Film Strategy

REPOSTED FROM MY OTHER BLOG: LENSATIC I have always admired the low-budget filmmaker who can make something beautiful or daring or entertaining with the tiniest budget.  Unfortunately, the low-budget filmmaker is not the rarity but the norm.  There is no shortage of filmmakers trying to create even if it means at negative cost to themselves because there is so much potential financial and personal reward in the end.  Maybe that's why the industry has been able to get away with paying nothing for highly creative and technical services and expensive equipment.  That's done more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.  That is why Charles Davis has done the industry a service by reporting on the internship abuse in the entertainment industry.  In a post for The Baffler, he  tracks and outs  the production companies that continue to perpetuate one of the worst practices of the film and TV industry: failing to pay workers a real wage by offering instead "pay on an

Raging Bull  |  Martin Scorcese  | 1980 | USA | Format: 35mm  | 129 min Polish poster for Raging Bull I just saw Raging Bull the other day. For the first time.   That would be near heresy for a filmmaker to say but I just wasn't interested for a long time.  And it wasn't because I dislike DeNiro or Scorcese or boxing.  It was simply I didn't like how Sugar Ray Robinson (my favorite boxer of all time) was depicted.  In the stills I saw of the movie, Sugar Ray looks scrawny, unkempt and plain wack; not an image befitting the man, the legend who was so good they had to create the phrase "greatest pound-for-pound" to describe how good he was across the board and in comparison to everyone from flyweights to heavyweights. I mean see for yourself... The "real" Sugar Ray The "Raging Bull" Sugar Ray I know, I know... it's such a minor quibble but I'm such a major Sugar Ray fan.  Anyway, I was always curious to see it and I fin

There are many films that caught people's attention in TIFF this year and became the subjects of top 10 lists  but I decided to focus on an interesting experimental short I read about by way of  Daniel Kasman 's mubi notebook TIFF 2014 entries . It was the avant garde short, brouillard passage #14, directed by Alexandre Larose and the sublime little film caught my eye as well (I only got to see the trailer which I have embedded below).  Kasman: Like many avant-garde films, I don't have any idea how Alexandre Larose made  brouillard passage #14 ,  the film which opened the first program, curated around body and camera performances. I think he filmed multiple times a walk along a foliage-lined pathway until reaching a lake and superimposed those images of the corridor upon themselves—but I'm not sure. How often are you not sure of what you're watching during the festival's dramatic features? It's this kind of destabilization and lack of, to put it blu

In parts 1 and 2 , we covered the reality of being sued and ways to minimize the chances of that happening (and losing) by essentially displaying common sense, taking the time out to make sure 'things are what they seem' and getting everything in writing.  Producers and filmmakers with money hire lawyers and others to do all that work for them so they can focus on the fun stuff like directing scenes or hobnobbing with actors and financiers. The true no-budget filmmaker can't hire a lawyer to do the work but the work still needs to get done somehow.  This series has been an attempt to provide no-budget filmmakers, like you, some guidelines to help you organize and minimize your risk.* INTERNS.  'Everyone loves PA interns cuz they work for free, right?!?' Wrong. The Blackswan case was a wake-up call for the industry; your interns are not a way to get free labor.  For far too long, interns have been used in abusive manners (even if the producers didn't i

The second article of a 3-part series In part 1 , we looked at the reality and possibility of being sued for creating art and entertainment followed by ways to avoid legal problems with the script and other artworks used in making the film.  As we all know, the main (but not only)  reason why you as a producer would hire a lawyer is to avoid lawsuits.  Although it might not seem like it when you are itemizing your production budget, it is money well-spent (provided you get a good lawyer).  However, in this day, age and economy, there are filmmakers who literally have no budget. But even without a budget, you are still vulnerable to lawsuits so you need to do what you can to protect and defend yourself.  That's why I place so much emphasis on documenting everything you do and keeping it in a safe, accessible place.  This protects you and minimizes the risks you face.  In part 2, let's look at what you can do when dealing with actors, crew, locations, children, music, trade

The first article in a 3-part series. The main reason why producers hire lawyers is to avoid lawsuits.  However, a good production lawyer can offer more than that. For example, she can help formulate a strategy to take the film on a successful festival run or negotiate a deal at a film market or lend a project some legitimacy or advise on how to attract and raise the necessary funding or even provide some creative feedback that could be crucial to the production's success. But no lawyer kids themselves into thinking those are their main selling points... they know that while they can do all that and a bag o'chips, the main reason producers hire lawyers is to avoid a lawsuit (or so that the distributor or studio who buys the film avoids a lawsuit). So hiring a lawyer should be a no-brainer, right? But the truth is it doesn't happen.  And the biggest reason why is that lawyers cost too much.  Now that's a reasonable excuse because lawyers ARE expensive.  But only t