Needle In a Haystack

Smaller than a Big Mac

Right now I’m sitting in my living room with my friend as she clicks through the channels of my Roku 2 XS.  It’s a wireless unit the size of a small box of Whitman’s chocolate, and I think it’s the best thing since sliced bread.  Ten minutes after opening the box I had access to an almost cable repertoire of Internet content – on my TV.   The biggest selling point for me was the impressive amount of access to independent films and online video content (i.e. Hulu, Netflix, SnagFilms AND Vimeo!).  But how did those channels even acquire said content?  Digital distribution.  

Still, even if a filmmaker has their work available through these channels, it doesn’t mean instant audience gain.  Awareness has to be built; campaigns have to run; and viewer relationships have to be fostered if filmmakers want to attract an audience, and therefore, a profit.  One may argue that since it’s hard enough to land a theatrical release, campaigning for Internet viewership must be harder – especially with the sheer amount of content on the Net.  On the contrary, as Dustin Woodward, ‘WebConnoisure’ blogger and freelance SEO professional says, “People that are passionate about your film’s topic are out there and want to find you. And it is a level playing field—Hollywood studios have trouble ranking #1 for their own film titles!” With the Web and the power of social media, filmmakers without deep pockets can quickly spread the word about and exhibit their work before it even sees a theater.  And, should a filmmaker get the privilege of showing their film in a theater, a solid support system may have already been built under their work.  Which comes first, the horse or the cart?  I opine that, for the film industry, the Web is now the horse and the theater is the cart – not the other way around.  

Ben Hur, 1959 

As far as churning your film through the glut of content like cream to the top of milk, this is where SEO, or search engine optimization comes in.  But it’s not just about the film’s brand.  Brand building also centers on the filmmaker him or her self.  Sheri Candler, marketing expert and publicist for independent filmmakers, specifically, says SEO is key to building a personal brand.  “Your Personal Brand. Your online reputation. It’s the same thing.”  Know your professional name and how that translates, or doesn’t translate, across the web.  Consistency builds relevance, and relevance builds trust.   The filmmaker is the representation of the work.  As a unique representative, are you ranking positively with search engines? Sheri continues,  “Filmmakers interested in building a personal brand on the web do not have the luxury of anonymity.”  SEO and brand building is not simply a nicety.  For filmmakers, they are essential. 

However, the seriousness of SEO should not overshadow content.  Buzz will fall flat without any substance behind it.  If you have a choice between spending time on your blog and producing creative works, produce creative works.  Nobody wants to be considered a poseur.  Talk is cheap, and it’s bad for business.  Even still, try to find a balance.  From my end of the Roku, I won’t get the pleasure of seeing your works if my channels can’t find them. Get your stuff found. I’m sure I’m missing out.  

** For kicks and giggles, watch this Shakespearian work on SEO.  As serious as having a robust web presence is, it’s always good to keep it real:

Beauty in the Breakdown (An Editorial)

Iraq, 2007

An intensely personal and poignant experience occurred in my life roughly 5 years ago.  While serving in Iraq as a Combat Cameraman, I received a “combat wound” in the form of PTSD, or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  It directly affected my passion for the art of moviemaking and placed a huge roadblock in the path thereof. 

I bring this up because recently I was interviewed by the “Make the Connection” public awareness campaign, a representative of the Veteran’s Affairs, about my experience with PTSD.  The interview involved chronicling my service in the Navy and why I took the path I did. I joined the Navy to learn mechanical and technical skills associated with image capturing, while at the same time giving to something bigger than myself: my country.  Ironically, my central contribution was the very thing damaged the most: my passion for the moving image.   The trauma etched so deeply onto my soul, I could barely edit anything without experiencing immense stress or anxiety.  When I left the Navy the skills and passion I had did not come with me.  They were left on the cutting room floor of combat, so to speak.  At the time, it felt as if the “casualty of war” was my dream.  Tear that away from anybody and you tear out the life that is in him or her.  I was paralyzed.  The professional foundation I gained became my biggest threat as opposed to a launching point for my career.

As we talked I was reminded that certain things would never be the same.  But thankfully through treatment by way of the VA, I’ve come back to a place of passion and courage enough to give it a go again.  Things are universally much better, but not all.  The memories, echoes of caustic nausea still remain.   Still, the new skills and strength I’ve gained through unique treatment have opened doors both literally and figuratively – necessary components for me to carry on.  It was my honor to tell my story if it helps even one veteran know they are not alone and can receive help.  But the experience was also therapeutic for me.   Not only did it remind me of the pain, but it also reminded me of victory – and the victories I still have a duty to fulfill.  No matter how much extra effort it takes now for me to act, storytelling will only remain a ‘casualty’ if I leave it there.  And then the ‘enemy’ wins: the enemies of terror and fear, both physically and psychologically.  But I am not a victim of circumstances.  In spite of the subconscious apprehension I have, my service to my family, friends and community are not over.   We serve by contributing our time and talents in our own unique ways.  My unique way is through storytelling. 

