to be a good move for me, too. Though I know East Tennessee better than Southwest Virginia, I can't wait to return to the part of the South where most of my work is set. This is the landscape I know and this is where I find the stories that inspire me.

In sum, the position at VT was, to quote a not-so-"self-reliant film", an offer I couldn't refuse.

I'll try to do at least a few more posts before I get swamped with packing and moving, but if when my posts drop, consider this your pre-emptive apology.

Undiscovered Gems

If you didn't read indieWire's press release about the Undiscovered Gems series, you should check it out. Basically, the series aims to be a mother to those motherless children of the independent film circuit -- those independent films deserving of an audience that somehow never manage to secure a distributors. The initiative is a partnership between Emerging Pictures, the New York Times, IndieWire, Sundance Channel, and the California Film Institute. The venues include:

Cinema Village (New York, NY) Market Arcade Film and Arts Center (Buffalo, NY) The Loft (Tucson, AZ) Christopher B. Smith Rafael Film Center (San Rafael, CA) Theatre N at Nemours (Wilmington, NC) Cinema Paradiso (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) The Duncan Theatre at Stage West (Lake Worth, FL) Island Theatre (Martha's Vineyard, MA) Mary Riepma Ross Media Arts Center (Lincoln, NE) Circle Cinema (Tulsa, OK) Scranton Cultural Center (Scranton, PA)

Commentary: Because most of these venues aren't in places that are "major markets", releasing will be cheaper. This means more venues, more potential moviegoers -- a good thing for audiences and filmmakers alike.

I am, however, deeply troubled about the contest aspect of the series. According to the press release, "an audience prize competition will provide the winning filmmaker a cash award of $50,000, theatrical release in New York, Los Angeles and at least five other U.S. cities during 2007, as well as an exclusive broadcast on Sundance Channel."

It seems wildly unfair that audiences in a few select places essentially determine the viewing options for other audiences halfway across the country! Especially when those places are so culturally and geographically different! Just think -- the good people of Los Angeles will have their moviegoing choices dictated by folks in cities like Tulsa and Scranton! What an outrage!

Oh wait. This already happens everyday. Just in reverse.

All joking aside, congrats to the "filmmakers whose undiscovered gems" will be distributed. And if you're in a city with a venue listed above, enjoy the show.

Jake Mahaffy: SRF Interview

"This is the world after the end of the world," a boy tells us at the beginning of Jake Mahaffy's debut feature, War. Then, for the next 80 some odd minutes Mahaffy captures, in black and white, the tedious and transcendental moments of a handful of characters, all male, inhabiting a devastated landscape. They work, play, drive, destroy, search for things lost. In a way, it seems, they wait for the world -- seemingly dead already -- to just end already. Is this is what purgatory, or limbo, looks like? Movies this stark, elemental, sui generis are rarely made by conventional means, and in this way War is no different. Mahaffy took five years to produce the thing, shooting it with a Bolex and a handful of non-professional actors in Warren County, Pennsylvania.

Happily, Mahaffy's spare, spiritual vision found an audience on the festival circuit, playing at Sundance, Rotterdam, Ann Arbor, and several other fine festivals. Response was warm, even glowing. Its premiere at Sundance even led to a positive review in, of all places, that bastion of Hollywood biz reporting, Variety.

As Mahaffy has worked on new projects, other laurels have followed: Jake was recognized as one of the "25 New Faces of Independent Film" by Filmmaker Magazine, and he has been awarded grants from Creative Capital and the Guggenheim Foundation. Just this week, in fact, he was selected as the inaugural Lynn Auerbach Screenwriting Fellow by the Sundance Institute.

Last month, visiting Roanoke, where Jake currently lives and works, I approached him about doing an interview. Here is our conversation:

***

War is your first feature film. Why this film?

It was a mix of intention and circumstance. There wasn't a period of career-planning when I considered the potential value of this film as a "first feature." I was a grad student in art school and had to make a thesis film to get my degree and get a job.

I expected to shoot and finish it in a few months -- it took five years. And it changed over time, as it changed me.

In retrospect, I wouldn't want to have made any other movie.

Part of what makes it unique is the way you made it. Tell me about the tools you used. I shot most of it on a 16mm Bolex camera, which doesn't have a battery, by disengaging the motor and winding the rewind key forward. So, I manually pulled the film through the camera, like silent film-operators used to do. That's not a clever attempt at art. It was a practical necessity. With the Bolex, a spring-wound camera, you only get 20-second shots -- many of the shots run 30-seconds to a minute.

