list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Finally, Lillian, and Dan 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/Finally_Lillian_and_Dan/375576/default.aspx Title: Finally, Lillian, and Dan
Year: 2008
Plot: Finally, Lillian and Dan is a meditation on young love and all of its affects: its hope and exhilaration, as well as its loneliness, turbidity and naivete. .Lillian lives in a quiet yet comfortable isolation, sharing an apartment with her grandmother, an aging widow. Their dependence on one another is cyclical, simultaneously making them whole and holding them back. Dans dependence is more tactile. Living in a more tortured solitude, his attempts at human connection are carried out in the only way he can manage, compulsive fits and starts. After a chance meeting, Lillian and Dan bump and misstep their way towards one another in a love story that is awkward and small, that stutters and spits, with its worry lines on its face and its heart on its sleeve. ~inmanfilms.com
Times Tagged: 10
Number of blog posts: 8
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:21 GMTFinally, Lillian, and Dan2008Finally, Lillian and Dan is a meditation on young love and all of its affects: its hope and exhilaration, as well as its loneliness, turbidity and naivete. .Lillian lives in a quiet yet comfortable isolation, sharing an apartment with her grandmother, an aging widow. Their dependence on one another is cyclical, simultaneously making them whole and holding them back. Dans dependence is more tactile. Living in a more tortured solitude, his attempts at human connection are carried out in the only way he can manage, compulsive fits and starts. After a chance meeting, Lillian and Dan bump and misstep their way towards one another in a love story that is awkward and small, that stutters and spits, with its worry lines on its face and its heart on its sleeve. ~inmanfilms.com10Taggedy Taggged (6-10)8http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s375576.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Finally_Lillian_and_Dan/375576/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/12/16/38464.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:21 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog12/16/2008 4:01:21 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/16/38463.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM
Body: I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:01:08 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/16/2008 4:01:08 PM I recently submitted a ballot for indieWIRE’s annual Critics’ Poll, which offers respondents a chance to create two separate lists of the best films of the year: one comprised of films which received theatrical distribution (which is described as, at minimum, a one week run in a commercial theater in New York City, essentially the same type of release required for Oscar consideration); and a list of the best films which weren’t distributed commercially in 2008––ie: those which screened only at festivals, and/or in other non-commercial venues, and/or outside of New York. Because I see so many films at festivals, I had a far greater pool of candidates for the latter list than the former. My “true” top ten list would combine films which were made readily available to audiences via studio subsidiaries (such as Synecdoche, NY and Rachel Getting Married), with films that I fell in love with at a festival and may never get a chance to see again, and with films which had the bare minimum New York release, but nevertheless were probably still seen by fewer people than the average distributor-less festival hit (such as Build a Ship, Sail to Sadness). That said, I understand the purpose of making the distinction––even if there was no other benefit to it, there’s always the hope that some smaller theatrical and straight-to-DVD distributors will look to the annual Best Undistributed list as a reference to films they might have missed. After all, 2007’s “winner,” Hong Sang Soo’s Woman on the Beach, was purchased and ended up in theaters barely a week into the new year. In fact, I think singling out films which are still on the market, and in a perfect world wouldn’t be, is so worth doing, that not only am I revealing here the ten titles I included in the poll, but I’m adding a few bonus films. The following list is presented alphabetically and should be considered unranked, with the exception of the first title mentioned — they all deserve to be seen by wider audiences, but the reception thus far bestowed on the work of one French master in particular is actually a travesty. Frontier of Dawn, directed by Phillipe Garrel Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: Sao Paulo, Mar Del Plata Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A story of amour gone so fou that the natural world becomes subject to the supernatural. Hands down the most accessible Garrel film I’ve seen, it’s still a strange, swoony, genre-bending challenge.” 35 Rhums, directed by Claire Denis Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: Venice Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Rather shockingly, the new Claire Denis film is also a bittersweet family movie, and the work you put into it early on is paid back in surprisingly tender dividends.” The Burrowers, directed by J.T. Petty Reviewed at Fantastic Fest Other notable Festivals: Toronto, Screamfest. