Recently I shared a few email back-and-forths with a local filmmaker and former Columbia student. The topic of discussion was America's obsession with adapting foreign films, especially those from the currently hot spots of Hong Kong, Korea, China, Thailand, and other Asian countries. Their stand was that American improved upon those films when adapting them.
I disagree completely. We are a different culture and have difficulty understanding other cultures in general, especially when so many of us never venture out of our safe worlds to try to understand them. It's a small planet, but we like to make it smaller by remaining within our own, albeit large, world. I watch a lot of foreign film, and Korean film is one of the hottest right now, although on the wane, and the reasons given satisfied me... probably because of my watching three or four Korean films a month.
And The Departed was a good adaptation, but nowhere near as good as the original. The drama in Infernal Affairs I was so intense that the film had less than half of the gunplay as The Departed, yet it kept the suspense levels just as high.
We covet our weapons and explosions over good character drama and we fall back on them because the Hollywood system demands we keep the bulk of mainstream America happy, in their seats, buying their buckets of corn, We, as a public, will not allow for artistic expression as much as the emerging cultures do in their cinematic growth. Probably because those cultures, in particular Asian film, have embraced the Hollywood model but in so doing have added their own unique spin, thanks to the customs of their cultures.
And the few of us in this country who will take the time to watch a film with subtitles feel superior; but the problem is that just doing that is not enough. We have to keep our minds open to the fact that we are experiencing another culture. If all we do is try to assimilate it into our own then we are suppressing our own experience and minimalizing the original filmmaker's intent.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Change In The Air
I think I'm sensing a trend finally coming home to roost in film distribution. Spring is often the slowest season for the industry, but this Spring is one of the slowest in a very long time. And now the summer season is nearly upon us and it seems as though the focus for distribution has changed. But, if it has, this change has been anticipated within the industry for a very long time.
The change I speak of has to do with theatrical releases. Prior to last year's economic crash there was a certain standard which most companies followed, but this Spring much of that seems to be changing. Before, any genre that was on the wane or any film which would normally be considered of lower ('B') quality would have been released in 1,000 screens or more, nationwide, in Spring primarily and to a lesser extent at other times throughout the year. As of this Spring the trend seems to be moving towards releasing these films on a limited basis, no matter what the season. Anything which is seen by the studio execs as capable of holding its own at the boxoffice (Pelham 1-2-3, Taken, etc.) is still operating under the old system. At least, initially. If that film should fail theatrically - and failure means not coming close to what it cost to make the thing - then there are still the backup markets of DVD, cable, and international (for some).
There have been changes in the past year or so to even those markets. Air travel is down, so the airline market is now a much smaller revenue stream for the industry. And in addition to DVD we now have Blu-Ray, which broadens the market as it has trained that market to become afficionados of the extended cut and the behind-the-scenes footage and all the additional bits and pieces which only fanboys would covet, but which now a much wider audience desires. And they desire that as much as they desire to have theatrical quality viewing capability within their own homes. Thanks to home theatre, the quality of a film viewed in Blu-Ray and heard through quality home theatre audio system is as good as and more likely better than the average screening room in the neighborhood multiplex.
Add to that the trend in cable marketing of releasing day-and-date, and sometimes even in advance (currently Surveillance is a good example) a theatrical release direct to the home cable market, accessible on a pay-per-view basis. And should you have the home theatre set-up, then why pay $10 or more per person to sit in a theatre and pay another $20 for popcorn and drinks when you can pay $9.99 at home and prepare whatever you wish to consume on your own time. Or, better yet, invite a couple of friends and get them to kick in a few bucks apiece and you've all saved about $20 for the experience.
Nearly 20 years ago, when I was working at Lucasfilm/THX, we were just developing the first home theatre in partnership with Toshiba. We had a 15' x 20' room outfitted with the best technology of the time, including an RGB projector, which was about the size of a young adult gorilla and which required a very sturdy table to sit on. No room for your tasty beverage there! We also had a number of high quality speakers; surely an oddity for a sound engineering firm whose only rival in the market was Dolby for sound quality. And we had laser discs and Beta tapes - ah, the dinosaurs roared! But the viewing quality was quite good. Did I mention Toshiba was involved? Thank goodness they are so good at shrinking technology down into something more manageable. Here we are, 20 years later, and about a third of all homes have a home theatre set-up of one sort or another. Which makes the move seem that much more plausible for distribution companies.
Especially when film production is turning to the digital process. 25 years ago, when I worked at Disney, the execs were in consultation with their counterparts at other studios discussing how they could beam films into theatres, thereby cutting out the costs associated with projectors, protectionists, film labs, shipping and insuring their product. It makes good sense from a strict business perspective. But until recently the quality was not there. That has all changed, now. And instead of beaming an unsecureable signal through space to thousands of screens, they are beaming the signal directly into our homes via cable or satellite cable or, soon, the internet.
Yes, it's coming. You will watch films on the web; your children and friends already do. So why should it seem so preposterous that distribution should change after all these years? Where's the money, after all?