Many thanks to the VA and “Make the Connection” for their help and support.  Otherwise, even this blog role would not be possible.  Keep dreaming and Press On.

The Puritanical Debate: Film versus Digital

Since its inception, digital image capturing has faced serious resistance from film professionals - both in still and motion.  The argument being film tangibly preserves an image while digital is a simple rearrangement of ones and zeros. Yet digital is heralded as the next evolution of the art form.  My point of view is that shooting films on film is the highest form of the art because it requires a higher degree of professional expertise.  But when a top director, Martin Scorsese, not only shoots digitally but also in three-dimension (something many pass off as gimmicky), it makes me think twice.  Part of me wants to scream, “Sell Out!”  While the other part, the side that reveres Scorsese, gives him a pass.  There must be something to it if Scorsese, director of the gritty film Raging Bull, takes a leap towards it.

gizmodo.com

 Even so I still prefer film to digital.  Never mind that I own three digital cameras (DLSR, HDV and iPhone 4s).  Don’t judge me.  I have what I have because of production and post-production costs.  In managing a motion media product, I am constrained to my budget – or the lack thereof.  Had I the choice –and the means - I would choose film.  Is it more complicated? Yes.  Is it more costly and time consuming?  Yes.  But I’m a purist in my opinion that images captured on film are real.  Images captured on digital are not.  You catch a crappy image on film – it is what it is.  Honesty.  You catch a crappy shot on digital?  Just hit delete and no one will know.  Janusz Kaminksi, one of Steven Spielberg’s regular cinematographers interviewed with the LA Times, saying that digital makes for a lazy photographer.  I concur – from experience.  “When I was your age….” (and I’m only 30, mind you), I learned to shoot photography with a film camera.  My training took me from black and white, to color and then to slide film, working each in the darkroom and on the light table for hours.  The smell… the feel…. The frustration of seeing my mistakes slowly reveal themselves under the chemicals… It was a process to process. But that time spent made me a better photographer by motivating me to ensure I wouldn’t make the same mistake again.  Importantly, if not more in this context, is the fact that film capturing was a very organic experience. You could literally capture a piece of life, recording it into the emulsion of the film.  Photography and filmmaking are much different now.  

photo.net

Instead of perfecting exposure and camera control, shooters “Chimp.”   ‘Chimping’ is when a photographer shoots a shot, look at the LCD screen or monitor, shoot the shot, look at the screen… adjust settings (or just leave it on auto)… shoot.  Look at screen…. Etc.  It’s why Kaminski laments digital as “the death of the cinematographer,” and creates a co-dependent relationship between the photographer and the review button.  Kaminski continues, “If you see the image on the digital screen I think people become lazy, they get satisfied with just seeing the image, they’re not going for visual panache, not getting the story through metaphors… With film there is still mystery.”  Gone is the confidence that comes with knowing what, why and how a shot is captured.  I won’t lie and say it hasn’t happened to me.   My discipline died when I drank the ‘chimping’ punch.  A ‘sin’ I will never forgive myself of.

But you can’t ignore the fact that digital is here to stay, and professionals like Scorsese and Cameron are on board.  It would not be prudent to push against a bullish trend, but maybe converge the two artfully.  Newer digital cameras are capturing on 4K sensors and projecting “as-is” onto the screen.  Examining the process of traditional 35mm filmmaking and distribution, multiple duplications and projections actually downgrade the film to 1K by the time it reaches the screen.  Audiences have never really “seen” a 4K film in the theater.  Even so, there is still something organic about seeing a movie made from film.  But according to Filmmaker Magazine (Spring 2012 Issue), there is a new generation of filmmakers who hate the texture of film grain.  They are annoyed by small imperfections or the act of looking into a separate world rather than participating in it.  I don’t see that as a bad thing.  We often watch a movie to escape… to see and feel something not akin to real life.  Digital… just makes it too real.  Maybe it’s the way we “old-timers” (again… I’m 30 years old) grew up.  The story of film-making may soon be relegated to rocking chair conversations being reminisced from the front porch.

Pro8mm.com

Fortunately there are companies still trying to preserve the art of ‘real’ filmmaking, while at the same time marrying film and digital for more efficient post-production workflows. Pro8mm out of Burbank, California is a full-service procurement, rental and processing house for 8mm and 16mm film.  They stock a self-invented Super 8 negative film (16X9) along with Super 8 and Super 16 cameras re-engineered for practical use.  Pro8mm creates digital masters of the film while preserving the look and feel of its original capture.  No I do not work for Pro8mm and no I do not get a cut for ‘selling’ them.  More or less, I am selling the idea that film is not dead.   But Super 8?  Whoa.  Who talks about Super 8 anymore?  Apparently  J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg do. It may take a bit more effort to proselytize its enduring viability, but making films with film is still a valid and valuable medium to work with – a resource professionals persist in using when managing the product of their film.

