list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Limey on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Limey/134219/default.aspx Title: The Limey
Year: 1999
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Plot: Two actors best known for their work in the late 1960s, Terence Stamp and Peter Fonda, star in The Limey, a drama in which a recently released felon contemplates the gulf between aging criminals like himself and their modern counterparts. Wilson (Stamp) is a British career criminal who has been released after nine years in prison. He has learned that his daughter Jenny died under suspicious circumstances in Los Angeles, so he travels to America for the first time to find out what happened and who's responsible. With the help of an ex-con named Ed (Luis Guzman), Wilson discovers Jenny was romantically involved with Valentine (Fonda), a middle-aged record producer with a shady past and a fondness for young women. In hopes of getting the truth -- and getting to Valentine -- Wilson finds himself doing battle with some of the worst criminals to crawl from the underbelly of Los Angeles; along the way, he also meets Elaine (Lesley Ann Warren), an older actress who knew Jenny and reminds Wilson of how little he really did for his daughter while she was alive. Steven Soderbergh's first film after his commercial comeback with 1998's Out Of Sight, The Limey features, along with Stamp and Fonda, two other notable 60's actors in supporting roles, Barry Newman and Joe Dallesandro. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 10
Number of Lists: 25
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:49:16 GMTThe Limey1999Steven SoderberghTwo actors best known for their work in the late 1960s, <a href="/players/P____67541/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Terence Stamp</a> and <a href="/players/P____90081/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Fonda</a>, star in The Limey, a drama in which a recently released felon contemplates the gulf between aging criminals like himself and their modern counterparts. Wilson (Stamp) is a British career criminal who has been released after nine years in prison. He has learned that his daughter Jenny died under suspicious circumstances in Los Angeles, so he travels to America for the first time to find out what happened and who's responsible. With the help of an ex-con named Ed (<a href="/players/P____92972/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Luis Guzman</a>), Wilson discovers Jenny was romantically involved with Valentine (Fonda), a middle-aged record producer with a shady past and a fondness for young women. In hopes of getting the truth -- and getting to Valentine -- Wilson finds himself doing battle with some of the worst criminals to crawl from the underbelly of Los Angeles; along the way, he also meets Elaine (<a href="/players/P____74788/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lesley Ann Warren</a>), an older actress who knew Jenny and reminds Wilson of how little he really did for his daughter while she was alive. <a href="/players/P___112040/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Soderbergh</a>'s first film after his commercial comeback with 1998's <a href=/films/118415/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Out Of Sight</a>, The Limey features, along with Stamp and Fonda, two other notable 60's actors in supporting roles, <a href="/players/P____52409/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Barry Newman</a> and <a href="/players/P____16668/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joe Dallesandro</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide10Taggedy Taggged (6-10)2533http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t0553117syk.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Limey/134219/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/11/26/37683.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 11/26/2008 2:00:52 PM
Body: On Friday evening, I moderated a panel at the Denver Film Festival called DIY FIlmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse. I pitched the panel to the festival in the hopes that by talking to actual filmmakers who have recently made moderately successful films (mostly) independent of the system that the “sky is falling” fatalism insists is broken, we could start to expand this dialogue beyond doomcasting and push towards options and solutions. I’m not sure we repaired the ever-expanding crack in the firmament in one night, but certainly the six filmmakers who took the stage offered a new perspective on the supposed crisis. You can listen to a recording of the full panel here, but if you don’t have 73 minutes to spare, after the jump I’ve isolated what I think were five major themes of the evening. Here’s more info on the filmmakers and their films: David Pomes, director of Cook County. Jason Goodman, director and co-star of The Eternal City. Mike Gibisser, director/cinematographer of Finally, Lillian and Dan. Alex Cannon, Paul Cannon and Michael Lerman, co-directors of Natural Causes. Darren Dean, producer and co-writer of Prince of Broadway. Issue 1: If you never crack the door open, it can’t hit you on the way out The system may be broken, but that’s not necessarily an obstacle or a disappointment to filmmakers who were never part of that system in the first place. “I don’t think the sky is falling, I think the ceiling has been lowered,” said Darren Dean. “I’ve kind of stumbled into this, I wasn’t part of this world before, but [now] I’m going to festivals and meeting incredible people.” Not only that, but Alex Cannon sees a bright side. “If anything, we’re at an economic advantage. As much as we’re all losing our jobs, it gives us time to write. As much as things are expensive to make, to make a movie today is infinitely less expensive than many years ago.” Several panaleists stressed that the hard times are inevitable in an industry that’s predictably cyclical. “We’re not making Yugos or an 80s hair band,” said Dean. “We will not outlive our usefulness.” Michael Lerman agreed. “This is something that happens: things collapse and new companies are brought up.” Issue 2: The 90s never happened, but the future isn’t here yet. Remember that part in The Limey, where Peter Fonda says that the whole mythology of “The Sixties” was, in reality, a much smaller, shorter phenomenon?  “It was just ‘66 and early ‘67,” he says. “That’s all there was.” It seems like the mythology of 90s independent film is due for a similar re-evalution. The filmmakers on the panel had mixed feelings regarding the legacy of the previous decade, and how to move forward. “I think the old way was a little too good to be true, where people were making films and selling them for millions of dollars,” said David Pomes. “I don’t think the sky is falling. I really just think things are changing, and people need to adapt. I think it’s almost think a new beginning.” Paul Cannon concurred. “There’s never been money for filmmakers.” Jason Goodman agreed that what’s left of the 90s model is becoming extinct for non-dependent filmmakers, but warned that distribution and consumption structures have not yet caught up with the technological revolution that has incited a surge in production. “I think the major problem right now is a technological problem. I think the sky is falling, in the perspective of the old guard. The people who are still in control and now they really don’t know how to control the amount of films being made, because technology is allowing more films to be made. And technology is going to have to figure out how to sift through all these films and get [them] to their audience. Which will happen, but people are scared. It’s a sea change. The audience will be able to find the quality they want, without seeing it through the eyes of a major studio and their arbitrary rules. I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. I just wish we could get to this point, and we weren’t in this moment right now.” Though everyone on the panel seemed hopeful that new technology would eventually make indie film consumption easier, a number of filmmakers noted a bit of ambivalence over destroying the old exhibition models completely. “There is a certain nostalgia for the old model,” said Mike Gibisser. “There’s something to be said for shooting on film as opposed to digital, to be said for seeing a film in a theatrical setting as opposed to on YouTube. So there’s a resistance to just giving in to the new model as well, which is causing a problem, but I also think there’s a certain amount of worth to that resistance.” Pomes is also reluctant to give up the theatrical experience. “A lot of people think it’s a waste to do a theatrical release, and you’ll probably lose money doing it, but I still think there’s something to gain from it. We’ve had [DVD] offers, but I’m not sure who’s gonna rent it. Despite what people say about the cost of theatrical release…for a film like ours, there’s really nothing pushing it except for maybe some good press that we can get from a theatrical release.” Later in the panel, the subject of Ballast came up — specifically, its failure to catch on with audiences despite a distribution plan hand-tailored by its director. “[Ballast] got more free press than anything I’ve seen in my life,” argued Pomes. “If you’re in the industry, that’s all you heard about for weeks, is Ballast. Granted, at the movie theater they might not have done great…they’re not going to have millions people come see their movie, it’s not that kind of movie. But in terms of ancillary sales, it’s gotta help.” Ultimately, the most compelling reason to hold on to the theatrical experience may have little to do with filmmaking. Says Alex Cannon, “It’s a lot harder to get dates to come back to your house to watch a movie than it is to go to a theater.” Issue 3: Sustainability During the Q & A session, critic Joe Leydon referenced a conversation he had with a friend, regarding the very small number of filmmakers who are still working truly independently at the age of 50. “How much longer do you think you can keep doing this?” he asked the panel. “How long can you keep asking for favors from friends, maxing out credit cards — how many movies do you think you have in you? For the most part, this question seemed to tap into a common anxiety among the panelists. Said Paul Cannon, “As much as you’re worried about getting your movie out there, you’re also worried about getting funding for your next film, because you maxed out all your credit cards and you called in all your favors and you can’t do it again. Not for a number of years.” “I’m done. I can’t do it again — at least, not by myself,” said Mike Gibisser. He went on to argue for a recalibration of expectations, and the definition of success. “It seems like the system is changing, and needs to do so necessarily. I have a more modest expectation of what I want the budget to be, and the festival circuit is an alternate distribution system. And that’s exciting to me, and if I could find money out of going through the system, to make the next modest film that would be great. But as the tale was told to me by another filmmaker, you might as well not approach someone who’s thinking about funding the movie with a budget of $20,000, because they’re going to say, “Well, clearly, you can’t afford a star, it’s gonna look grainy and awful, so no thanks.” So unless you produce a budget that’s over $50k or $100k, you come up against this wall. Maybe with different distribution technologies the system is already heading in this direction — i don’t know, because I’m so outside it–but I think that is the change that would help the DIY/independent filmmaker, is being more accepting of that more modest desire, as opposed to getting bought at Sundance.” Several of the panelists suggested that even if they put everything they had into this first feature, ideally it will function as a calling card, and thus lead to new opportunities and other project. “If you’re fortunate enough to have made a good film and people take notice of it, you will make new friends,” said Darren Dean. “Your circle grows. If we don’t find enough friends, for me this is probably the last project. But I don’t see that happening.” The consensus seemed to be that doing it the hardscrabble, DIY way is not something they’d go through again if given the choice. “As filmmakers, you want less compromise in all aspects,” said Jason goodman. “I don’t want to do the same thing over again. I want to go up a step.” Issue 4: Managing Rejection An audience member who said that his own film had been rejected from all 12 festivals he’d heard back from (including Denver) out of 50 applications asked the panelists for advice. Sort of. “How much of [festival acceptance] do you think is your film, and how much of it is based on someone you know?” The panelists shared their own stories of rejection and acceptance. Lerman: 12 out of 50 is really, really early. Pomes: I’ve been rejected so many times. The film festival system is, I think, flawed. Denver called me and said, “We’d like to see your film.” Every festival we got into was something like that, with the exception of the festival we premiered at, SXSW. Gibisser: We spent a long time submitting, we spent six months submitting, and we were met with rejections. You also have to pay attention ot — and I was completely naive about this at the time — but festivals have personalities. We actually didn’t get our first festival invite for more than a year. it was a year and five months after the film was finished. But we played four festivals in the past few months. Goodman: Don’t get bitter. We’re nobodies. This is just luck. I’m so fortunate just to be here. Issue 5: The Romance of Hammer Time In other words, there’s something to be said for keeping your process so DIY that it stays personal. Michael Lerman: “The market is so saturated, that so many of the theatrical releases are failing. While I would have loved if our film was sold theatrically, we did have a more gratifying experience than [some filmmakers who sold their films theatrically], because our film is so personal, and we’ve been able to go to so many places and talk about it.” And even in the case of small films that have been sold recently and have found an audience, a personalized rollout seems to be the way to go. Lerman says, “Even the distribution solutions that ARE working are different kind of models that are built specifically for a film.” “MC Hammer used to sell tapes out of the back of his car,” reminded Alex Cannon. “There’s something very romantic about communicating directly with your audience.