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Beautifully shot and tightly scripted, it’s the rare Hollywood genre film (bought and paid for by Lionsgate) that’s more concerned with human relationships and behavior than the mysterious supernatural forces that sets the action in motion.” Worth noting:  Lionsgate originally planned a theatrical release, but announced a couple of days ago that come April 2009, they’re dumping it to DVD. For a film that looks this good on a big screen, this is equivalent to it not being distributed at all. Everything is Fine, directed by Yves Christian Fournier Reviewed in the market at Cannes Notable festivals: Berlinale, Seattle International (where it won the New Directors Showcase Competition. Grand Jury Prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “With a strong sense of style and an especially inventive feel for sound design, first-time feature director Yves Christian Fournier manages to turn the story of the inner conflict of a 17 year-old boy into something almost resembling a thriller, with a final act catharsis that left several of us in the screening room in tears.” Finally, Lillian and Dan, directed by Mike Gibisser Reviewed at CineVegas Other notable festivals: AFI Los Angeles, Denver Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “The mumbling here is so stylized and disturbed that it’s like a precision bomb against the twee subtleties explored by other contemporary filmmakers––it’s more like Tourettescore. But there’s also a tenderness here, and lofty aesthetic ambitions underpinned with authentic melancholy. It’s a heartbreaker.” Forbidden Lies, directed by Anna Broinowski Reviewed at True/False Other notable festivals: SilverDocs, Aljazeera Film Festival (where it won the Golden Award) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Broinowski’s fabrications hardly undermine the film’s integrity––in fact, it’s through the melding of form and content that Broinowski both delivers her most potent commentary on the Khouri clusterfuck, and provides the film with some of its most crowd-pleasing moments.” Go Go Tales, directed by Abel Ferrara Reviewed at NYFF 2007 Other notable festivals: Cannes 2007, CineVegas 2008 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Go Go Tales is probably the most lovingly photographed stripper movie of all time, but it’s most exciting in the friction it finds between the gaga dream gaze of the patrons, and the behind-the-scenes scrambling that supports it.” Worth noting: Though Go Go Tales was rumored to have been acquired concurrent with its New York Film Festival debut in the fall of 2007, an official announcement was never made, and since the film then popped up in the sidebar for undistributed pictures at CIneVegas this past summer, I guess it’s still available…? Intimidad, directed by David Redmon and Ashley Sabin Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: AFI Dallas, Sidewalk (where it won Best Documentary), Denver, Sarasota Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “At times, when [its subjects] crumble under the stress of their situation, Intimidad offers moments of genuine emotion that are miles removed from the score-saturated tear-jerking money shots that mark generic issue docs.” Worth noting: Intimidad had two screenings at MoMA this fall, which wasn’t enough to qualify for indieWIRE’s theatrical list, and thus it earned a spot on my undistributed list. But the filmmakers are releasing Intimidad on DVD in 2009, via their Carnivalesque Films label. La Vie Moderne, directed by Raymond Depardon Reviewed at Cannes Other notable festivals: None that I recognize; after theatrical runs in France and Belgium, it opens in the Netherlands and the UK in Spring 2009 Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Depardon’s style of inquiry certainly requires more of an investment from his audience than fans of contemporary crowd-pleaser non-fiction might be used to, but it’s an investment that pays off. Where coarser filmmakers approach their subjects with laser-guided precision, essentially turning each question rhetorical, Depardon simply sets up a camera and has a conversation.” Prince of Broadway, directed by Sean Baker Seen at Woodstock Other notable festivals: LAFF (where it won the grand prize), Denver Why it’s on this list: Dardennes comparisons are flying around fast and furious of late, but no joke: Sean Baker’s follow-up to Take Out––shot on location in Manhattan’s wholesale district for a low-mid five figure budget, using virtually all non-professional actors––is Three Men and a Baby meets L’enfant. It’s a genuinely independent crowd-pleaser that never panders. Sita Sings the Blues, directed by Nina Paley Reviewed at Tribeca Other notable festivals: Berlinale. Denver. Winner of the Not Coming to a Theater Near You award at the Gothams. Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “A strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style.” Worth noting: As of this writing, Paley *can’t* distribute her film, because she’s still negotiating the right to use the recordings of Annette Hanshaw which comprise the bulk of the film’s soundtrack. Treeless Mountain, directed by So Yong Kim Reviewed at Toronto Other notable festivals: None, as far as I know Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “An autobiographical feature about two tiny girls sent to live with distant relatives by their caring but insolvent mother, Treeless Mountain is a sparse but incredibly moving film about love turning to longing turning to resentment,…Hands down, the thing that makes Mountain a Toronto must-see is the performances, which are all the more impressive considering the fact that the film’s two young stars are non-actors.” Voy a Explotar, directed by Gerardo Naranjo Reviewed at NYFF Other notable festivals: Toronto, Venice, Thessaloniki Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “It’s the rare love letter to influence that’s infused with enough personal style and sentiment to transform the stolen into something thrilling and moving.” Yeast, directed by Mary Bronstein Reviewed at SXSW Other notable festivals: Sarasota, IFFB, St. Louis (where it won the New Filmmakers Forum competition) Why it’s on this list: (from my review) “Even fans of Frownland (which Bronstein starred in under the direction of her husband Ronald) may not be ready for Yeast’s full-on assault on the senses. This is a film that not only seeks to dodge the audience’s comfort zone, but it actually, actively mocks it.” Worth noting: Yeast went straight from the festival circuit to Amazon VOD. I’m not sure if that counts as “undistributed”, but it definitely went without a theatrical release. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog 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/karina/archive/2008/11/14/37334.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 11/14/2008 6:01:17 PM
Body: I’ll be heading out to the Denver Film Festival on Wednesday, to sit on a jury and moderate a panel. The festival started last night, and through next Sunday they’ll be showing a ton of my favorite films from the 2008 festival circuit (like Intimidad, Guest of Cindy Sherman, Prince of Broadway, Finally, Lillian and Dan, SIta Sings the Blues, Two Lovers, and Everything is Fine), plus a number of titles that I’ve missed at over festivals but hope to catch up with (like Three Monkeys, Woodpecker, Song Sung Blue). Also, they’re doing a tribute to pioneering video/performance artist Carolee Schneemann, which is awesome. The panel I’m moderating, called DIY Filmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse, will bring together a number of filmmakers who have found some success (with critics, with festival juries, or even financially) making personal films outside of the broken indie film stuctures that we’ve all been wringing our hands over for the last couple of years. It’s on Friday, November 21 at 7pm. If you’re going to be in town, do stop by. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:01:17 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog11/14/2008 6:01:17 PMI’ll be heading out to the Denver Film Festival on Wednesday, to sit on a jury and moderate a panel. The festival started last night, and through next Sunday they’ll be showing a ton of my favorite films from the 2008 festival circuit (like Intimidad, Guest of Cindy Sherman, Prince of Broadway, Finally, Lillian and Dan, SIta Sings the Blues, Two Lovers, and Everything is Fine), plus a number of titles that I’ve missed at over festivals but hope to catch up with (like Three Monkeys, Woodpecker, Song Sung Blue). Also, they’re doing a tribute to pioneering video/performance artist Carolee Schneemann, which is awesome. The panel I’m moderating, called DIY Filmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse, will bring together a number of filmmakers who have found some success (with critics, with festival juries, or even financially) making personal films outside of the broken indie film stuctures that we’ve all been wringing our hands over for the last couple of years. It’s on Friday, November 21 at 7pm. If you’re going to be in town, do stop by. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/14/37333.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/14/2008 6:01:02 PM
Body: I’ll be heading out to the Denver Film Festival on Wednesday, to sit on a jury and moderate a panel. The festival started last night, and through next Sunday they’ll be showing a ton of my favorite films from the 2008 festival circuit (like Intimidad, Guest of Cindy Sherman, Prince of Broadway, Finally, Lillian and Dan, SIta Sings the Blues, Two Lovers, and Everything is Fine), plus a number of titles that I’ve missed at over festivals but hope to catch up with (like Three Monkeys, Woodpecker, Song Sung Blue). Also, they’re doing a tribute to pioneering video/performance artist Carolee Schneemann, which is awesome. The panel I’m moderating, called DIY Filmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse, will bring together a number of filmmakers who have found some success (with critics, with festival juries, or even financially) making personal films outside of the broken indie film stuctures that we’ve all been wringing our hands over for the last couple of years. It’s on Friday, November 21 at 7pm. If you’re going to be in town, do stop by. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:01:02 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/14/2008 6:01:02 PMI’ll be heading out to the Denver Film Festival on Wednesday, to sit on a jury and moderate a panel. The festival started last night, and through next Sunday they’ll be showing a ton of my favorite films from the 2008 festival circuit (like Intimidad, Guest of Cindy Sherman, Prince of Broadway, Finally, Lillian and Dan, SIta Sings the Blues, Two Lovers, and Everything is Fine), plus a number of titles that I’ve missed at over festivals but hope to catch up with (like Three Monkeys, Woodpecker, Song Sung Blue). Also, they’re doing a tribute to pioneering video/performance artist Carolee Schneemann, which is awesome. The panel I’m moderating, called DIY Filmmaking in an Indie Apocalypse, will bring together a number of filmmakers who have found some success (with critics, with festival juries, or even financially) making personal films outside of the broken indie film stuctures that we’ve all been wringing our hands over for the last couple of years. It’s on Friday, November 21 at 7pm. If you’re going to be in town, do stop by. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/7/8/32297.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 7/8/2008 4:01:48 PM
Body: Since the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 1995, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning. First, Jamie Stuart at Stream: More and more independent producers and distributors with years of experience are trying to convince indie filmmakers that theatrical distribution isn’t that important…Unfortunately, the thing that most filmmakers understand — and this has nothing to do with advocating the communal experience — is that by going theatrical, the movie is given a credibility that it would otherwise not have… …does anybody believe that if the IFC Center hadn’t screened its mumblecore series in 2007, the “movement” and its filmmakers would’ve attained the same level of credibility? The three best-known voices from that scene — Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and the Duplass Brothers — have all received some level of theatrical distribution, whether it’s micro or day-and-date. Are these three great filmmakers? I think the jury’s still out on that. But, by going theatrical, they’ve legitimized the whole handheld DV film festival movement — a movement that until recently, had critics, journalists and distributors constantly complaining about the amateurish production values of the movies flooding fests. Theatrical alters people’s perception. Theatrical makes it a real movie. And then, screenwriter John August [via The Circuit] whose directorial debut The Nines attracted “buzz” at Sundance in 2007, but failed to make much noise when it was released last year. He’s written a long list post about his experience, in response to Mark Gill’s “the sky is falling” speech. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit…Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen…It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD…New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money. [But] the DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously. Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week. So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately. I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray. The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Despite August’s use of the word “bullshit”, he doesn’t seem to be seriously suggesting that his film would have done better on DVD *without* a theatrical release. But then, an “indie” starring Scarlett Johansson’s fiancee, with a budget for national promotions an access to shill spots like TRL is in a very different boat than The Puffy Chair, let alone an even smaller film like Finally Lillian and Dan, which is able, through its loose association with mumblecore “hits” to take at least one or two steps out of total obscurity. Thoughts? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:01:48 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog7/8/2008 4:01:48 PMSince the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 1995, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning. First, Jamie Stuart at Stream: More and more independent producers and distributors with years of experience are trying to convince indie filmmakers that theatrical distribution isn’t that important…Unfortunately, the thing that most filmmakers understand — and this has nothing to do with advocating the communal experience — is that by going theatrical, the movie is given a credibility that it would otherwise not have… …does anybody believe that if the IFC Center hadn’t screened its mumblecore series in 2007, the “movement” and its filmmakers would’ve attained the same level of credibility? The three best-known voices from that scene — Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and the Duplass Brothers — have all received some level of theatrical distribution, whether it’s micro or day-and-date. Are these three great filmmakers? I think the jury’s still out on that. But, by going theatrical, they’ve legitimized the whole handheld DV film festival movement — a movement that until recently, had critics, journalists and distributors constantly complaining about the amateurish production values of the movies flooding fests. Theatrical alters people’s perception. Theatrical makes it a real movie. And then, screenwriter John August [via The Circuit] whose directorial debut The Nines attracted “buzz” at Sundance in 2007, but failed to make much noise when it was released last year. He’s written a long list post about his experience, in response to Mark Gill’s “the sky is falling” speech. