Review: Primera Bravo SE Disc Publisher

Note: Though it's clumsy phrasing throughout this review I refer to the Primera Bravo SE Disc Publisher by its full name because Primera makes a similarly named unit, the Bravo SE AutoPrinter. The AutoPrinter model prints, but does not burn, DVDs. It's a critical distinction, and one that you want to make sure you're aware of if you decide to purchase either unit!

**

Though the days of online distribution are upon us, DVDs still remain a (if not the) most effective way of sharing work seriously with an audience.

Obviously, one way of producing DVDs of one's work is to burn discs individually on your computer. After burning, you can label them by hand or, if you have a printer that accepts DVDs, use a printer. This method works fine if you've just got a handful to burn. Sometimes these printers can be fussy, though. Don't get me started on my experiences with my Epson R200 printer.

Another way of producing DVDs is to have them produced by a professional duplication house (e.g., DiscMakers). This is the way to go if you need hundreds for festival submissions, online or in-person sales.

But what about if you need somewhere between a dozen and a thousand? What if you find yourself needing to burn and print a moderate number discs, particularly projects that need to be updated intermittently (like, say, a demo reel)?

The Primera Bravo SE Disc Publisher aims for this market. A combination laser jet printer, DVD burner, and robotic arm, it automates the burning and printing up to 20 DVDs at a time. I have been testing one for the past couple of months, and here are my findings:

Pros:

Once set up, it does the job without hassle. Setting up the Primera Bravo SE Disc Publisher with a Windows-based computer was fairly hassle free. And once it was set up the unit performed like a charm. Readers of this site may be doing a double-take -- Did Paul just say Windows machine? Yup. I first tried setting up the Bravo SE Disc Publisher using an older "sunflower" iMac. That unit simply didn't have enough RAM and processor speed to do the job. Worse, though, was the fact that, regardless of the Mac computer I used, the included software was buggy and the features were limited. On a Windows-based machine the Bravo SE Disc Publisher has worked flawlessly and the included burning and label design software is easy to use.

Automation is a beautiful thing. The Bravo SE Disc Publisher will do runs of 20 discs. In my tests, the unit only stopped mid-run because of an error once, and that error was an operator error. (The "finished disc" tray should be extended when printing one disc, but pushed in when printing two or morel I left it out once when I should have pushed it in.) After a number of runs I grew confident that the unit didn't need "nursing." I felt confident leaving it alone and concentrating on other work.

It's pretty speedy. The time it takes to burn and print a run of 20 is dependent on a lot of factors -- the length of the program, the design of the label, your computer's processor speed and RAM. With my set-up the Bravo SE Disc Publisher was able to burn 20 DVDs of a short program (30 minutes or so) with a basic text label in about an hour. I was satisfied with those results.

Results have been reliable. The DVDs I've burned work, and they look consistently good. 'Nuff said.

Cons:

Not so hot on Macintosh. Though, admittedly, I tried using an iMac that didn't have enough oomph to get the job done, the design/burning software included for Mac was not as feature rich.

Ultimately, whether this unit is for you depends on your DVD burning needs. The results are more immediate than sending the DVDs off for replication, and the thing is far speedier than burning and printing with your computer and a printer that requires you loading discs one-by-one. However, for the cost of a Bravo SE Disc Publisher (about $1500 online) you could do two 300 disc runs (including cases and full-color sleeves) at DiscMakers. And remember, you'll need to purchase blank DVDs, blank cases, print inserts, etc. if using a Primera.

You'll have to do your own cost-benefit analysis to determine what's most cost effective for the work you do, but for what it sets out to do, the Bravo SE Disc Publisher is a success.

Film Festival World: Resources

Film Festival World has recently launched a few useful resource pages worth checking out: Their Ezines, Journals, & More page selects some of the better sources of critical writing on film from around the (digital) globe. Alongside long-running magazines (like Cahiers du Cinema and Cineaste) are sites like the Rouge and Senses of Cinema. I'm looking forward to exploring the sites that are new to me.

Another resource worth checking out is what they call The Essential Film Blog Reader. Though some of my favorite bloggers aren't listed (Mr. Schnack? Mr. Lowery?) what's there is quality stuff: David Bordwell, Ray Carney, Chris Fujiwara, Girish, Sara Jo Marks, Chuck Tryon, and others. Needless to say, I was flattered by the compliment of inclusion (and their biography, which was done entirely without my input).

If you're unfamiliar with Film Festival World, you can read more about the site here.

Use Caution, Leopard Ahead

Apple's new operating system, Leopard, was released about 5 minutes ago. If you edit video -- and I assume you do if you're reading this -- read the post at Little Frog before you rush to upgrade. (Little Frog... Leopard... What is it with the animals today?). Shane Ross has some tips for upgrading, which I wholeheartedly endorse. The golden rule? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Read on...

UPDATE: Less than 24 hours after going on sale, Leopard is... going on a rampage. While there are, doubtless, some happy early adopters out there, several folks are making some noise about all of the problems they're having post-install. Topics in the Apple Support Forums with such inspiring titles as "Installation appears stuck on a plain blue screen" are not reassuring.

So, for now, beware. As one MacFixit article states:

Apple, having allowed this shipment to slip six months already, has had to get Leopard out the door before the end of October by hook or by crook. You may reasonably conclude that this cake is probably not entirely baked. As with Tiger, an early software update (10.5.1) will likely be needed to correct a multitude of issues. Until then, consider yourself a beta tester.

If you absolutely must install Leopard, read this MacFixIt article about the best way to install Leopard.

So you wanna go to film school....Part 2: Film School Applications: Do's and Don'ts

Despite (or because of) the so-called "democratization" of film technology, film programs are doing a booming business. Acceptance rates hover around 10% or less at a lot of the more notable programs in the nation. From my own first-hand experience serving on the grad selection committee (in 2006) at Temple University, I can tell you that we accepted something like 8%. The last time I checked, the best med schools in the country aren't that selective. So how do you make yourself a competitive applicant?