I recorded the sound separately with a hand-held microphone and a field deck. So, I could concentrate on picture and sound separately and give full attention to each element for its own sake.

Then editing in Final Cut, I'd piece things back together- footsteps, doors.... I basically made a silent picture-film and a radio-play, composing each for its own sake, then tied them together at certain points, weaving the sound in and out of sync with the image.

Were there parts of your vision for the film that didn't make it on screen? Hardly any of my "vision" made it to screen, thank God.

There are many scenes, written and actually shot, entire plots and characters that aren't included in the final cut. They could constitute a whole other film, actually.

I went in with all my great ideas and was constantly punished for it. It's hugely frustrating and I've lost years off my life - an experience I wouldn't wish on anybody else- but now I wouldn't trade it for the world.

I was beaten into submission- in a good way. I was beaten into recognizing and accepting reality at the expense of all my clever plans. Maybe rather than imagination without restrictions, creativity is really expressed in the friction between ideas and reality. It comes out truly when you deal with the frustrations of trying to impose your vision on the world.

I never would have made a film like this on purpose. But I had to deal with limitations that couldn't be wished away -- or bought out -- which is what you do with a big budget. If you don't have the money to force it then you have to grow and change with it, expand your conception of reality and truth. That's a glorious experience. The film is just so much better than who I am as a person.

Since there was no budget for the project, how did you approach the financial aspects? The film stock was free with a student grant from Kodak. A wealthy, generous man who liked one of my other student films put up $8,000 to buy the camera, tripod and a sound deck. My wife was funding the film, and supporting me, with her job at the time. Then when I got a teaching job- some equipment came with that gig and I started editing.

It was hand-to-mouth. I didn't know what I was doing at the time and couldn't explain to anyone why they should be giving me money for  --  I didn't deserve anybody's money.

But filmmaking isn't necessarily an expensive activity. It's not a big deal to make a cheap film. What costs money is taking the time away from a paying job. That's expensive -- paying rent to live -- taxes, insurance and all the other crap.

In its willingness to let the landscape tell the story War feels like the spiritual heir of Tarkovsky's films. Then, when I met you, I learned that your wife is Ukranian, you speak Russian, and you studied cinematography in Russia. So there's definitely a Russian (or Soviet) connection. Am I just making coincidental connections, and if not, what are there conscious ways that a Russian sensibility -- or whatever you'd like to call it  --have made it into your work? Oh no - don't call my wife Ukrainian! She's Russian - she just lived in Kharkov. Yeah, I studied Russian and Spanish at Brown University. I wanted to get out of myself and away from everything I knew. Living in Russia did that to me in a dramatic way.

As far as landscapes, at the time, I was thinking a lot of Andrew Wyeth. I was trying to compose images and recreate textures that I saw in Wyeth's paintings. It was important to me because I grew up with his pictures.

As stunning as the images are, I thought that the voice-overs were equally compelling -- things like the sequence where the preacher is thinking about the things he misses, and he's listing foods. Were you working from a script?

Some of the monologues we improvised- sitting and looking at the footage and making up stories about it. I told Kenny Hicks -- the guy who does the preacher's voice -- to talk about the Country Kitchen Buffet and how it would feel to be there- hungry but ashamed to eat. He was hilarious and brilliant. My dad too... I showed him several shots of himself dropping rocks into a puddle. I liked the images but didn't know exactly why he was doing it. Right away he said, "Oh, I'm smashing the peepers." And he went off for 15 minutes talking about smashing peepers, how the peepers come out in the spring and bother him and if he kills the frog eggs before they hatch then its not really killing.

But I wrote some of them too. And guided the improvisations. We were just trying to make sense of the images. War was filmed like a documentary because I couldn't use the screenplay I originally intended. I shot images, year after year, of the characters working and living, inhabiting the fictional world of our film. We created an entire self-sufficient reality, gradually pulling a narrative out of the footage in the editing process. Anyway, rather than executing a prearranged plan with a script, we realized the drama indirectly like when making a verite documentary. But that is not the most efficient way to go about making a fiction film, and I couldn't really recommend it.

You've lived and made films in a number of different places -- among them, Providence, Roanoke, and western Pennsylvania. None of them are traditional centers of filmmaking. What's made that possible? Not depending on other people...