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:00:52 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog11/26/2008 2:00:52 PMOn Friday evening, I moderated a panel at the Denver Film Festival called DIY FIlmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse. I pitched the panel to the festival in the hopes that by talking to actual filmmakers who have recently made moderately successful films (mostly) independent of the system that the “sky is falling” fatalism insists is broken, we could start to expand this dialogue beyond doomcasting and push towards options and solutions. I’m not sure we repaired the ever-expanding crack in the firmament in one night, but certainly the six filmmakers who took the stage offered a new perspective on the supposed crisis. You can listen to a recording of the full panel here, but if you don’t have 73 minutes to spare, after the jump I’ve isolated what I think were five major themes of the evening. Here’s more info on the filmmakers and their films: David Pomes, director of Cook County. Jason Goodman, director and co-star of The Eternal City. Mike Gibisser, director/cinematographer of Finally, Lillian and Dan. Alex Cannon, Paul Cannon and Michael Lerman, co-directors of Natural Causes. Darren Dean, producer and co-writer of Prince of Broadway. Issue 1: If you never crack the door open, it can’t hit you on the way out The system may be broken, but that’s not necessarily an obstacle or a disappointment to filmmakers who were never part of that system in the first place. “I don’t think the sky is falling, I think the ceiling has been lowered,” said Darren Dean. “I’ve kind of stumbled into this, I wasn’t part of this world before, but [now] I’m going to festivals and meeting incredible people.” Not only that, but Alex Cannon sees a bright side. “If anything, we’re at an economic advantage. As much as we’re all losing our jobs, it gives us time to write. As much as things are expensive to make, to make a movie today is infinitely less expensive than many years ago.” Several panaleists stressed that the hard times are inevitable in an industry that’s predictably cyclical. “We’re not making Yugos or an 80s hair band,” said Dean. “We will not outlive our usefulness.” Michael Lerman agreed. “This is something that happens: things collapse and new companies are brought up.” Issue 2: The 90s never happened, but the future isn’t here yet. Remember that part in The Limey, where Peter Fonda says that the whole mythology of “The Sixties” was, in reality, a much smaller, shorter phenomenon?  “It was just ‘66 and early ‘67,” he says. “That’s all there was.” It seems like the mythology of 90s independent film is due for a similar re-evalution. The filmmakers on the panel had mixed feelings regarding the legacy of the previous decade, and how to move forward. “I think the old way was a little too good to be true, where people were making films and selling them for millions of dollars,” said David Pomes. “I don’t think the sky is falling. I really just think things are changing, and people need to adapt. I think it’s almost think a new beginning.” Paul Cannon concurred. “There’s never been money for filmmakers.” Jason Goodman agreed that what’s left of the 90s model is becoming extinct for non-dependent filmmakers, but warned that distribution and consumption structures have not yet caught up with the technological revolution that has incited a surge in production. “I think the major problem right now is a technological problem. I think the sky is falling, in the perspective of the old guard. The people who are still in control and now they really don’t know how to control the amount of films being made, because technology is allowing more films to be made. And technology is going to have to figure out how to sift through all these films and get [them] to their audience. Which will happen, but people are scared. It’s a sea change. The audience will be able to find the quality they want, without seeing it through the eyes of a major studio and their arbitrary rules. I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. I just wish we could get to this point, and we weren’t in this moment right now.” Though everyone on the panel seemed hopeful that new technology would eventually make indie film consumption easier, a number of filmmakers noted a bit of ambivalence over destroying the old exhibition models completely. “There is a certain nostalgia for the old model,” said Mike Gibisser. “There’s something to be said for shooting on film as opposed to digital, to be said for seeing a film in a theatrical setting as opposed to on YouTube. So there’s a resistance to just giving in to the new model as well, which is causing a problem, but I also think there’s a certain amount of worth to that resistance.” Pomes is also reluctant to give up the theatrical experience. “A lot of people think it’s a waste to do a theatrical release, and you’ll probably lose money doing it, but I still think there’s something to gain from it. We’ve had [DVD] offers, but I’m not sure who’s gonna rent it. Despite what people say about the cost of theatrical release…for a film like ours, there’s really nothing pushing it except for maybe some good press that we can get from a theatrical release.” Later in the panel, the subject of Ballast came up — specifically, its failure to catch on with audiences despite a distribution plan hand-tailored by its director. “[Ballast] got more free press than anything I’ve seen in my life,” argued Pomes. “If you’re in the industry, that’s all you heard about for weeks, is Ballast. Granted, at the movie theater they might not have done great…they’re not going to have millions people come see their movie, it’s not that kind of movie. But in terms of ancillary sales, it’s gotta help.” Ultimately, the most compelling reason to hold on to the theatrical experience may have little to do with filmmaking. Says Alex Cannon, “It’s a lot harder to get dates to come back to your house to watch a movie than it is to go to a theater.” Issue 3: Sustainability During the Q & A session, critic Joe Leydon referenced a conversation he had with a friend, regarding the very small number of filmmakers who are still working truly independently at the age of 50. “How much longer do you think you can keep doing this?” he asked the panel. “How long can you keep asking for favors from friends, maxing out credit cards — how many movies do you think you have in you? For the most part, this question seemed to tap into a common anxiety among the panelists. Said Paul Cannon, “As much as you’re worried about getting your movie out there, you’re also worried about getting funding for your next film, because you maxed out all your credit cards and you called in all your favors and you can’t do it again. Not for a number of years.” “I’m done. I can’t do it again — at least, not by myself,” said Mike Gibisser. He went on to argue for a recalibration of expectations, and the definition of success. “It seems like the system is changing, and needs to do so necessarily. I have a more modest expectation of what I want the budget