For starters, recognize that most film schools, generally speaking, are looking for interesting people with original ideas more than they're looking for folks that are already great filmmakers. (In fact, it's their job to teach you to be a better filmmaker.) Since they're looking for interesting people, your job as an applicant is to present your unique life experience, creative vision, and professional potential.

As for specifics, what follows are some highly subjective tips and observations from my experiences as reviewer of film school applications, as a writer of student recommendations, and -- not so long ago -- as an applicant.

Rule #1: Follow directions. An incomplete or improperly submitted application will likely result in your application being dismissed. This seems like something so basic that no one could screw it up. Wrong! And since many programs are trying to weed out 90% of applicants, the first folks to get cut are those that didn't cross their t's and dot their i's.

Rule #2: Give yourself time and know your deadlines. Begin assembling your application more than a month in advance, particularly the letters of recommendation. Some schools won't accept a late application -- even if it's only late by a single day. Know your deadlines and work on your application well in advance of those deadlines so that your application can be as strong as possible.

Assuming you can obey Rule #1 and Rule #2, your application is going to get a look.

Most applications require you to submit the following: - Application Form - Undergraduate Transcript - Personal Statement - Creative Sample - Letters of Recommendation

I'm going to focus my attention on the last three because those are the most important elements of most applications.

Personal Statement:

DO write with honesty and accuracy.

DO talk about the types of films you want to make. Be a specific as possible.

DO write about how and why you got into filmmaking, but keep it very brief if it's not terribly unique (e.g., spare us the "When I first saw Jurassic Park..." memories).

DO discuss why you're applying to this specific school. Demonstrate that you've done the research about the programs and why this is a good one for you.

DO talk about how you've grown and changed as a person since you've been making films.

DO mention any visit you made to the school and any conversations or correspondence you've had with specific faculty members or students. Consider: You're trying to stand out from possibly 500 other applicants. They've actually met you. Remind them of that!

DON'T be afraid to be a little critical of the films you've made. Use this as a way to explain why you would benefit from film school. You're applying to film school because you want to be a better filmmaker, after all.

DON'T fret if you've not made many films, or even any at all (as long as your portfolio can contain creative work other than films and videos). If you've never made films but have done other art-making (photography, painting, creative writing) discuss why you're interested in making the transition from one art form to another. Think about it: Who would seem to have more professional potential in film -- an individual with a portfolio of amazing photographs or someone with a few just-okay videos?

DON'T be afraid to share your unconventional, idealistic dreams. ("I ultimately want to start a radical, experimental film co-operative in Idaho.") On the other hand...

DONT make statements that suggest you have absolutely no sense of the reality of the film business. ("I plan to get a three picture deal with Disney after my 3rd year film is screened.")

DON'T be afraid to speak about your accomplishments, but...

DON'T exaggerate or embellish your accomplishments. Besides the fact that dishonesty can come back to haunt you, grad schools are looking for people that haven't done everything. Tell the truth and show some humility.

DON'T spend all of your time talking about your favorite movies. You're applying to film school to make your own movies. Talk about that.

DON'T use a one-size-fits-all approach to your personal statement. Like a cover letter and resume for a job application, your statement should be tailored to each school.

Creative Sample

DO put your best work on the DVD first. With 500 applicants, most schools simply aren't going to watch that 90 minute movie of yours. Sorry. How long do you think these people have? Do the math: 500 applicants x 10 minutes of screening footage = 83+ hours. Get it? Shorter is better, but great and long is better than short and bad.

DO test every single DVD before you send it off. Test it on multiple machines. Send two if it makes you feel better.

DO label your work with your name, email, phone number and some indication that this is part of your portfolio for application in to X program.

DON'T include films or videos that feature derivative genre retreads or sophomoric humor. You're trying to demonstrate that you're mature, unique and original. Even if you aren't.

Letters of Recommendation

DO choose your recommenders carefully. You usually need three. For better or worse, "names" impress, so if you've done an internship for an award-winning filmmaker or studied under someone very well known in academic film circles, a positive recommendation can mean a lot. A glowing letter from an alum of the program can go a long way, too. A lukewarm recommendation, on the other hand, is bad regardless of who wrote it.

DON'T wait until the last minute (or week) to contact your recommenders. Chances are, many of them will have several students wanting recommendations, possibly even to the same schools. Some recommenders won't write in support of more than one student to a school. Others may have certain policies that you need to know up front (e.g., they only write for students that have earned A's), which may determine whether or not they can write for you.

DO volunteer to share a draft of your personal statement and your creative sample with your recommenders. This will help them write their letters. They may even be willing to give you some feedback.

DON'T ask a person to write a letter if s/he has tried to politely decline. All letters should be glowing.

Finally, a word about transcripts....

DON'T assume that your grades matter in the way you think they do. I once heard a professor on a grad selection committee remark, "Now this is my kind of transcript: All A's and F's." He was serious. That student was accepted on the basis of her strong portfolio while others, with lesser portfolios and better grades, were not.

In sum, be honest about who you are, share only the very best of your work, emphasize what is unique about your accomplishments and your goals, and help those writing in support of you to do the same. Then hope for the best.

Good luck!

So you wanna go to film school....Part 1: Searching for a Program

It's that time of year again, when current and former students start asking me about film schools -- where they should apply, if I will write a letter of recommendation, and so on. Whether or not film school is right for an individual is a personal decision and I'm not going to reiterate the pros and cons of film school here. Instead, this two-part post aims to help those who have decided to apply. This post will address some basic tips on looking for a graduate program in film production. The next post will provide some tips on the application process.

