Archive for the tag 'Money'

The Death of Independent Film

Penguin June 27th, 2008

the-death-of-independent-film

Mark Gill, the CEO of The Film Department and former President of Miramax Films, declared provocatively, “Yes, The Sky Really Is Falling.” Speaking at the L.A. Film Festival’s Financing Conference, he starts with the bad news.

[O]f the 5000 films submitted to Sundance each year– generally with budgets under $10 million–maybe 100 of them got a US theatrical release three years ago. And it used to be that 20 of those would make money. Now maybe five do. That’s one-tenth of one percent.

Put another way, if you decide to make a movie budgeted under $10 million on your own tomorrow, you have a 99.9% chance of failure.

He continues on to offer a harsh solution, the one that we know deep in our gut, but wish there was an easier path.

A good title should have many of the attributes that a movie needs to embody now:

*Succinct & Descriptive: the film has to lend itself to brief encapsulation. A high concept is no longer the thing that studio movies do and independent films shun. In this age of info overload, it’s crucial for every picture to have this. Without it, your odds shoot through the floor.

*Distinctive: not the same story we’ve heard five times before; something that at least takes the cliche and twists it; not something we get too much of somewhere else in our lives (Exhibit A: Iraq movies; who wants to see more of that mess? We already get too much of it every day in the news media).

*Provocative: something that cuts through the clutter, stands out, gets attention; not “So then Phoebe sat by her mother’s bedside, suffering in silence for eight weeks.” Give us incident, conflict, excitement, ideally something that hits a cultural nerve.

*Memorable: this is essentially an accumulation of the other traits, or sometimes altogether separate. It’s the avoidance of cotton candy. The possibility of resonance. Something sticky.

*Not too dark: these are very dark times, for audiences the world over. Audience enthusiasm for dark films is as low as I’ve ever seen it. There are a lot of reasons for this, of course. But the one I hear almost nobody articulating and everyone feeling is this: in the western industrialized world, wages haven’t even remotely kept up with productivity demands, and that stresses us out.
[...]
If you want to survive in this brutal climate, you’re going to have to work a lot harder, be a lot smarter, know a lot more, move a lot faster, sell a lot better, pay attention to the data, be a little nicer (ok, a lot nicer), trust your gut, read everything and never, ever give up.

- IndieWire

It’s stark sobering news and just a little discouraging. But just like everything else, if you’re in it for the money, you’re in it for the wrong reasons. My hope is that I’ll be able to continue learning and honing my craft so I can get the budget to make something worth seeing. That may take years, but like JFK said, “We don’t do it because it’s easy, but because it’s hard.”

-Penguin

Related posts

The Formula for a Blockbuster

Penguin June 10th, 2008

the-formula-for-a-blockbuster

I’m used to the whole concept of screenplay structure. You have 3 acts, hero’s journey etc. But what if there was an underlying formula that could tell if your script would be good or not? It seems like they’ve done just that. Created a formula for the blockbuster.

Dick Copaken and Nick Meaney created Epagogix, a neural net that guesses how much a movie will take in at the box office. The most interesting part about the article, is that even if the software can identify areas where a script can be improved, it still needs a writer to improve it. What else is interesting is that it doesn’t seem to care about structure at all. The software seems to care about details.

At the center is the creation of art is the question, “Is there a basic formula?”

“Beauty is no quality in things themselves,” the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume wrote. “It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.”

But Hume had a Scottish counterpart, Lord Kames, and Lord Kames was equally convinced that traits like beauty, sublimity, and grandeur were indeed reducible to a rational system of rules and precepts. He devised principles of congruity, propriety, and perspicuity: an elevated subject, for instance, must be expressed in elevated language; sound and signification should be in concordance; a woman was most attractive when in distress; depicted misfortunes must never occur by chance.

Granted, there may or may not be a formula for the blockbuster. Even if there is, you still have to write it. But how can we use this knowledge to improve our writing? We watch great films and ask, what makes it great? We watch terrible films, and ask, what makes it suck? Most importantly, we live life so we can find those memorable moments. Build up our library of small stories that we can link together to make something great.

-Penguin

Related posts