to be, and the festival circuit is an alternate distribution system. And that’s exciting to me, and if I could find money out of going through the system, to make the next modest film that would be great. But as the tale was told to me by another filmmaker, you might as well not approach someone who’s thinking about funding the movie with a budget of $20,000, because they’re going to say, “Well, clearly, you can’t afford a star, it’s gonna look grainy and awful, so no thanks.” So unless you produce a budget that’s over $50k or $100k, you come up against this wall. Maybe with different distribution technologies the system is already heading in this direction — i don’t know, because I’m so outside it–but I think that is the change that would help the DIY/independent filmmaker, is being more accepting of that more modest desire, as opposed to getting bought at Sundance.” Several of the panelists suggested that even if they put everything they had into this first feature, ideally it will function as a calling card, and thus lead to new opportunities and other project. “If you’re fortunate enough to have made a good film and people take notice of it, you will make new friends,” said Darren Dean. “Your circle grows. If we don’t find enough friends, for me this is probably the last project. But I don’t see that happening.” The consensus seemed to be that doing it the hardscrabble, DIY way is not something they’d go through again if given the choice. “As filmmakers, you want less compromise in all aspects,” said Jason goodman. “I don’t want to do the same thing over again. I want to go up a step.” Issue 4: Managing Rejection An audience member who said that his own film had been rejected from all 12 festivals he’d heard back from (including Denver) out of 50 applications asked the panelists for advice. Sort of. “How much of [festival acceptance] do you think is your film, and how much of it is based on someone you know?” The panelists shared their own stories of rejection and acceptance. Lerman: 12 out of 50 is really, really early. Pomes: I’ve been rejected so many times. The film festival system is, I think, flawed. Denver called me and said, “We’d like to see your film.” Every festival we got into was something like that, with the exception of the festival we premiered at, SXSW. Gibisser: We spent a long time submitting, we spent six months submitting, and we were met with rejections. You also have to pay attention ot — and I was completely naive about this at the time — but festivals have personalities. We actually didn’t get our first festival invite for more than a year. it was a year and five months after the film was finished. But we played four festivals in the past few months. Goodman: Don’t get bitter. We’re nobodies. This is just luck. I’m so fortunate just to be here. Issue 5: The Romance of Hammer Time In other words, there’s something to be said for keeping your process so DIY that it stays personal. Michael Lerman: “The market is so saturated, that so many of the theatrical releases are failing. While I would have loved if our film was sold theatrically, we did have a more gratifying experience than [some filmmakers who sold their films theatrically], because our film is so personal, and we’ve been able to go to so many places and talk about it.” And even in the case of small films that have been sold recently and have found an audience, a personalized rollout seems to be the way to go. Lerman says, “Even the distribution solutions that ARE working are different kind of models that are built specifically for a film.” “MC Hammer used to sell tapes out of the back of his car,” reminded Alex Cannon. “There’s something very romantic about communicating directly with your audience.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/26/37681.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/26/2008 2:00:40 PM
Body: On Friday evening, I moderated a panel at the Denver Film Festival called DIY FIlmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse. I pitched the panel to the festival in the hopes that by talking to actual filmmakers who have recently made moderately successful films (mostly) independent of the system that the “sky is falling” fatalism insists is broken, we could start to expand this dialogue beyond doomcasting and push towards options and solutions. I’m not sure we repaired the ever-expanding crack in the firmament in one night, but certainly the six filmmakers who took the stage offered a new perspective on the supposed crisis. You can listen to a recording of the full panel here, but if you don’t have 73 minutes to spare, after the jump I’ve isolated what I think were five major themes of the evening. Here’s more info on the filmmakers and their films: David Pomes, director of Cook County. Jason Goodman, director and co-star of The Eternal City. Mike Gibisser, director/cinematographer of Finally, Lillian and Dan. Alex Cannon, Paul Cannon and Michael Lerman, co-directors of Natural Causes. Darren Dean, producer and co-writer of Prince of Broadway. Issue 1: If you never crack the door open, it can’t hit you on the way out The system may be broken, but that’s not necessarily an obstacle or a disappointment to filmmakers who were never part of that system in the first place. “I don’t think the sky is falling, I think the ceiling has been lowered,” said Darren Dean. “I’ve kind of stumbled into this, I wasn’t part of this world before, but [now] I’m going to festivals and meeting incredible people.” Not only that, but Alex Cannon sees a bright side. “If anything, we’re at an economic advantage. As much as we’re all losing our jobs, it gives us time to write. As much as things are expensive to make, to make a movie today is infinitely less expensive than many years ago.” Several panaleists stressed that the hard times are inevitable in an industry that’s predictably cyclical. “We’re not making Yugos or an 80s hair band,” said Dean. “We will not outlive our usefulness.” Michael Lerman agreed. “This is something that happens: things collapse and new companies are brought up.” Issue 2: The 90s never happened, but the future isn’t here yet. Remember that part in The Limey, where Peter Fonda says that the whole mythology of “The Sixties” was, in reality, a much smaller, shorter phenomenon?  “It was just ‘66 and early ‘67,” he says. “That’s all there was.” It seems like the mythology of 90s independent film is due for a similar re-evalution. The filmmakers on the panel had mixed feelings regarding the legacy of the previous decade, and how to move forward. “I think the old way was a little too good to be true, where people were making films and selling them for millions of dollars,” said David Pomes. “I don’t think the sky is falling. I really just think things are changing, and people need to adapt. I think it’s almost think a new beginning.” Paul Cannon concurred. “There’s never been money for filmmakers.” Jason Goodman agreed that what’s left of the 90s model is becoming extinct for non-dependent filmmakers, but warned that distribution and consumption structures have not yet caught up with the technological revolution that has incited a surge in production. “I think the major problem right now is a technological problem. I think the sky is falling, in the perspective of the old guard. The people who are still in control and now they really don’t know how to control the amount of films being made, because technology is allowing more films to be made. And technology is going to have to figure out how to sift through all these films and get [them] to their audience. Which will happen, but people are scared. It’s a sea change. The audience will be able to find the quality they want, without seeing it through the eyes of a major studio and their arbitrary rules. I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. I just wish we could get to this point, and we weren’t in this moment right now.” Though everyone on the panel seemed hopeful that new technology would eventually make indie film consumption easier, a number of filmmakers noted a bit of ambivalence over destroying the old exhibition models completely. “There is a certain nostalgia for the old model,” said Mike Gibisser. “There’s something to be said for shooting on film as opposed to digital, to be said for seeing a film in a theatrical setting as opposed to on YouTube. So there’s a resistance to just giving in to the new model as well, which is causing a problem, but I also think there’s a certain amount of worth to that resistance.” Pomes is also reluctant to give up the theatrical experience. “A lot of people think it’s a waste to do a theatrical release, and you’ll probably lose money doing it, but I still think there’s something to gain from it. We’ve had [DVD] offers, but I’m not sure who’s gonna rent it. Despite what people say about the cost of theatrical release…for a film like ours, there’s really nothing pushing it except for maybe some good press that we can get from a theatrical release.” Later in the panel, the subject of Ballast came up — specifically, its failure to catch on with audiences despite a distribution plan hand-tailored by its director. “[Ballast] got more free press than anything I’ve seen in my life,” argued Pomes. “If you’re in the industry, that’s all you heard about for weeks, is Ballast. Granted, at the movie theater they might not have done great…they’re not going to have millions people come see their movie, it’s not that kind of movie. But in terms of ancillary sales, it’s gotta help.” Ultimately, the most compelling reason to hold on to the theatrical experience may have little to do with filmmaking. Says Alex Cannon, “It’s a lot harder to get dates to come back to your house to watch a movie than it is to go to a theater.” Issue 3: Sustainability During the Q & A session, critic Joe Leydon referenced a conversation he had with a friend, regarding the very small number of filmmakers who are still working truly independently at the age of 50. “How much longer do you think you can keep doing this?” he asked the panel. “How long can you keep asking for favors from friends, maxing out credit cards — how many movies do you think you have in you? For the most part, this question seemed to tap into a common anxiety among the panelists. Said Paul Cannon, “As much as you’re worried about getting your movie out there, you’re also worried about getting funding for your next film, because you maxed out all your credit cards and you called in all your favors and you can’t do it again. Not for a number of years.” “I’m done. I can’t do it again — at least, not by myself,” said Mike Gibisser. He went on to argue for a recalibration of expectations, and the definition of success. “It seems like the system is changing, and needs to do so necessarily. I have a more modest expectation of what I want the budget to be, and the festival circuit is an alternate distribution system. And that’s exciting to me, and if I could find money out of going through the system, to make the next modest film that would be great. But as the tale was told to me by another filmmaker, you might as well not approach someone who’s thinking about funding the movie with a budget of $20,000, because they’re going to say, “Well, clearly, you can’t afford a star, it’s gonna look grainy and awful, so no thanks.” So unless you produce a budget that’s over $50k or $100k, you come up against this wall. Maybe with different distribution technologies the system is already heading in this direction — i don’t know, because I’m so outside it–but I think that is the change that would help the DIY/independent filmmaker, is being more accepting of that more modest desire, as opposed to getting bought at Sundance.” Several of the panelists suggested that even if they put everything they had into this first feature, ideally it will function as a calling card, and thus lead to new opportunities and other project. “If you’re fortunate enough to have made a good film and people take notice of it, you will make new friends,” said Darren Dean. “Your circle grows. If we don’t find enough friends, for me this is probably the last project. But I don’t see that happening.” The consensus seemed to be that doing it the hardscrabble, DIY way is not something they’d go through again if given the choice. “As filmmakers, you want less compromise in all aspects,” said Jason goodman. “I don’t want to do the same thing over again. I want to go up a step.” Issue 4: Managing Rejection An audience member who said that his own film had been rejected from all 12 festivals he’d heard back from (including Denver) out of 50 applications asked the panelists for advice. Sort of. “How much of [festival acceptance] do you think is your film, and how much of it is based on someone you know?” The panelists shared their own stories of rejection and acceptance. Lerman: 12 out of 50 is really, really early. Pomes: I’ve been rejected so many times. The film festival system is, I think, flawed. Denver called me and said, “We’d like to see your film.” Every festival we got into was something like that, with the exception of the festival we premiered at, SXSW. Gibisser: We spent a long time submitting, we spent six months submitting, and we were met with rejections. You also have to pay attention ot — and I was completely naive about this at the time — but festivals have personalities. We actually didn’t get our first festival invite for more than a year. it was a year and five months after the film was finished. But we played four festivals in the past few months. Goodman: Don’t get bitter. We’re nobodies. This is just luck. I’m so fortunate just to be here. Issue 5: The Romance of Hammer Time In other words, there’s something to be said for keeping your process so DIY that it stays personal. Michael Lerman: “The market is so saturated, that so many of the theatrical releases are failing. While I would have loved if our film was sold theatrically, we did have a more gratifying experience than [some filmmakers who sold their films theatrically], because our film is so personal, and we’ve been able to go to so many places and talk about it.” And even in the case of small films that have been sold recently and have found an audience, a personalized rollout seems to be the way to go. Lerman says, “Even the distribution solutions that ARE working are different kind of models that are built specifically for a film.” “MC Hammer used to sell tapes out of the back of his car,” reminded Alex Cannon. “There’s something very romantic about communicating directly with your audience.