**Where should I go to film school? Well, that depends. What kinds of films do you want to make? Do you ultimately hope to work in or outside the industry? Where would you enjoy living? Until you can answer some basic questions about your personal goals, deciding on a film school is next to impossible.

Needless to say, it helps to have some idea about your goals before you apply. After that, begin researching the different programs that exist. The IMDB maintains a pretty good list of film schools. I think it's smart to make your first initial research into film programs no less than six months in advance of applying.

Here are things to consider as you look at programs:

Location. Do you want to pursue your filmmaking in a place where you'll be free of distractions, or do you need the stimulation of a city? Does the town or city have a cultural community that will allow your work to thrive? Will you be placing yourself thousands of miles from the place where you want to film your work? If you ultimately want to work in Hollywood you might want to aim for a California school so you can go ahead and begin building that network. If you want to work "regionally" (code for "outside LA or NY"), you should consider studying close to the place where you want to ultimately live, work, and film. (One important exception: If you want to teach filmmaking, don't go to a school where you might want to ultimately teach. Many schools have explicit policies against hiring "their own" as tenure-track faculty.) One way or another, a school's location is an incredibly important factor to consider.

Reputation of the program. No one is going to finance your next movie simply because you attended some elite film school. There is something to be said for the networking that a school like USC or NYU provides, but there are several worthwhile, lesser-known programs outside of the so-called "Big Five", particularly if you're not interested in a career in Hollywood. Among them (in alpha order): American University, Art Institute of Chicago, Boston University, CalArts, Columbia College, Emerson, Florida State, Iowa, Stanford, Southern Illinois, Texas, and Temple. Some of these cater to experimental work, others to documentary or alternative/independent narrative. Many are good bargains. I'll leave it to you to do the research.

Faculty and students. A lot of prospective applicants put an emphasis on who will be teaching them. Faculty, no doubt, are important: Perhaps less important than their individual accomplishments is their ability and willingness to take the time to mentor their students. Having said this, your fellow students matter even more than faculty. You'll spend far more time with your fellow students, you'll collaborate together, and you'll critique each other's work. If you don't respect them and the work they're trying to do, I expect you will be very, very unhappy.

Course Offerings and Curricula. As you look at the required courses for each program, ask yourself: Do these look like interesting courses? Are these the subjects that I want to learn about? I've known students to transfer or drop out of film programs because they were dissatisfied with having to learn about experimental film, or (at another school) because they weren't learning enough about experimental film. What's mind boggling to me is that this is pretty straightforward stuff. You look at the required classes, and you look at the other courses that are offered from semester to semester. If it looks like a good fit with your interests, you've found a contender. If it's missing courses in areas that are vital to your development, forget it. For the programs in between, contact the faculty and students and ask lots of questions.

Equipment and Facilities. A decade ago, the equipment that a school could offer mattered a lot, but it's not a lot to get worked up about today. After all, you can buy an HVX-200, a laptop and Final Cut Studio for a fraction of a year's tuition at most film schools. You don't want to go someplace that has crummy equipment, nor do you want to attend a school that lacks enough equipment to serve its students. You need good (film and video) cameras, sound equipment, lights, and editing stations. (Maybe not even the editing stations, if you already own one.) Beyond that, don't get worked up about facilities and equipment. If you're simply going to film school to touch the latest equipment, maybe you should go intern at an equipment house instead. Indeed, having access to every single new toy can be a distraction. You need to learn to make do with the basics. At least that's what I think. If you need a huge state-of-the-art soundstage to make your movies, go for it.

Film Funding. Some programs expect students to fund their own work; other programs fund their students' work. Each system has its pros and cons. For instance, with school-funded films who gets to decide which films get funded? Are some films funded and others not? Who retains the copyright on school-funded films? On the other hand, when funding your own work, how will that impact your ability to graduate in a timely fashion?

Length of Program. Most programs are three years; some are two years. There may be a difference between what a school's literature states and the reality though. Ask current students for the skinny on how long it takes for students to typically finish a program. It can be a positive thing, of course, to stay in school as long as you can. After all, student loan payments aren't due until after you're no longer enrolled. The point is, you need to know what kind of time commitment you're making.

Cost. Tuition is one thing to consider; cost of living in the town/city of the school are equally important. Don't let cost enter your first considerations of film programs. After all, you might be offered a fellowship or assistantship if you're accepted. But unless you're independently wealthy you will probably want to keep cost in the back of your mind. I believe you should not go into a lot of debt for film school, or any MFA for that matter. This is an art degree, not a law degree or med school, that we're talking about.

**After you've narrowed down your list to say, 10 or so, get in touch with the schools and try to find out more. Email or phone the various departments and speak with the Department Head or professors. During your conversations with these folks, ask if they can put you in touch with some current students. Also -- this is important -- ask them if there is a way that the program can share with you some recent student work.

From here, visit as many of your final contenders as is possible. Sit in on classes, meet with faculty and students. Screen student work, if you can. Ask lots of questions -- not just about the school, but the larger filmmaking community in the city/town. The positive impression that you make will help you as you apply.

Speaking of applying, my next post will outline some specific things you can do to make your application stronger.

Pulling Focus

Focus is such a downright elemental part of the filmmaking process that it's often taken for granted. Like sound, most moviegoers only notice it when it's bad. Aside from the occasional rack-focus, the work of a good 1st AC (or whoever's pulling the focus) probably shouldn't call attention to itself. And yet it's work that takes nimble hands, good eyes, and a near-balletic sense of timing and movement.

I enjoyed FresHDV's latest 3-part tutorial with Bob Sanchez on The Art of Focus Pulling, in which the FresHDV guys document Sanchez revealing how he approaches his work and some tricks of the trade.