Links:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/entertainment/la-ca-oscars-cinematography-20120219

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2012/04/good-things-in-smaller-packages-large-sensor-motion-picture-cameras-a-year-later/http://www.pro8mm.com/our-mission.php

Filmmaking as a Contact Sport

Website for this image

When I think of contact sports, I think of activities like football, boxing… and sumo wrestling.  But how do I equate contact sports with filmmaking?  They are synonymous on various levels.  Throughout my life I’ve analyzed and intellectualized why one movie reaches me but another does not.  How does a film “reach out and touch someone?”  On three levels: the mind; the heart; and the wallet.  This applies to both the audience and the filmmaker, but for this discussion I’ll focus on the latter.

           

The mind: 

Someone once said that filmmaking is the only blue-collar art form.  When we think of art, one may think of passionate flashes of inspiration out of the nothingness and struggle of life.  That may be true for the initial idea of a story materialized into a film, but the work that goes into its production takes persistent thought coupled with manual labor.  It is multi-faceted, laborious and dynamic.  To make the film work, a filmmaker has to think on specific, yet complex concepts simultaneously.  Because of its complexity, a film takes many hands to keep the machine moving.  Yet each requires timely thinking and attention detail.  What’s interesting is that even the smallest, seemingly lazy thought manifests itself, even by association, in the film.  Something to chew on: if the craft service sucks (i.e. stale bagels and cream cheese that are not complementary… like blueberry and chive spread), then actors and crew are not properly fed, resulting in lethargy and/or grumpiness, which then affects performance and proper tracking of details – like follow focus.  It takes a great deal of present thought to make a film.

The heart:

Filmmaking requires long hours of contribution.  Sometimes those hours are not equally spaced in a healthy way.  Sometimes things don’t go as planned.  Sometimes the crews you have to work with are difficult.  Whatever the challenge, a heart for the art and a belief in the project are what carries filmmakers through to completion. 

The wallet:

Filmmaking is an expensive hobby and/or marginally profitable career, at best.  It’s expensive.  Plain and simple.  (See above for motivation)

But never mind what it takes to contribute.  The outcropping from successful completion reaps rewards regardless of what profit it generates.  I turn my attention back to contact sporting.  Training for any sport is hard an often painful.  The muscles stretch, the mind fatigues and the heart tests.  What keeps an athlete going? A number of factors: satisfaction of completion; the winning catch; or knocking the thoughts out of someone’s brains.  Whatever the reason, there is a reason.  And whether the athlete wins or not, they still come out on top.  Why? Because their mind and heart have been expanded.  I submit that the same occurs in filmmaking.  You are challenged and tested beyond the ability you had at the outset.  You overcome fears and doubt.  You test your resolve.  You learn about yourself, others and about humanity by examining the human condition.  We are not on this earth merely to exist or to be acted upon – but to act; to grow; and to multiply what portion we have received.  Filmmaking touches a person.  For better or for worse, it touches them – leaving its mark.  To me, that’s worth every penny spent. 

So I venture to say the responsibility lies with the filmmaker in choosing what film to make, because it will inevitably affect the person they are and become.  You may not agree nor see value in this argument, but I have an intimate relationship with how affective the moving image can be on a person.  For a few years I was a combat photographer and videographer.  I spent six months documenting infantry life and operations in Iraq.  It was hard work living, breathing and acting as if I was one of them.  But I did what I had to do to get my shot.  I did what was necessary to tell the story.  As a result, shooting that footage made a profound impact on me – for good and for bad.  I am forever changed because of that experience.  And for that I am grateful, because my abilities, heart and resolve wouldn’t have uniquely grown without it.

Making pictures move is definitely a contact sport.

Film Tax Incentives: Roll the Credits!

State tax incentives and credits are a hot topic on the minds of all filmmakers these days.  A war wages between two perspectives: entitlement and excess, with each side arguing their views on incongruent grounds.  One side argues the tax credit is a waste of resources, calling for the elimination of film incentives all together.  The other side says without state incentives, film production would move out of state or out of the country – taking jobs with them.  Films take flight elsewhere for two reasons: artistic and economic.  Nobody can help the artistic factor of flight.  But if the states were to eliminate film incentives all together, the production would go to where the benefits are: other countries.  There is definitely an unhealthy “race to the bottom” between states vying for the filmmakers’ attention.  But because tax incentives are prevalent throughout the world, it would behoove the United States to create programs that encourage homegrown films.  After all, according to Select USA, the U.S. leads the world in film and music recording revenue.