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:00:40 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/26/2008 2:00:40 PMOn Friday evening, I moderated a panel at the Denver Film Festival called DIY FIlmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse. I pitched the panel to the festival in the hopes that by talking to actual filmmakers who have recently made moderately successful films (mostly) independent of the system that the “sky is falling” fatalism insists is broken, we could start to expand this dialogue beyond doomcasting and push towards options and solutions. I’m not sure we repaired the ever-expanding crack in the firmament in one night, but certainly the six filmmakers who took the stage offered a new perspective on the supposed crisis. You can listen to a recording of the full panel here, but if you don’t have 73 minutes to spare, after the jump I’ve isolated what I think were five major themes of the evening. Here’s more info on the filmmakers and their films: David Pomes, director of Cook County. Jason Goodman, director and co-star of The Eternal City. Mike Gibisser, director/cinematographer of Finally, Lillian and Dan. Alex Cannon, Paul Cannon and Michael Lerman, co-directors of Natural Causes. Darren Dean, producer and co-writer of Prince of Broadway. Issue 1: If you never crack the door open, it can’t hit you on the way out The system may be broken, but that’s not necessarily an obstacle or a disappointment to filmmakers who were never part of that system in the first place. “I don’t think the sky is falling, I think the ceiling has been lowered,” said Darren Dean. “I’ve kind of stumbled into this, I wasn’t part of this world before, but [now] I’m going to festivals and meeting incredible people.” Not only that, but Alex Cannon sees a bright side. “If anything, we’re at an economic advantage. As much as we’re all losing our jobs, it gives us time to write. As much as things are expensive to make, to make a movie today is infinitely less expensive than many years ago.” Several panaleists stressed that the hard times are inevitable in an industry that’s predictably cyclical. “We’re not making Yugos or an 80s hair band,” said Dean. “We will not outlive our usefulness.” Michael Lerman agreed. “This is something that happens: things collapse and new companies are brought up.” Issue 2: The 90s never happened, but the future isn’t here yet. Remember that part in The Limey, where Peter Fonda says that the whole mythology of “The Sixties” was, in reality, a much smaller, shorter phenomenon?  “It was just ‘66 and early ‘67,” he says. “That’s all there was.” It seems like the mythology of 90s independent film is due for a similar re-evalution. The filmmakers on the panel had mixed feelings regarding the legacy of the previous decade, and how to move forward. “I think the old way was a little too good to be true, where people were making films and selling them for millions of dollars,” said David Pomes. “I don’t think the sky is falling. I really just think things are changing, and people need to adapt. I think it’s almost think a new beginning.” Paul Cannon concurred. “There’s never been money for filmmakers.” Jason Goodman agreed that what’s left of the 90s model is becoming extinct for non-dependent filmmakers, but warned that distribution and consumption structures have not yet caught up with the technological revolution that has incited a surge in production. “I think the major problem right now is a technological problem. I think the sky is falling, in the perspective of the old guard. The people who are still in control and now they really don’t know how to control the amount of films being made, because technology is allowing more films to be made. And technology is going to have to figure out how to sift through all these films and get [them] to their audience. Which will happen, but people are scared. It’s a sea change. The audience will be able to find the quality they want, without seeing it through the eyes of a major studio and their arbitrary rules. I think it’s great. I think it’s fantastic. I just wish we could get to this point, and we weren’t in this moment right now.” Though everyone on the panel seemed hopeful that new technology would eventually make indie film consumption easier, a number of filmmakers noted a bit of ambivalence over destroying the old exhibition models completely. “There is a certain nostalgia for the old model,” said Mike Gibisser. “There’s something to be said for shooting on film as opposed to digital, to be said for seeing a film in a theatrical setting as opposed to on YouTube. So there’s a resistance to just giving in to the new model as well, which is causing a problem, but I also think there’s a certain amount of worth to that resistance.” Pomes is also reluctant to give up the theatrical experience. “A lot of people think it’s a waste to do a theatrical release, and you’ll probably lose money doing it, but I still think there’s something to gain from it. We’ve had [DVD] offers, but I’m not sure who’s gonna rent it. Despite what people say about the cost of theatrical release…for a film like ours, there’s really nothing pushing it except for maybe some good press that we can get from a theatrical release.” Later in the panel, the subject of Ballast came up — specifically, its failure to catch on with audiences despite a distribution plan hand-tailored by its director. “[Ballast] got more free press than anything I’ve seen in my life,” argued Pomes. “If you’re in the industry, that’s all you heard about for weeks, is Ballast. Granted, at the movie theater they might not have done great…they’re not going to have millions people come see their movie, it’s not that kind of movie. But in terms of ancillary sales, it’s gotta help.” Ultimately, the most compelling reason to hold on to the theatrical experience may have little to do with filmmaking. Says Alex Cannon, “It’s a lot harder to get dates to come back to your house to watch a movie than it is to go to a theater.” Issue 3: Sustainability During the Q & A session, critic Joe Leydon referenced a conversation he had with a friend, regarding the very small number of filmmakers who are still working truly independently at the age of 50. “How much longer do you think you can keep doing this?” he asked the panel. “How long can you keep asking for favors from friends, maxing out credit cards — how many movies do you think you have in you? For the most part, this question seemed to tap into a common anxiety among the panelists. Said Paul Cannon, “As much as you’re worried about getting your movie out there, you’re also worried about getting funding for your next film, because you maxed out all your credit cards and you called in all your favors and you can’t do it again. Not for a number of years.” “I’m done. I can’t do it again — at least, not by myself,” said Mike Gibisser. He went on to argue for a recalibration of expectations, and the definition of success. “It seems like the system is changing, and needs to do so necessarily. I have a more modest expectation of what I want the budget to be, and the festival circuit is an alternate distribution system. And that’s exciting to me, and if I could find money out