Here are the links:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Aside from learning some things, after watching the series I went away appreciating even more how, when it's done right, the craft/art of it is simultaneously invisible and right before your eyes. How's that for a paradox?

Update from Matt Jeppsen of FresHDV:

When we posted the last clip in our three-part "Art of Pulling Focus" series, I had quite a few people e-mail me and specifically ask for a quicktime and/or HD version. Well at long last, here it is. We're sharing the 15-min Part 3 hands-on demonstration video as a 720p H.264 clip, available here.

Filmmaking and the Environment

As you probably heard yesterday, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. I've not always been a big supporter of Al's, but I was definitely feeling some pride for the local boy done good (the second native Tennesseean to be awarded the Peace Prize, actually.).

Though the press reports usually got it wrong, as AJ Schnack reminded everyone yesterday, Gore did not win an Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth (because he didn't direct it), but I have little doubt that the film -- because of how it drew attention to the cause of global warming, and because it drew attention to Gore's advocacy in the process -- was a factor in Gore sharing this year's Peace Prize. Looking over the list of previous Peace Prize winners, I couldn't think of another instance in which cinema played such a central role in the awardee's recognition.

Anyway, in the spirit of the announcement, I thought I would share some links and notes on environmentally-friendly filmmaking for those folks out there that, whether or not they like Al Gore, accept the findings of hundreds and hundreds of scientists from around the world that shared the Peace Prize for their work on man-made climate change research...

First, you might check out the Environmental Media Association's website, particularly their EMA Green Production Checklist (PDF download on the linked page). Most of their tips are basic "reduce, reuse, recycle" guidelines within a filmmaking context, but they're worth a look.

On a related note, in my searching online for other green filmmaking resources, I came across New Mexico's "Green Production Best Practices", which were outlined by Gov. (and Presidential candidate) Bill Richardson. No surprises here - this is a very similar list to the EMA guidelines above -- but it does have New Mexico-related resources to help you "go green." It would be great if all the other state film offices would draw up similar resource pages. If you agree, contact your local film office and make the suggestion. Or go a step further -- do the research yourself and provide it to them!

If you consider yourself deeply committed to these principles, you might want to track down a copy of Larry Fessenden's Low Impact Filmmaking. The book was originally published in 1992, so some of the information is dated. Still, this is the most extensive green-guide to filmmaking I've ever seen, and it's written with a true spirit of self-reliance. I only wish Fessenden would make it available as a PDF -- that would help disseminate the book more widely AND it'd be that much more environmentally friendly.

Finally, one of the most -- if not THE most -- significant things we filmmakers can do to help (or at least not hurt) the environment is to "work small." As I looked over the EMA Production Checklist I couldn't help but think about how the EMA's and the New Mexico film office's guidelines are geared toward Hollywood productions that feature hundreds of crew and dozens of vehicles and trailers. Without even considering the extensive things that happen in front of the camera on some of these sets (stunt car chases, explosions, etc), the fact remains that Hollywood filmmaking practices leave a big environmental footprint, no matter how much re-using and recycling they do. "Reduce" is the first step -- and it's one that the producers of so-called "Major Motion Pictures" would do well to remember.

Indeed, some of the most basic elements of low-budget, DIY regional filmmaking -- working with a small crew, shooting films in your own city with local crew, and using a modest amount of equipment (lights and vehicles, especially) -- also happen to be great practices for environmentally-sound filmmaking. Most filmmakers that "work small" (including a lot of people reading this right now) may not do so out of a commitment to the environment, but you know what? That doesn't diminish the effect. We can all do more, but working small is a big first step.

Review: The Filmmaker's Handbook, 3rd Edition

My earlier post on the 3rd edition of The Filmmaker's Handbook was written in anticipation of receiving it. Now I've got it in hand, and had a chance to look it over. A lot of people simply want to learn from a review whether or not they should own a book or not. If that's why you're reading, the answer is that, generally speaking, if you are a novice-to-intermediate filmmaker, this is an essential book.

Now that we've got that out of the way, here are some quickly-jotted observations:

There are lots of changes, but few surprises. And that's probably a good thing. There's only one new chapter, at the beginning, which lays out basic questions that filmmakers should consider before beginning their work. Aside from that, the changes are all revisions. The biggest change, because it's something of a philosophical shift, is that the chapters on Video now take precedence over the chapters on Film. And, of course, the video chapters have been (predictably) overhauled and expanded. The film chapters have largely gone (predictably) untouched.

It's still essential. I don't know of any single technical manual related to filmmaking that collects so much information in one place. None of its chapters can compete with my favorite books on sound, lighting, etc. but this is a great place for novices to begin and it's a great single reference book for the rest of us, particularly on the things that won't change as quickly as video (sound, lighting, film).

It's already starting to become obsolete. Steven Ascher notes this in the preface: "Right now, the pace of change in video and computer technology is so rapid, some things in this book could be dated before you get to the end of this sentence." There is a small, one sentence mention of the Red Camera (bottom of p. 34). I expect there will be more on 4K and RAW imaging in later editions.

There will be new editions, and probably sooner than later. The cover of this edition conspicuously notes that this not the "3rd Edition", but instead the "2008 Edition." Aside from noting that, well, it's still 2007, I have to imagine that this is a hint that we'll see this tome updated more regularly. And it is a tome.

Readability is reduced. The Handbook has been such a staple of film education because of its (relative) readability. Ascher and Pincus do a fine job of making complex technical concepts understandable for novices. But as the book has grown (see below) it has sacrificed some of its readability. There is simply so much stuff in this new edition that it can be a little difficult to navigate through it to find what you need. Luckily the index is above-average for this type of book.