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit…Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen…It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD…New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money. [But] the DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously. Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week. So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately. I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray. The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Despite August’s use of the word “bullshit”, he doesn’t seem to be seriously suggesting that his film would have done better on DVD *without* a theatrical release. But then, an “indie” starring Scarlett Johansson’s fiancee, with a budget for national promotions an access to shill spots like TRL is in a very different boat than The Puffy Chair, let alone an even smaller film like Finally Lillian and Dan, which is able, through its loose association with mumblecore “hits” to take at least one or two steps out of total obscurity. Thoughts? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/8/32296.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/8/2008 4:01:05 PM
Body: Since the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 1995, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning. First, Jamie Stuart at Stream: More and more independent producers and distributors with years of experience are trying to convince indie filmmakers that theatrical distribution isn’t that important…Unfortunately, the thing that most filmmakers understand — and this has nothing to do with advocating the communal experience — is that by going theatrical, the movie is given a credibility that it would otherwise not have… …does anybody believe that if the IFC Center hadn’t screened its mumblecore series in 2007, the “movement” and its filmmakers would’ve attained the same level of credibility? The three best-known voices from that scene — Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and the Duplass Brothers — have all received some level of theatrical distribution, whether it’s micro or day-and-date. Are these three great filmmakers? I think the jury’s still out on that. But, by going theatrical, they’ve legitimized the whole handheld DV film festival movement — a movement that until recently, had critics, journalists and distributors constantly complaining about the amateurish production values of the movies flooding fests. Theatrical alters people’s perception. Theatrical makes it a real movie. And then, screenwriter John August [via The Circuit] whose directorial debut The Nines attracted “buzz” at Sundance in 2007, but failed to make much noise when it was released last year. He’s written a long list post about his experience, in response to Mark Gill’s “the sky is falling” speech. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit…Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen…It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD…New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money. [But] the DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously. Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week. So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately. I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray. The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Despite August’s use of the word “bullshit”, he doesn’t seem to be seriously suggesting that his film would have done better on DVD *without* a theatrical release. But then, an “indie” starring Scarlett Johansson’s fiancee, with a budget for national promotions an access to shill spots like TRL is in a very different boat than The Puffy Chair, let alone an even smaller film like Finally Lillian and Dan, which is able, through its loose association with mumblecore “hits” to take at least one or two steps out of total obscurity. Thoughts? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:01:05 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/8/2008 4:01:05 PMSince the conversation about internet and day-and-date distribution really started to heat up in 1995, the alternatives to theatrical distribution have seemed to only multiply and evolve, while the general perception of public exhibition has remained about the same: filmmakers like it, but in terms of bottom line, it’s only useful as an extended commercial for ancillaries such as DVD. But is that perception changing? Two related quotes of note popped up in the feeds this morning. First, Jamie Stuart at Stream: More and more independent producers and distributors with years of experience are trying to convince indie filmmakers that theatrical distribution isn’t that important…Unfortunately, the thing that most filmmakers understand — and this has nothing to do with advocating the communal experience — is that by going theatrical, the movie is given a credibility that it would otherwise not have… …does anybody believe that if the IFC Center hadn’t screened its mumblecore series in 2007, the “movement” and its filmmakers would’ve attained the same level of credibility? The three best-known voices from that scene — Andrew Bujalski, Joe Swanberg and the Duplass Brothers — have all received some level of theatrical distribution, whether it’s micro or day-and-date. Are these three great filmmakers? I think the jury’s still out on that. But, by going theatrical, they’ve legitimized the whole handheld DV film festival movement — a movement that until recently, had critics, journalists and distributors constantly complaining about the amateurish production values of the movies flooding fests. Theatrical alters people’s perception. Theatrical makes it a real movie. And then, screenwriter John August [via The Circuit] whose directorial debut The Nines attracted “buzz” at Sundance in 2007, but failed to make much noise when it was released last year. He’s written a long list post about his experience, in response to Mark Gill’s “the sky is falling” speech. Theatrical release is kinda bullshit…Even while I was making The Nines, I knew that the vast majority of viewers would ultimately see it on the small screen…It didn’t feel like it at the time, but the theatrical release was really a token, contractually-obligated gesture. We were getting our hand stamped before the DVD…New York and Los Angeles gave enough national exposure to drive the DVD release, which was where they hoped to make their money. [But] the DVD should have come out much sooner, maybe simultaneously. Because of Ryan’s relative star power, we were able to generate a ton of national publicity. He went on TRL and Conan and every other New York outlet you can think of. But making a college student in Iowa aware of a movie that will never play Des Moines is useless. He’ll forget about it in a week. So the smart thing would have been keeping our New York and Los Angeles dates but having the DVD come out immediately. I know that invokes the stigma of straight-to-DVD, but if it means that potential viewers nationwide can actually see the movie, hooray. The shortening DVD windows are a legitimate concern for mainstream Hollywood movies, but for indies, I don’t think it’s even worth serious objection. Despite August’s use of the word “bullshit”, he doesn’t seem to be seriously suggesting that his film would have done better on DVD *without* a theatrical release. But then, an “indie” starring Scarlett Johansson’s fiancee, with a budget for national promotions an access to shill spots like TRL is in a very different boat than The Puffy Chair, let alone an even smaller film like Finally Lillian and Dan, which is able, through its loose association with mumblecore “hits” to take at least one or two steps out of total obscurity. Thoughts? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/heart/MemberTagFilms.aspxheart
Number of films tagged: 141

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 50

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:02:17 GMT1412950Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/apartment/MemberTagFilms.aspxapartment
Number of films tagged: 567

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 29

]]>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:52:27 GMT5671729Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/grandmother/MemberTagFilms.aspxgrandmother
Number of films tagged: 300

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 20

]]>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:49:38 GMT3001620Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/human/MemberTagFilms.aspxhuman
Number of films tagged: 130

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 19

]]>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:31:49 GMT1301219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suffering/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuffering
Number of films tagged: 254

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 19

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:03:20 GMT2541219Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/young-love/MemberTagFilms.aspxyoung-love
Number of films tagged: 3

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 3

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:42 GMT333Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dependency/MemberTagFilms.aspxdependency
Number of films tagged: 2

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:43 GMT222Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cinevegas/MemberTagFilms.aspxcinevegas
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:42 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/cinevegas-2008/MemberTagFilms.aspxcinevegas-2008
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:42 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/harvard-film-archive/MemberTagFilms.aspxharvard-film-archive
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:22:42 GMT111Tag