of going through the system, to make the next modest film that would be great. But as the tale was told to me by another filmmaker, you might as well not approach someone who’s thinking about funding the movie with a budget of $20,000, because they’re going to say, “Well, clearly, you can’t afford a star, it’s gonna look grainy and awful, so no thanks.” So unless you produce a budget that’s over $50k or $100k, you come up against this wall. Maybe with different distribution technologies the system is already heading in this direction — i don’t know, because I’m so outside it–but I think that is the change that would help the DIY/independent filmmaker, is being more accepting of that more modest desire, as opposed to getting bought at Sundance.” Several of the panelists suggested that even if they put everything they had into this first feature, ideally it will function as a calling card, and thus lead to new opportunities and other project. “If you’re fortunate enough to have made a good film and people take notice of it, you will make new friends,” said Darren Dean. “Your circle grows. If we don’t find enough friends, for me this is probably the last project. But I don’t see that happening.” The consensus seemed to be that doing it the hardscrabble, DIY way is not something they’d go through again if given the choice. “As filmmakers, you want less compromise in all aspects,” said Jason goodman. “I don’t want to do the same thing over again. I want to go up a step.” Issue 4: Managing Rejection An audience member who said that his own film had been rejected from all 12 festivals he’d heard back from (including Denver) out of 50 applications asked the panelists for advice. Sort of. “How much of [festival acceptance] do you think is your film, and how much of it is based on someone you know?” The panelists shared their own stories of rejection and acceptance. Lerman: 12 out of 50 is really, really early. Pomes: I’ve been rejected so many times. The film festival system is, I think, flawed. Denver called me and said, “We’d like to see your film.” Every festival we got into was something like that, with the exception of the festival we premiered at, SXSW. Gibisser: We spent a long time submitting, we spent six months submitting, and we were met with rejections. You also have to pay attention ot — and I was completely naive about this at the time — but festivals have personalities. We actually didn’t get our first festival invite for more than a year. it was a year and five months after the film was finished. But we played four festivals in the past few months. Goodman: Don’t get bitter. We’re nobodies. This is just luck. I’m so fortunate just to be here. Issue 5: The Romance of Hammer Time In other words, there’s something to be said for keeping your process so DIY that it stays personal. Michael Lerman: “The market is so saturated, that so many of the theatrical releases are failing. While I would have loved if our film was sold theatrically, we did have a more gratifying experience than [some filmmakers who sold their films theatrically], because our film is so personal, and we’ve been able to go to so many places and talk about it.” And even in the case of small films that have been sold recently and have found an audience, a personalized rollout seems to be the way to go. Lerman says, “Even the distribution solutions that ARE working are different kind of models that are built specifically for a film.” “MC Hammer used to sell tapes out of the back of his car,” reminded Alex Cannon. “There’s something very romantic about communicating directly with your audience.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/tenenbaums/archive/2008/10/7/35997.aspx Post By: Tenenbaums
Post To: Tenenbaums Blog
Post Date: 10/7/2008 11:45:52 AM
Body: Not only one of the best films I've seen recently, but one of the best I've ever seen. After a string of Spring '08 stinkers just viewed on DVD, Soderbergh's last effort in the '90s is right up there with Traffic as his best film. I'd seen Terence Stamp in plenty of films over the past 15 years, but each time I wondered why he was considered such a big name. His turns in Bowfinger and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace felt tiny and phoned in. The Limey put aside any doubts that Stamp is a legend, beginning with his steely look and solidified by his gruff, blunt voice. It's a captivating performance and now one of my favorites. Additionally, this is Soderbergh at his most inventive and free. There are no signs of studio interference throughout the work, leaving the director to experiment with cinematography, editing, and pacing to craft an overall brilliant piece. As Matthew Tobey says in the All Movie Guide, The Limey was perhaps Soderbergh's indie swan song before gaining a level of popularity that barred him from ever being this loose on screen. I've yet to see Bubble, which sounds like it was made under the studio radar (no big names, small budget, no lucrative release date, etc.), but Soderbergh has maintained an air of independence thoughout his works. The casts and budgets may have blown up, but the auteur's stamp remains and he's not afraid to try new things (all soundstages for The Good German; all DV for Full Frontal; tap into the remake with Solaris; etc). Still, there's little Ocean's Thirteen shares with The Limey. For appreciative audiences, that's a true gift.
]]>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:45:52 GMTTenenbaumsTenenbaums Blog10/7/2008 11:45:52 AMNot only one of the best films I've seen recently, but one of the best I've ever seen. After a string of Spring '08 stinkers just viewed on DVD, Soderbergh's last effort in the '90s is right up there with Traffic as his best film. I'd seen Terence Stamp in plenty of films over the past 15 years, but each time I wondered why he was considered such a big name. His turns in Bowfinger and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace felt tiny and phoned in. The Limey put aside any doubts that Stamp is a legend, beginning with his steely look and solidified by his gruff, blunt voice. It's a captivating performance and now one of my favorites. Additionally, this is Soderbergh at his most inventive and free. There are no signs of studio interference throughout the work, leaving the director to experiment with cinematography, editing, and pacing to craft an overall brilliant piece. As Matthew Tobey says in the All Movie Guide, The Limey was perhaps Soderbergh's indie swan song before gaining a level of popularity that barred him from ever being this loose on screen. I've yet to see Bubble, which sounds like it was made under the studio radar (no big names, small budget, no lucrative release date, etc.), but Soderbergh has maintained an air of independence thoughout his works. The casts and budgets may have blown up, but the auteur's stamp remains and he's not afraid to try new things (all soundstages for The Good German; all DV for Full Frontal; tap into the remake with Solaris; etc). Still, there's little Ocean's Thirteen shares with The Limey. For appreciative audiences, that's a true gift. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revenge/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevenge
Number of films tagged: 5189