It's big. Really big. I remember a film professor of mine once waxing nostalgic about how the precursor to the first edition of The Filmmaker's Handbook was a small pocket-sized book by Ed Pincus called Guide to Filmmaking. That book, my professor argued, was superior in some ways to editions of The Filmmaker's Handbook because you could stash it in your back pocket while you filmed. He had a point. This is a "handbook" in name only -- it has 830 pages and weighs nearly 3 pounds! (Here's a similarly sized work of fiction, as a point of comparison.) I wouldn't recommend eliminating anything, but I do wonder if perhaps the next edition shouldn't be called The Filmmaker's Desk Reference.

In sum, while this isn't my favorite film book, if you are new to filmmaking, or if you are beyond the basics but need a single desk (or on-set) reference for tons of technical stuff, this is probably about the best $16.50 you could spend.

The 25 Greatest Documentaries of All-Time?

IndieWire reports today on the International Documentary Association's list of the "25 Best Documentaries." As an introduction to the genre for people who have never seen more than one or two non-fiction films (including, say, March of the Penguins) it's a serviceable list. On the other hand, it will probably upset a lot of people, if the comments after the IndieWire article are any indication. It's not worth getting too worked up over these things. Like those AFI best-of lists, they're not so much a serious study as a marketing tool for the sponsoring organization. Still, I was pretty surprised (and a little sad) to see just how historically short-sighted and Americentric this list is, particularly coming from a group that is comprised of filmmakers and bills itself as an international association.

Almost all the films on the list are American, English-language films. As for representation throughout the decades, the last seven years are represented by ten movies; the '80s and '90s are represented by seven more. The other eighty years of cinema are represented by a mere eight films.

I can put aside the fact that lesser-known, esoteric personal favorites (like, say, Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad, Godmilow/Farocki's What Farocki Taught/Inextinguishable Fire, Jorge Furtado's Ilha das Flores, or Wiseman's High School) didn't make the cut. But a list claiming to represent the "Greatest Documentaries of All Time" that doesn't feature a single film by Robert Flaherty, Dziga Vertov, Jean Rouch, Michael Apted, Chris Marker, Agnes Varda, much less Claude Lanzmann's Shoah ? Well, it's curious, to say the least.

Ok, I said I wasn't going to get worked up. So I'll stop.

Here's the list. Continue the debate in the comments, if you want....

1. "Hoop Dreams," directed by Steve James, Peter Gilbert and Frederick Marx 2. "The Thin Blue Line," directed by Errol Morris 3. "Bowling for Columbine," directed by Michael Moore 4. "Spellbound," directed by Jeffery Blitz 5. "Harlan County USA," directed by Barbara Kopple 6. "An Inconvenient Truth," directed by Davis Guggenheim 7. "Crumb," directed by Terry Zwigoff 8. "Gimme Shelter," directed by Albert and David Maysles and Charlotte Zwerin 9. "The Fog of War," directed by Errol Morris 10. "Roger and Me," directed by Michael Moore 11. "Super Size Me," directed by Morgan Spurlock 12. "Don't Look Back," directed by DA Pennebaker 13. "Salesman," directed by Albert and David Maysles 14. "Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance," directed by Godfrey Reggio 15. "Sherman's March," directed by Ross McElwee 16. "Grey Gardens," directed by Albert and David Maysles, Ellen Hovde and Muffie Meyer 17. "Capturing the Friedmans," directed by Andrew Jarecki 18. "Born into Brothels," directed by Ross Kauffman and Zana Briski 19. "Titticut Follies," directed by Frederick Wiseman 20. "Buena Vista Social Club," directed by Wim Wenders 21. "Fahrenheit 9/11," directed by Michael Moore 22. "Winged Migration," directed by Jacques Perrin 23. "Grizzly Man," directed by Werner Herzog 24. "Night and Fog," directed by Alain Resnais 25. "Woodstock," directed by Michael Wadleigh

IFP Rough Cut Lab

Tom Quinn, who I got to know during my stint as a visiting professor at Temple, has an interesting write-up of his experiences at the IFP Rough Cut lab over at Workbook Project. The clips I've seen of Tom's work-in-progress The New Year Parade have all been very promising. Like a lot of truly independent works, it's had a long birthing process, which has just amped up my anticipation of it. Happily, it sounds like the Lab may be that last little push Tom needed to complete the film and get it out to audiences.

In the meantime, read Tom's take on the Lab here.

Two Hands are Better Than One: LevelCam and "RebelCam"

Earlier this month, Matt over at FresHDV posted some photos of a new, fairly inexpensive ($50) gizmo called the LevelCam, which helps stabilize camcorder footage. This is no Steadicam -- there's no counterweight, no spring-loaded arm, no gimble. It's just a small horizontal mounting surface that allows a camera operator to hold a camera level with two hands instead of just one. The LevelCam looks throw-it-in-your-backpack small, which is an added bonus. Of course, if you're too cheap to spring for something like the LevelCam -- of if you just want to see how such a thing works -- you could build a similar contraption. Stu Maschwitz's DV Rebel's Guide has instructions for building what he calls a "ghetto cam." (Note to Stu: Not to get too PC on you, but I think "StuCam" or "RebelCam" would be a better name for it.) What is it? Basically a 2x4 and a couple of 1" dowels.

I just built a "RebelCam" to see just how much it helps stabilize the image, and I have to say that it works better than I expected. The materials cost less than $10; building it took about an hour. The two downsides are that a) it's kinda bulky and b) getting the camera mounted with a thumbscrew is a pain. For $40 more (and no effort) you can get a smaller, possibly more convenient version.

Of course, you can just try to hold the camera steady with one hand. People have done it for years. Or at least tried.

21 Mac Shareware Applications for Filmmakers

Back in July, I linked to a post that recommended 15 "must have" Freeware programs for filmmakers. Though it favored Windows users, it was still an interesting list of applications. At the end of that post in July I mentioned that I'd try to add to that list, so here it is. Listed below are 21 freeware and shareware applications that I use regularly or which have, at the very least, really saved my butt a couple of times. There are only two duplicates betwen the FreekGeekery list and the one below.