These films are not big productions. With a small project you've got to generate your own energy. That's your self-reliance right there.

But there can be some safety in numbers. There"s some security in knowing that other people actually care about what you"re doing, an official "film" and not just some amateur hobby, which is what you get with a producer and a budget. Some people are embarrassed of making a film by themselves- or terrified.

But there"s also a risk for folks to get caught up in that paradigm at the expense of the alternatives. It could be easy to end up not waiting for "money" as much as you"re waiting for validation. You want to build up a network of support that"s going to carry you through production. You want other people to care, which is one way of insuring the film gets finished, seen and approved of.

It's a different kind of "difficult" -- striking out alone without expecting, or trying to convince, other people to care about your project before its finished.

How did you convince the non-professional actors involved with War and Wellness to participate? These are older folks and, presumably, they have jobs, families, and other commitments. Everybody's got commitments. We just try and make it work around jobs and schedules. I don't know. Tell you the truth, I really have no idea why people do this.

Speaking of "safety in numbers" you belong to a cooperative, Handcranked Films. How did you meet the other makers, and what does belonging to it provide?

Dan Sousa, Jeff Sias and I all studied at RISD (Rhode Island School of Design) together. Jeff and Dan worked with Bryan Papciak at an animation studio in Boston (Olive Jar).

Since then, Jeff and Bryan put up a website with some of our work. They"re the two central figures and run most of the shows and events. They"ve all been doing amazing work- mostly animation- besides supporting themselves with commercial jobs and teaching.

Dan just made a beautiful animated short, Fable. It's playing at Sundance, Annecy, Ottawa -- all the big animation festivals. Jeff and Bryan are working on a feature non-fiction project called American Ruins. They have some amazing footage and are trying to raise the funds to continue. You can see some of their stuff at www.handcrankedfilm.com

War had a great run on the festival circuit, but there are clearly audiences that haven"t had a chance to see it. What are your plans for distributing it on DVD? How can someone that reads about it here get their hands on it?

I don't have any plans to distribute it. That's a full-time job and I'm busy as it is. The unfinished version of War that showed at the festivals is weak compared to the completed film. I made some small changes that make a big difference. It'd be nice for folks to see the finished film but there's not a whole lot I can do about it at this point. Is there?

But what about audiences that didn't have a chance to reach those festivals. Are you not interested in simply selling the DVD on your website? That's a good idea.

What are you working on now?

There's a whole list of different projects I'm working on... Right now I'm shooting Motion Studies, editing Wellness, and writing a script for Free in Deed. That's a film about a man who tries to perform a miracle and fails. I hope to shoot that within the next year or two-- a civil war movie -- not about the first one but the next one. Wellness, which follows a traveling salesman, was shot on DV. Instead of working with non-sync sound and B+W film, you're now working in color and with dialogue. Did it feel like a radical departure? It's fun -- I can't believe it. Just working with people's faces and tones of voice. It's so much easier and more immediate than dealing in visual terms -- with composition and all. The story just takes care of itself. Editing is a riot -- I'm howling through my tears, laughing while cutting it all together.

When and where can we expect to see it? I've only started editing. We'll see how it turns out.

Just this week you were awarded a Sundance Insititute fellowship for your script to Free in Deed. Can you talk a little bit about the story, as well as what the fellowship will do for the project?

I'm still writing it. So, I can't say a whole lot. It's about a man who failed to perform a miracle when he should have. And how he tries to survive in a new reality without miracles.

The fellowship is meant to help you focus on writing the project. That's where Wellness came from. I wanted to learn about dialogue and take a shot at this whole "realism" kick -- people talking, handheld camera and all that. So

Wellness was shot as an exercise, an experimental project, to help write Free in Deed. But its turning out so well -- it may be its own feature.

Sundance has been so generous. It's such a rare and genuine help. The Labs, the people -- I can't speak highly enough of them. You know, it's out of nowhere this stuff they're doing. So many people -- I see artists so caught up in themselves and people in competition with each other -- trying to outdo each other. The Labs' generosity is really refreshing and positive -- they have a bigger picture of the potential of many movies working together rather than just the small picture each filmmaker has of his or her own project.

One last question. Like me, you teach filmmaking. What are the most important things you try to pass along to your students?

I just try and get students excited about learning, really -- so they can teach themselves over time.