Number of people who tagged: 145

Number of times used: 489

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:41 GMT5189145489Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dark/MemberTagFilms.aspxdark
Number of films tagged: 223

Number of people who tagged: 137

Number of times used: 390

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:40:47 GMT223137390Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/british/MemberTagFilms.aspxbritish
Number of films tagged: 610

Number of people who tagged: 75

Number of times used: 264

]]>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 01:53:04 GMT61075264Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/daughter/MemberTagFilms.aspxdaughter
Number of films tagged: 3658

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 138

]]>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:01:02 GMT365840138Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criminal/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriminal
Number of films tagged: 3388

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 56

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33882756Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nostalgic/MemberTagFilms.aspxnostalgic
Number of films tagged: 21

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 26

]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:35:23 GMT212026Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suckfest/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuckfest
Number of films tagged: 62

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 70

]]>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:25:04 GMT621670Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/flashback/MemberTagFilms.aspxflashback
Number of films tagged: 369

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 16

]]>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:54:32 GMT3691016Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/missingperson/MemberTagFilms.aspxmissingperson
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT74269Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/not-suckfest/MemberTagFilms.aspxnot-suckfest
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 3

]]>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:46:34 GMT223Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/archive-footage/MemberTagFilms.aspxarchive-footage
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:58:23 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fractured-narrative/MemberTagFilms.aspxfractured-narrative
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Thu, 09 Mar 2006 15:35:29 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/senior-citizens-being-badass/MemberTagFilms.aspxsenior-citizens-being-badass
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:58:24 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/soderbergh/MemberTagFilms.aspxsoderbergh
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sat, 15 Jul 2006 14:58:24 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/recordproducer/MemberTagFilms.aspxrecordproducer
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:01:25 GMT3400Tag