Granted, some of these applications are, at best, only tangentially related to filmmaking. While it may not be as sexy as editing your latest masterpiece simple stuff like email, writing treatments, doing budgets, taking notes, and - yes - simply maintaining your computer probably constitute at least some of your time as a filmmaker. At least, I know it does mine. And you know what? That's okay. It's all part of the same process.

So on with the list. If you see a favorite application of yours missing from this list, by all means say so in the comments.

21 Mac Shareware Applications for Filmmakers

AppleJack AppleJack is a system maintenance utility more than an application, and it's certainly not filmmaking related. So why list it? Because I find it indispensable when my Mac is acting up. When I was having problems with my Multibridge and OS 10.4.10, it was AppleJack to the rescue. Install it now and be thankful on that rainy day when your computer starts acting up. Cost: Free

Audacity Sound recorder and editor. Compare with Audio Hijack Pro (below). Cost: Free

Audio Hijack Pro Multifeatured sound recording application that lets you record internet radio, audio from Skype and iChat. Can be used to import analog (e.g., vinyl and cassettes) into iTunes. Etc. While there's some crossover between this and Audacity, the latter stands out as a sound editor, while Audio Hijack Pro lets you "hijack" streaming audio from various online sources. Both have their place in my Applications folder. Cost: $32

Capture Me Utility that allows you to capture screenshots even while playing a DVD on your computer. (OS X's built-in screencapture prohibits this.) Great for grabbing inspiring images to save for yourself or to share with collaborators. Cost: Donationware

Celtx A screenwriting and everything-but-the-kitchen-sink pre-production organizer. Celtx has been, for me, the buggiest application on this list. Then again, when you consider the sorry state of screenwriting applications on the Mac it starts to look okay. If you don't already have a screenwriting app that works for you, this is probably your best bet for now, mainly because it's free. Someday I hope to be able to give a forehanded compliment to a screenwriting app -- for now "It's free!" is the best I can muster. (If you think this sounds cranky, ask me what I think of some of the screenwriting software in the $200 range.) Cost: Free

Cyberduck Open source FTP and SHTP browser. For a long time I used RBrowser to connect to the SRF server. Now this does the job. Cost: Donationware

DVD Spanner AKA Span DVD Automates burning of folders of large files over several DVDs. I used this to backup onto DVD several P2 cards worth of footage shot this summer and it worked like a charm. Cost: Free

DVDxDV Converts DVD files to QuickTime, which allows you to edit them in Final Cut Pro. I use this in tandem with MacTheRipper (below) to make subject-based dvds of clips for class lectures. The "Pro" version has added features, including batch capture and better performance with widescreen anamorphic footage. Cost: $25 (Standard version) or $80 (Pro version)

Journler This is a virtual notebook for all those idea scraps -- text, web clippings, audio/video files -- that are floating around on your hard drive, on your desk, or in your head. Previously I had used SOHO Notes, and this compares favorably. Cost: Donationware (personal use) or $25 (non-personal use)

MacTheRipper Rips DVDs to your hard drive while removing the region coding and copy protection in the process. Controversial? Yup. Useful? You bet. The website notes that "MacTheRipper is intended to backup DVDs you have legally purchased for personal use. Any copyright-infringing activity you choose to perpetrate using this application is illegal, immoral, and beyond our control.â" Cost: Free

NeoOffice An open-source replacement for Microsoft's Office suite. Word processor, spreadsheet, etc. Not quite as elegant as MS Office, but you can't beat the price, and there's something to be said for supporting open-source programmers over global monopolies. Cost: Free

Pacifist Allows you to extract individual files and folders out of Mac OS X .pkg package files, .dmg disk images, and .tar, .tgz, and .tar.gz file archives. Definitely not something I use every day, but it helped me out in a big way once, so it gets a mention. Shareware: $20

PDF Lab If you're trying to generate a PDF by using OS X's "Print to PDF" you run into problems when using lame applications (that means you, Final Draft 6), which require you to print your title page separately from your main document. PDF Lab is my workaround. Cost: Donationware

QuickTime Movie NoteTaker Allows the taking of notes while watching dailies, transcribing video interviews, etc. Cost: Free

SpamSieve Precision spam killer. Worth every penny. Cost: $30

SuperDuper! Backs up and clones hard drives. If that sounds boring, well, it is. But I'll take "boring" over "drama" (read: drive failure without a backup) when it comes to hard drives. Cost: Free

Taco HTML Edit Full featured HTML and PHP editor. I use this to modify aspects of the SRF site. Cost: Free

Transcriva Great application for doing transcriptions of interviews. If you need video functionality, compare this with QuickTime Movie NoteTaker (above). Cost: $19.99

Timecode Calculator As its name suggests, this does one thing and it does it well. Cost: Free or $7 (depends on which version you want)

Video Disk Space Calculator Helps you compute hard drive space for different codecs. I use this thing more and more now that I'm not strictly working with DV-based footage. Cost: Free

VLC Player Multimedia player for various audio and video formats (MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DivX, mp3, ogg, etc.) as well as DVDs, VCDs, and various streaming protocols. It can also be used as a server to stream in unicast or multicast in IPv4 or IPv6 on a high-bandwidth network. Cost: Free

Finally, though I cannot vouch for them, Blender, Jahshaka, and CinePaint are all worth a look if you do animation or effects-heavy work.

If I've left something off this list, post a comment!

Caffeine, Sequels, and Remakes...