I'd say, go for the long-haul. There's some demented American idea about the importance of age- the prodigy myth- it's a marketing trick, really. But it's simple bullshit. Don't sell out your dream to make a splash. Don't believe the hype, you know? It could be easy to lose perspective with the movies where each new film is the greatest piece of genius since Adam's rib. It's like grade-inflation or something.

And I'd say, be true to the specific subject of each particular film rather than trying to make a "great" film in some generic sense. If the film is right and truthful to its subject then it will also be "good" on its own terms.

Is that preachy enough?

Nunez's Coastlines to get IFC treatment

IndieWIRE reports that IFC's First Take distribution program has picked up two more films, including one I've been wanting to see for some time: Victor Nunez's Coastlines. As a budding filmmaker growing up in Knoxville, the mere existence of Victor Nunez -- a guy who has made films in his native Florida since the 70s -- was inspiring. I've followed his career for years, and I was disappointed when Coastlines, after premiering at Sundance in 2002, just sort of disappeared. No theatrical distribution. No video release. Nothing.

All this was surprising, too, since Nunez earned a lot of acclaim for Ruby in Paradise, which launched Ashley Judd's career, and Ulee's Gold, which brought Peter Fonda an Oscar nomination. Though those are worth checking out, A Flash of Green, a real sleeper of a movie with Ed Harris playing an investigative reporter, might be Nunez's best. Of course, you'll have to dig around to find a copy; it's been out of print on VHS for years.

Anyway, it's nice to hear that I'll have a chance to finally see Coastlines. If you're new to Nunez and his work, check out this fine article written by Anthony Kaufman around the time of the film's production.

Notes Towards a Macrocinema Distribution Circuit

My post from a few days ago, in which I proposed a "microcinema circuit," generated some interesting and inspired discussion. Based on the comments to that post, as well as the conversations I've had with some of you via email, I found myself drafting some rough notes towards such a circuit. I think a good name for this is Macrocinema. Instead of writing up a nicely organized blog essay from my notes, I thought I would simply post them raw (or at least medium rare) since the point is not to generate movement from these notes, but to generate discussion and debate, which then generates action.

Harrill's Rough Notes for Building a Macrocinema Circuit

1) Gather information

The first step is to locate all possible non-theatrical screening venues: microcinemas, film societies (like Austin Film Society, Bryn Mawr Film Society, etc). and anyplace else that screens films (ir)regularly.

Anyone who wants to help do this work is welcome. (I would imagine it'd be a mix of filmmakers and microcinema gurus.) Hopefully five or ten people could get involved at this stage. Might be helpful if one or two people doing this work had some sort of institutional (non-profit, foundation, or university) support too. Could help take care of any (probably minor) costs associated with this. This is not essential - most of the first steps of this process could be done electronically (i.e., freely - no paper, no postage, etc). Any institutional support would need to simply be that, support. Not support as a means towards ownership.

Start info-gathering with these:

    - Microcinema Map at Wayfaring. - Academic Venues via The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences - Can't believe AMPAS actually has something helpful for indies on their website! - Flicker listing #1 and Flicker listing #2

AIVF should have this stuff on their website, too. I can't find it. Where is it? And Film Arts Foundation used to publish the AEIOU (alternative exhibition index of the universe) guide. Is that on their site? I'm not a member, so I don't know.

Austin Film Society, for example, isn't listed on the above sites, so make sure you really dig to find all the cinemas that need to be contacted.

2) Contact venues

Collect venue information:

    - venue size - how often they screen - how many shows/dates/weeks/whatever they're interested/able to book self- or semi-self-distributed work - genres they show - how shows are promoted - how much they charge - how much of the door they can offer / how much they can offer if FILMMAKER ATTENDS - projection formats - etc - what am I leaving out?

Also: Find out who's interested in a circuit. Not all will be.

3) Analyze and Compile Data...

Compiling them all makes a nice "book" (really a pdf file we can circulate) for all parties interested. Much like the old and out of print (I think) AEIOU (Alternative Exhibition Index Of the Universe) guide that I had back in the late 90s.

"Analysis" means this: See who's out there, where they are, which venues are the most stable/strongest (see next point). In essence, look at the dots before you start to connect them.

4) Build Alliances

It's a matter of connecting the dots on the maps and getting these people to talk.