 However, there are some sustainable truths to the arguments against film tax incentives.  Mark Robyn, Staff Economist for the Tax Foundation wrote that, in some states, a film tax credit is an excess expense.  “Though there are embarrassingly few of them, the studies that use more realistic assumptions and take into account more economic effects have always showed that states lose money on film tax credits. “   One of the main arguments for incentives is that they draw production business to states that would otherwise never see a film crew.  Robyn argues that whether there is a credit or not, films will still be made - especially in places like California.  Therefore, California should not be spending state funds on film incentives – especially in the economic position the state is in.  Another argument states that film productions should receive credits based on their being an economic multiplier.  This is a one-sided argument, seeing how economic stimulation from new business is not unique to the film industry.  So why shouldn’t new companies, based on this comparison, receive similar credit?

I argue that they do.  From the Small Business Development Center’s website:

“America’s entrepreneurs and small business owners continue to grow their businesses and create jobs due to unprecedented tax cuts that have been signed into law over the past two years. This includes billions of dollars in tax relief from laws such as the Recovery Act, the Small Business Jobs Act, the HIRE Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the Tax Relief and Job Creation Act.

Zero Capital Gains Taxes on Key Investments in Small Businesses

•   Capital gains taxes have been fully eliminated on certain small business stock – providing an incentive for key investments in small businesses.

The Recovery Act excluded 75 percent of capital gains from the sale of certain small business investments held more than five years. The Small Business Jobs Act went one step further – excluding all capital gains from these investments in 2010 after the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act from taxes.” (SBDC.gov)

http://www.enloop.com/blog/small_business_spotlight_davidson_films

The site page continues in listing nine other tax break or credit benefits as part of its “Fact Sheet: Tax Breaks for Small Businesses.”  So what’s the correlation?  Filmmaking is a business.  Each new film is, in essence, a brand new start-up small business, with the producer acting as lead entrepreneur.  Both take risk, and both suffer from a high rate of failure.  According to statistics, 96% of small business start-ups fail within the first year.  Only half of the left over 4% survive more than four years.  Alexander Malyshev, Former editor of Media Law & Policy wrote, “Put simply, most films lose money, but nevertheless hundreds of films are produced each year – almost in defiance of the laws of supply and demand.”  He’s referring to the roughly 600 films of which only a handful generates big-ticket success.  A little over 500,000 small businesses are registered every year.  96% of that is… 480,000, leaving a ‘handful’ still in existence.  Wisconsin Commerce Deputy Secretary Aaron Oliver says the number of jobs generated by film production is finite. “[It is the] ‘least effective’ economic tool… if we had to choose, we could get one full-time job on a film for one year or we could get twenty factory jobs that might last for 20 years.”  Our present economic reality says different.  To argue that the opportunity cost for government spending on film tax credits is a non-productive use can be applied just the same to small business ventures, given the rate of failure.  When 96% of start-ups fail after the first year, why shouldn’t the same employees of those failed businesses join up with a film crew that comes into town?  Their ‘job security’ will be about the same. 

Still… there are more accountability measures that keep small businesses responsible than there are for film productions.  I agree with Robyn in that the budgetary treatments of film incentives should be more transparent. However, I do not agree with Robyn that film credits should be lumped into education and public health spending categories.   Instead, registrations and answerability measures should be emplaced if filmmakers are to seek tax breaks.  I think a major factor in film revenue failures is that filmmakers do not treat the production as a business.  They do not value it enough as a product by which money is made.  A major factor of success in business includes not only money and crew, but also education, experience and a reason – or purpose.  Filmmakers would do well to learn something about business and how to plan for long term revenue goals ­in addition to cinematography, casting and craft service.  But how do you measure the intangible, or as OCU’s economist Kyle Dean says, “an inexact science?”  Implement tax liabilities and assign risk premiums based on track records of producers and production companies.  Then maybe filmmakers will think twice about pouring state money into a love-child film. 

There is nothing wrong with taking risk when creating art, just like there is nothing wrong with giving your best shot at starting your own business.  It’s the American Dream.  But there is something wrong with misusing taxpayers’ dollars.  That I can agree on.  It doesn’t help anybody to fuel the growing assumption that all film producers are solely interested in chasing the biggest and most lucrative tax incentive.  It also doesn’t help to argue predominantly on the ‘glamour’ factor that films bring to varying states.  In my opinion, that comes from a weak and condescending attitude.  Argue instead that you, as a filmmaker, are an entrepreneur.  Therein lies the entitlement to state and government support – just like a small business.  The clout and respect will come – only if you treat it like a business.