When I realized that caffeine could be attributed to at least a few of the several headaches I get on a monthly basis, I gave it up. I've been off caffeine for over 15 years now. In addition to it helping with the headaches, I learned early on in the process how good it felt to just deny something to yourself. To echo one of the legends of self-reliance, denial helps one live deliberately. It's been so long since I had a caffeinated beverage that I take it for granted now, but I was thinking about it today when reading Matthew Jeppsen's post at FresHDV in which he quotes a recent interview with Ridley Scott.

Scott says:

I think movies are getting dumber, actually. Where it used to be 50/50, now it's 3% good, 97% stupid. [The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford] is one of those rarities that does get made, thank God, and has serious characterisation and serious things to say. Altogether it's a wonderful, dramatic and historic piece. But it's becoming more and more difficult to get films like this made.

I've sometimes found Ridley Scott's work to be an example of (admittedly great) style over substance, but am I ever in agreement here.

In an effort to quantify the dumbness, what follows is a list of the top 20 grossing movies of 2007 to-date, in order. Films in bold are not sequels or based on previously existing franchises (i.e., a comic book or television series).

Spider-Man 3 - sequel (#3) / comic book franchise Shrek the Third - sequel (#3) Transformers - based on TV show Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - sequel (#3) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - sequel / book franchise The Bourne Ultimatum - sequel (#3) / based on book franchise 300 Ratatouille The Simpsons Movie - based on 17 year-old TV series Wild Hogs Knocked Up Live Free or Die Hard - sequel (#4) Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - sequel (#2) / based on comic book franchise Rush Hour 3 - sequel (#3) Blades of Glory I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry Ocean's Thirteen - second sequel to a remake Ghost Rider - debatable: based on comic book franchise.... Hairspray - based on broadway show, which was based on movie Superbad

Out of 20 films, seven or eight are "original", if you can call Wild Hogs and Blades of Glory "original." [Addendum: Adaptations of non-franchise literature, etc. count as original works. See discussion in comments below.]

If that doesn't get you down, look at the all-time top grossing movies in the USA, where you'll see that 13 of the 20 were released in the last seven years. Of those 13, two (The Passion of the Christ and Finding Nemo) aren't sequels, remakes, or based on pre-existing franchises.

Shutting myself in a dark room isn't going to make the headache that is this list of movies go away, but I am going to give up watching any new sequels and remakes. Even if some of these movies are ok, I'm sick of the practice in general principle. Why encourage Hollywood to do it any longer? Like caffeine, I'm going cold turkey, giving this stuff up in toto.

Sure, I might miss something like Cronenberg's The Fly or Sirk's Imitation of Life (two of my favorite remakes), but something tells me the withdrawal period will last shorter than when I gave up caffeine.

UPDATE 9/23/07: Alert reader AJ Broadbent has sent word of even more dissenting opinions. Click here for the full story!!

Frownland

In March I caught the premiere of Ronald Bronstein's Frownland at SXSW. Soon after seeing it, I wrote:

Frownland is clearly designed as an audience endurance test, a kind of cinematic middle-finger. Though not enjoyable in any conventional sense, it's an unusual and original film that succeeds on its own uncompromising terms. Recommended viewing for brave lovers of cult films; others will probably want to skip it.

I would only slightly modify this statement to say, as we enter month nine of 2007, that Frownland ranks as one of my favorite films of the year. I was reminded of this by reading David Lowery's Filmmaker Magazine interview with Bronstein, which has just been posted online.

Not everyone shares David's or my admiration for the movie. Here's an interview highlight from Bronstein that illustrates what a polarizing movie this is:

[A] fight nearly broke out after this one screening in Las Vegas. Some guy in the back of the theatre was booing throughout the closing credits. When they ended, this other guy stood up, turned to face the booer, and screamed, "You! You're a fucking asshole!" I mean he really screamed. He was absolutely enraged. Red as a beet. Shaking. That's when a third guy stood up and started defending the booer. The second guy turned on the third. Everyone was arguing. It was sort of a melee. Turns out that last guy was the attending critic for Variety and he wound up writing us a killer review.

Click here to read the whole thing.

The Bible, Revised

In some fields, there's that one book which, without it, your collection would be hopelessly incomplete. In my opinion, every kitchen needs a copy of The Joy of Cooking, a library's not a library if it doesn't have the Oxford English Dictionary, and filmmakers... well, I would argue that all of us need a copy of The Filmmaker's Handbook by Steven Ascher and Edward Pincus. At least that was true a few years ago. First released in 1984, The Filmmaker's Handbook was one of the first, and best, books to cover almost all technical aspects of the filmmaking process. Its presentation of technical concepts was accessible to beginners; its depth of detail meant experienced filmmakers could return to it again and again, always sure to learn new things.

For years, the Handbook didn't need an update. Film technology had gone largely unchanged for decades. An f-stop's an f-stop, right? Then, in 1999, the Handbook was updated to include developments in digital video. A necessary nod to the present, no doubt, but also an invitation to obsolescence.

The 2nd edition was first published in March 1999 -- one month before the unveiling of Final Cut Pro 1.0. Things have changed. Radically. Needless to say, the Handbook's been long overdue for another update.

So when I say that the new edition of The Filmmaker's Handbook was released yesterday, well, if you're sentimental about books like I am, maybe you'll agree that this is a cause for celebration.

In many ways, though, it's a bittersweet celebration. At this point, I don't expect The Filmmaker's Handbook to present any especially new information, exactly. The internet keeps me up-to-date on this stuff far better than any book can now. And, like so much of the technology it will no doubt discuss, I suspect that much of the information found in this 3rd Edition will be out of date within a year or two. If not sooner.

Yet, even when discussing evolving technologies, books have their place. Books demand (or at least request) more attention than digitally-presented information does. That's a good thing, especially when you're trying to learn something. You can also carry a book to a remote location where you might never have the internet access that would allow you to google for a solution that might crop up on set. But most importantly, a book lets you dog ear its corners, mark up key passages, and write in the margins. At least, that's what I plan to do with my new edition as soon as it arrives on my doorstep.