Regional alliances first. Maybe start with the most well-established microcinemas --- the ones that are the most stable. As we all know, venues like this can be in danger of dying -- sometimes if only one key organizer moves, or a venue space is lost, etc. Some, however, are stable and thriving. So start with them as the hubs. Then build out to the "spoke" venues surrounding them.

Regional "hub" approach makes it easier for the filmmaker to travel to the venues -- you do a "Southeast" region or a "Northwest" region. Then, at some later date, maybe you do the "Midwest" region hub and spokes.

5) Trial and Error

Let's see how this works, and how well it works with films of different genres. Do a number of trials. Trial runs should, well, TRY different thing. To see what sticks. Features. A package of short films. A documentary with two shorts. With filmmakers in attendance. Without filmmakers. Selling DVDs at venue day of show. Selling DVDs afterwards -- either at venue, one website, or some other way. And so on.

NB: I my notes I listed a few ideas about films that might be perfect for this, but I won't mention them here (yet) since I've not approached the makers.

6) Eventually, MAKE A SYSTEM of this (at least a little)

The aim is to make a system of this so the wheel doesn't have to be invented/reinvented several times by every filmmaker that wants to exhibit this way. Likewise, a system can make things easier for the managers of said microcinemas since they're usually doing this (like the filmmakers) in their spare time, for little/no financial reward, and out of a gut passion. The aim isn't just to generate more income for filmmakers/microcinemas, but also to help save everyone's precious time.

Having said all of this, any system should be a flexible system and, above all, one that grows organically out of the trial and error discussed above. Imposing a top-down system without experiments to see what works is just a bad idea.

One way the Macrocinema circuit could work is to take from the ITVS/Public TV exhibition model (but without the enormous corporate structure. All I mean by this is:

- The network [the MACROcinema] says, "We'll screen the film" - and it goes out to all participating cinemas, rolling out city by city (so the filmmaker can travel to venues)

- The different channels [MICROcinemas] that might autonomously say, "We'll take this one and this one" for the things that aren't going out to (picked up or offered to) the MACROcinema, for whatever reason.

End of notes.

**

These notes are incredibly incomplete, and anyone that has a lot of experience touring or running a microcinema will shoot holes in many of these ideas. That's okay. The point is to advance the dialogue. Like filmmaking, this is a process of creative problem solving.

Fresh and Local: Some thoughts on "regional" film distribution

I've really enjoyed reading AJ Schnack's discussion of the True/False film festival over the past few days. It sounds like a great festival: large audiences of enthusiastic moviegoers, a strong lineup of films, and a venue that's quite special. What I found most interesting about AJ's discussion, though, was not the "text" (what a great festival this is!), but the subtext: this went down in in Columbia, Missouri and was started by "kids." True/False, to hear AJ tell it, is not a festival with major celebrity backers (Sundance, TriBeCa). It's not in a major American city (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago). It's not even held in a city with a sizable film community (SXSW). That's what makes reading about screenings with 1,200 in attendance so exciting.

And yet I was not surprised at all. In fact, all this only confirms my own experiences on the festival circuit. Audiences in the so-called "fly-over" states do care quite a bit about alternative cinema, thank you very much. As a farmer once said to me at a festival in Minneapolis: You do what I do: It's called "Fresh and local."

To take the discussion a step farther, the question for filmmakers is, How do you tap into this craving these under-served moviegoers have? How do you reach these audiences?

Festivals, certainly, are one way, but from a regional distribution standpoint, festivals are a mixed bag. Festivals obviously lend prestige to your work. They also have the potential to generate a lot of excitement and, as a result, turnout (like at True/False).

But, there are downsides: On the front end, there is no guarantee of a festival accepting your film. On the back end, while you might expose your film to, say, 1200 people, it's unlikely you have seen any income from even a sell-out screening since few festivals share a cut of the ticket sales with the filmmakers. (I don't blame festivals for this -- they're expensive to run and non-profit funding in the States is desperate. Period.) On top of the income issue, your core audience -- the people that went to see your film -- have now paid to see it once. There is going to be a lot of fall-off, especially in smaller cities, if you now try to four-wall or even sell DVDs after a successful festival screening.

Microcinemas, where they exist, are the logical alternative to reach said audiences. The question is: Can they generate the audiences that a well-programmed and managed festival can? Some can. Some can't.