The change I speak of has to do with theatrical releases. Prior to last year's economic crash there was a certain standard which most companies followed, but this Spring much of that seems to be changing. Before, any genre that was on the wane or any film which would normally be considered of lower ('B') quality would have been released in 1,000 screens or more, nationwide, in Spring primarily and to a lesser extent at other times throughout the year. As of this Spring the trend seems to be moving towards releasing these films on a limited basis, no matter what the season. Anything which is seen by the studio execs as capable of holding its own at the boxoffice (Pelham 1-2-3, Taken, etc.) is still operating under the old system. At least, initially. If that film should fail theatrically - and failure means not coming close to what it cost to make the thing - then there are still the backup markets of DVD, cable, and international (for some).
There have been changes in the past year or so to even those markets. Air travel is down, so the airline market is now a much smaller revenue stream for the industry. And in addition to DVD we now have Blu-Ray, which broadens the market as it has trained that market to become afficionados of the extended cut and the behind-the-scenes footage and all the additional bits and pieces which only fanboys would covet, but which now a much wider audience desires. And they desire that as much as they desire to have theatrical quality viewing capability within their own homes. Thanks to home theatre, the quality of a film viewed in Blu-Ray and heard through quality home theatre audio system is as good as and more likely better than the average screening room in the neighborhood multiplex.
Add to that the trend in cable marketing of releasing day-and-date, and sometimes even in advance (currently Surveillance is a good example) a theatrical release direct to the home cable market, accessible on a pay-per-view basis. And should you have the home theatre set-up, then why pay $10 or more per person to sit in a theatre and pay another $20 for popcorn and drinks when you can pay $9.99 at home and prepare whatever you wish to consume on your own time. Or, better yet, invite a couple of friends and get them to kick in a few bucks apiece and you've all saved about $20 for the experience.
Nearly 20 years ago, when I was working at Lucasfilm/THX, we were just developing the first home theatre in partnership with Toshiba. We had a 15' x 20' room outfitted with the best technology of the time, including an RGB projector, which was about the size of a young adult gorilla and which required a very sturdy table to sit on. No room for your tasty beverage there! We also had a number of high quality speakers; surely an oddity for a sound engineering firm whose only rival in the market was Dolby for sound quality. And we had laser discs and Beta tapes - ah, the dinosaurs roared! But the viewing quality was quite good. Did I mention Toshiba was involved? Thank goodness they are so good at shrinking technology down into something more manageable. Here we are, 20 years later, and about a third of all homes have a home theatre set-up of one sort or another. Which makes the move seem that much more plausible for distribution companies.
Especially when film production is turning to the digital process. 25 years ago, when I worked at Disney, the execs were in consultation with their counterparts at other studios discussing how they could beam films into theatres, thereby cutting out the costs associated with projectors, protectionists, film labs, shipping and insuring their product. It makes good sense from a strict business perspective. But until recently the quality was not there. That has all changed, now. And instead of beaming an unsecureable signal through space to thousands of screens, they are beaming the signal directly into our homes via cable or satellite cable or, soon, the internet.
Yes, it's coming. You will watch films on the web; your children and friends already do. So why should it seem so preposterous that distribution should change after all these years? Where's the money, after all?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Some thoughts on producing indie shorts
And I'm not talking about boxers or briefs. I'm talking about people who produce short films. And more specifically, the directors they have to work with.
I teach at the world's largest film school... per capita, that is. We've a long way to go to actually compete with the talent output by the likes of AFI, USC, or UCLA; but that's a matter for another bloggy. Anyway, one of the things I've learned in my 7+ years teaching at this school is that we have been training directors that they are auteurs. And the sad fact of life is, in any generation, you can usually count off the number of auteurs - real, live auteurs actually getting people to fund their films auteurs - on one hand. If you're lucky, you might have to borrow a couple of digits from the other hand.
Now, it's true that on set, during production, the director is supposed to be in charge. But filmmaking is a business just as much as it is an art. And if the director does not accept the producer as their partner in the business of their art, then the project is going to go straight to hell. See, in the real world the producer has been with the project before the director came along and most often hires the director. And once the director's job is done, the producer will continue to see the project to completion, then to sale and distribution and exhibition. The director might show up for a screening or two, but probably won't spend one quarter of their time on this project the way the producer will. Why? Because most of the time the producer owns the project. The director has done a work for hire and they must move on to the next job. Fact of life in the real world and as far from reality as can be when compared to what we teach.
Over the past three years I've made four short films while at my school. In that time I produced three of them and co-produced and directed the fourth. The directors for the other three films were all students from my school, and for two of those films the directors were screenwriting majors while the third was a directing major. Can you guess whose project I'm having to re-shoot this Spring?
In this case, more than the other two, the director shunned the producer's help or advice, all along the way. They put very little effort into the project and, without communicating this, expected the producer to do all their usual business as well as quite a bit of the director's business. The result was a disaster and a number of very unhappy participants.
The fact is, the producer is the director's best friend. The cinematographer takes care of the picture, the gaffer takes care of the lighting, the production designer takes care of the set and props, and the actors do their part. But if the director does not communicate with the producer, does not work with them as a partner, then the project will exist only within that short bubble of time in which production occurs, and the result on film will be something quite different than what was planned all those months earlier during development and pre-production.
There's an old Irish saying: "A good beginning is half the work." Aye, 'tis truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)