And besides, a lot of what this new 3rd edition of The Filmmaker's Handbook will have to say has never gone out of style and won't for a long, long time. After all, an f-stop's still an f-stop.

Time Code

If you don't understand at least the basics of timecode, you really can't fully understand and appreciate video, at least as we know it today. While reading B&H Photo/Video/Audio's latest email newsletter (i.e., advertising) there was a nice little introduction to timecode. Sure, the article is littered with links to products -- B&H is in business, after all -- but this is a good introduction for beginners.

And, while I'm on the subject, here are a few freeware timecode calcluators for Mac and Windows.

ADDITION:

From The Edit Blog: The iPod as a Time Code Slate

First Red Cameras Slated to Be Delivered Today

More news on the Red Camera's release as updates and footage become available. Until then, assuming you haven't been following this camera's (fairly open) development, you can get caught up by reading the official propaganda from Red and Apple. Then check out the various forums:

RedUser

Red forum on DVInfo.net

UPDATES (last update 9/6/07):

FX Guide - "Red One Starts Shipping" Words and photos about the release.

FX Guide - Shooting With Red

FX Guide - RED Podcast Discussion

"First Pictures" thread posted at RedUser.net Links to first known still grabs and short clips from Red users. Registration is required to view the photos.

OffHollywood Studios' Red Diary: Day.... 1, 2, 3

DVD Round-up: August 28, 2007

This edition of DVD round-up features five very different DIY features. Stranger Than Paradise / Permanent Vacation Jim Jarmusch's Stranger Than Paradise (1984) is generally considered one of the key films of the American independent film movement of the 1980s, occupying the same rarefied historical space as The Return of the Secaucus Seven (1980) and She's Gotta Have It (1986). Unlike those films, however, this was not Jarmusch's debut (though it is often erroneously attributed as such). That film, Permanent Vacation, is finally being released on DVD in this deluxe Criterion Collection release.

Inland Empire David Lynch abandoned studio filmmaking to write, shoot, direct, and edit a three-hour DIY feature with a Sony PD-150. The plot? Lynch's tagline says it concerns "a woman in trouble." Let's leave it at that. To promote the movie, which he self-distributed (in partnership with 518 Media and Rhino), Lynch sat out on a street corner in Hollywood with star Laura Dern and a Cow. No word on whether footage of this is included on this 2-disc edition.

Four Eyed Monsters Arin Crumly & Susan Buice's Four Eyed Monsters has gained as much, if not more, attention for the filmmakers' promotional efforts and DIY theatrical distribution campaign as it has for the film itself. I finally caught up with it after its release on DVD a few weeks ago. Buice and Crumly have produced a work that is impressive for its inventive marriage of cinematography and digital effects -- it feels at once hand-made and digital. Story-wise, I was less interested -- for me Buice and Crumly fall prey to indulging in the very narcissistic tendencies that they criticize in so many other self-obsessed couples. See for yourself, though. MySpacers identify with it, which makes me wonder if I'm just too old to fully appreciate it. Available from B-Side or via the filmmakers themselves.

LOL What a difference a year and a half makes. In April 06 I was interviewing Joe Swanberg, Kevin Bewersdorf, and Chris Wells about LOL, which I had just seen at the Philadelphia Film Festival. At the end of the evening, Joe handed me a self-burned, Sharpie-labeled copy of the DVD. Now, sixteen months later, I hold in my hands a deluxe DVD release of LOL, the first from the new DVD label Benten Films. It's a beautifully put together release -- lots of special features and my favorite DVD cover image of the year. I've avoided writing much lately about Joe Swanberg and the other filmmakers featured in IFC Center's New Talkies series. I think Anthony Kaufman has a point when he writes that much hype could hurt movies intimate and small-scale as, say, LOL. (Indeed, hype can kill our ability to appreciate any movie or any other work of art.) Still, this is a quality release worth mentioning and, good as it is, it suggests even bigger and better things to come from both Swanberg and the Benten Films label.

New! Slightly Improved! Subscribe to SRF by Email!

A reader of Self-Reliant Film emailed me today asking if she could somehow subscribe to posts on the blog by email instead of having to use a news reader. A quick search of the internets told me how to do this via Feedburner. Happily, setting it up took all of two seconds. If you want your SRF delivered to you in via email, look over to the sidebar on the right... then click on the link that says "Subscribe to SRF by email." Follow the painless instructions from there and you're all set.

No Budget Film School

Back in January, I participated in a conversation on DIY filmmaking with Workbook Project founder Lance Weiler (Head Trauma) and Mark Stolaroff (producer and founder of the No Budget Film School). I enjoyed the discussion and certainly learned a few things myself. Mark recently notified me that his No Budget Film School is holding a two-day immersion workshop entitled, "The Art & Science of No-Budget Filmmaking" in Los Angeles next weekend (8/25 & 8/26), so I thought I'd pass the word along.

I haven't attended one of these workshops myself, so I can't directly endorse it. I will say, though, that the list of confirmed Guest Speakers -- which includes Peter Broderick (President, Paradigm Consulting; former President, Next Wave Films), Craig Zobel (Director, Great World Of Sound - 2007 Sundance), and Ti West (Director, The Roost; Trigger Man) looks promising.

And it's not terribly expensive as far as these things go. The two-day workshop is $275 in advance; $200 if you're a college student with ID. When you consider that all paid attendees of the workshop receive Axium Scheduling and Axium Budgeting software for free (reportedly a $400 value) it might end up being a pretty good bargain.

If you're in L.A. and you're debating whether or not to go, you might give that conference between Lance, Mark, and me a listen. If you like what Mark has to say, check out the workshop.