What might work best is a kind of microcinema circuit. (For those of us interested in music industry-to-film industry analogies, I'm thinking along the lines of the circuits that jazz and folk musicians traveled in those genre's 50s-60s heyday.) Certainly microcinema programmers talk to one another now. There is a network. But I'm thinking of something a bit more organized, which capitalizes on the kind of collective publicity that festivals are able to generate, but without the large costs.

For all I know, something like this might already exist and I'm not aware of it. If so, let me know. I want to hear about it. If it doesn't, and there are interested parties out there, let's bring you people together and talk about how this would work.

If nothing else, hopefully AJ's write-up will spur filmmakers to look at more than just the "big name" festivals. A moviegoer is a moviegoer, no matter where they live. In many ways, it's the hungriest of audiences that are the most likely to savor your work.

Richard Linklater on the Austin Film Society

IndieWIRE has a nice, brief essay by Richard Linklater today in celebration of the Austin Film Society's 20th Anniversary. Austin's reputation for being a model regional film scene has to do with so many factors: the early 90s successes of El Mariachi and Slacker, the willingness of its successful filmmakers to continue to work locally, and the presence of a large film school, among others. The Austin Film Society, which was around before either Linklater or Robert Rodriguez made their first features, has been an essential part of that equation. (What shape might Slacker have taken if Linklater -- a co-founder of the Society -- hadn't seen Bresson's L'Argent at the Austin Film Society? To consider all the possibilites would be, well, like Linklater's opening monologue in that very film.) Anyway, favorite quote from the essay :

When I say the film society was a success from the get-go, it's important to remember that the key element in this equation was our definition of success. It was simple: if we could show movies and somehow pay for the rentals, shipping and phone calls, then get to do it again, that would be great. Like in so many areas of life, once you remove the profit motive and just want to make something cool happen because life would simply be better or more fun, it's amazing what you can do and who will jump in and help you do it.

Documentary Cookbook

UPDATE 9.1.2009: Looking for the Documentary Cookbook article for our students at Virginia Tech we noticed that it's been taken down from the UC Berkley website and appears to have disappeared from the internet... except in this mildly abbreviated copy/paste job.

I first read the UC Berkeley Center for New Documentary's "Cookbook" essay over three years ago. It's a fairly straightforward essay that investigates, through theory and practice, the question of how one can inexpensively produce intelligent, saleable documentaries. In its subject matter, there's nothing especially revolutionary about the Cookbook -- people have been making movies cheaply for years, and people have been writing about how to do the same for nearly as long. But a couple of things make the Cookbook a keeper (aside from the fact that it's free, of course):

First, it's written by working filmmakers, about working filmmakers, for working filmmakers. It's very, very readable. A damn good read as far as these things go, in fact.

Secondly, it's written from the conviction that all personnel on any film should be paid the going professional rate for the work they do. Salaries are not reduced, deferred, or eliminated from the budget in order to "get the film made."

This second point is critical. It doesn't take a genius to know that if you have access to a camcorder you could theoretically shoot a feature for about $10 (the cost of two 60 minute MiniDV tapes) these days. Making a movie on the cheap and paying all parties involved is much harder. The Cookbook's focus, then, is on helping "journeyman filmmakers" (their term) find ways to make a living while producing vital work. Good stuff.

What makes all of the Cookbook's ideas especially seductive is the reasonable, intelligent voice of the writing, which avoids the unrealistic cheerleading (or sketchy used car salesman vibe) you sometimes find in these You-Can-Do-It essays.

Of course, the question is: Can these ideas work for anyone? The Cookbook was written in 2002, and as far as I know it has not been updated since. How have documentaries using the Cookbook's guidelines fared, both critically and in the marketplace? An email asking about updates and further thoughts, which I sent to its authors last week in preparation for this post, hasn't been answered. I was hoping they would address what the Cookbook spends the least time discussing: distribution. After all, the key question these days is not "How can I get a movie made?" but whether or not it will be distributed.

I'm also interested in what the Cookbook has to say to narrative filmmakers. Obviously, the issues facing the genres aren't identical. To name just one, documentaries are marketed on their content far more than narrative films, which typically rely on the use of one or more "name" actors. Since a $100,000 budget isn't likely to cover the salaries that name actors command, productions in that budget range are usually at a substantial disadvantage in the search for distribution. For that matter, just paying your cast SAG scale would strain a $100K budget.

It's for this reason that the Cookbook probably has the most application to filmmakers that are working "regionally"since they typically are working with fewer resources, a smaller crew/talent pool, and in a style that's more humanistic than spectacle-driven. Reading over the essay again tonight, I was inclined to think of filmmakers like John O'Brien, Todd Verow or Caveh Zahedi whose films blend fiction and non-fiction, actor and non-actor and, script and improvisation in rewarding ways. Soderbergh's upcoming Bubble is another film that springs to mind.

The Cookbook's ideas aren't radical. Or if they are, they're not alone in their radicalism. InDigEnt's production model (as just one example) is not so very different from what the Cookbook proposes. InDigEnt productions (from what I remember) are made for about $300,000, and feature name actors (Sigourney Weaver, Katie Holmes, etc.). The main difference is that talent and crew are paid minimal wages up front and deferred the rest through profit participation. But that is a big difference and, in fact, is the distinction that separates the Cookbook from other models.

One way or another the essay's worth a read... I'd enjoy hearing your comments on it.

Sundance: Then and Now

The other day I ran across a scanned-in copy of the first Sundance Film Festival program. It's from 1978, when the festival was called the Utah/USA film festival. Since Sundance is announcing its 2006 lineup this week, I thought it would be interesting to look back to that first year.

Of the twenty-five films submitted in the "Regional Cinema" section (that is, the independent film competition), eight were screened:

Bushman (David Schickele)

Girlfriends (Claudia Weill)

Local Color (Mark Rappaport)

Martin (George A. Romero)

The Whole Shootin' Match (Eagle Pennel)

Property (Penny Allen)

Johnny Vik (Charles Naumann)

Not a Pretty Picture (Martha Coolidge)

Regional filmmaking was part of the original festival's mission; it was synonymous with independent film. Bushman was made in San Francisco, and Girlfriends, Local Color, and Not a Pretty Picture are New York movies, but the other four are from around the country: Pittsburgh, Austin, Portland, and Custer, South Dakota. And the ones that weren't accepted are from all over, too. Those nineteen came from: Arizona, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Wow. Very cool.

What's uncool? They're all depressingly unavailable. Today, of the competition films, only Martin is available on DVD The Rappaport and Weill movies were available on VHS years ago, but are out of print. The program descriptions sound compelling, so it's sad that these movies aren't popularly available, especially considering they're part of the heritage of American independent film.

Oh yeah. One last thing: Of the reject films, one was Robert M. Young's Alambrista, which had won the Camera d'Or earlier that year at Cannes. The other was this gem of self-reliant filmmaking, which was shot over five years.

UPDATE: June 14, 2009:

Property is now being self-distributed on DVD by Penny Allen.

The Whole Shootin Match was recently released on DVD by Watchmaker Films.

First Post: Declaration of Principles

The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self Reliance"

The purpose of this weblog is to talk about and to encourage the practice of making high-quality films at a low-cost and/or with small-labor systems. A good term for this practice is "Self-Reliant Filmmaking."

Self-reliant filmmaking is interesting for at least two reasons:

Less interference, more production: Self-reliance can let filmmakers bypass in whole or in part the common gatekeepers of cinema production (i.e., studios, production companies, etc.) and exhibition (i.e., major distributors). Needless to say, not needing a corporation's permission to make a movie can free you to make more of them.

Handcrafting: We believe, quite simply, that the way something is made shapes the nature of the thing itself. Self-reliant films are by definition handcrafted, and this is a good thing for today's cinema, which needs as many human, soulful works as it can get.

While some might consider this naive, we see examples of self-reliant filmmaking throughout the history of cinema -- from the Lumiere Brothers' first films up to works by some of today's leading filmmakers, like Abbas Kiarostami and Lars Von Trier.

This weblog will discuss:

- Current and past motion pictures and/or filmmakers that are part of the self-reliant tradition

- Strategies and models for sustaining non-corporate, especially regional, filmmaking

- The distribution of this work, including the opportunities afforded by new technologies

- Tools of the self-reliant filmmaker, including the making, modifying, and/or hacking of equipment

In addition to the above, the weblog will serve as a forum for makers and critics to reflect on the philosophy, theory, ethics, and praxis of self-reliant filmmaking because, in all of its different embodiments, self-reliant filmmaking is both a practice and a principle.

Put another way, self-reliant filmmaking does not help the so-called "independent filmmaker," it is what makes a filmmaker independent.