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.

"It's Not About You"

Negotiations occur every day.  Sometimes we negotiate with ourselves over simple tasks like going the gym in the morning, in the evening or not at all.  Cost-benefit analysis of each decision is usually based on preset goals and commitments.  When two parties negotiate, they ideally work towards mutual gain within a proposed project.  Knowing yourself and knowing your project from the outset sets the tone by determining direction and focus. When interviewed, Jenna Edwards, Producer of the film, “April Showers,” and Producing Advisor for The Film Method podcast, spoke about the importance of also knowing with whom you are negotiating. “Know your investor.  What do they want out of this project?  Are they the right fit for the project?  Look at it from their point of view.  What is their ultimate goal?”  Still, clearly defining what the project is and where it is going takes precedence.  But if either party does not understand or see the project’s vision, an end decision cannot be effectively met. 

5th Element scene: Negotiation

Film productions often involve heightened emotions.  Many of the projects are personal in nature, and new filmmakers have a strong desire to land their “big break.”  But these elements have a tendency to cloud deal-making discussions.  You may have a well-known industry talent sitting in front of you, but if they aren’t the right fit for the project, it’s better to walk away than succumb to the emotions of the moment.  Instead, focus should rest on the interests of the project rather than the positions of parties involved.  Jenna advises filmmakers to follow their gut. “It’s not worth it if the deal doesn’t benefit the project.  You want to build on integrity first.  Trust your instinct.” Roger Fisher writes in Beyond Reason, “The difference between having a core concern ignored or met can be as important as having your nose underwater or above it.”  Building the wrong team on the wrong terms not only creates future hassles, but also increases the likelihood for conflict down the road.  Each party comes to the table with individual roles, goals and expectations, which should be respected with equality and autonomy, but deciding what is best for the project is paramount.  It can make the difference between the success and the failure of a film.

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.

Crowdfund in 30 Seconds: The New Wave “Elevator Pitch”

Over the past 5+ years, ambitioning creatives and entrepreneurs have sought funding through a historically different platform.  In 2008, Time Magazine titled the method ‘crowdfunding.’  Being that it’s not a new development, floods of campaigners have cast their nets widely and indiscriminately.  Unfortunately this creates glut, distracting backers from finding serious projects worthy of contribution.  So how does one grab attention quickly and effectively?  It happens in the first 30 seconds.  Kissmetrics presents an infographic detailing the importance of a well-crafted video. The first 30 seconds of any video set the tone and answer the question, “Why should I keep watching this?  Why should I care?”  I bring up video in conjunction with crowdsourcing because you cannot reach your full potential without it.  Plain and Simple.  A video is essential to your crowdfunding success.  It’s kind of like online dating.  The ones who haven’t posted a picture are quickly, if not instantly through search criteria, filtered out.  It’s not important how I know this, only that I do.  Let’s just say that I’ve done my research.

‘Net surfers lack the patience for long, drawn out introductions and pitch feeds. If a campaign doesn’t grab within the first 30 seconds, the audience will move on.  This doesn’t mean a campaign isn’t any good, but that the package lacked attractive wrapping and alluring accouterments - not to be mistaken with frippery or ostentatious adornment.  But the invitation for contribution must be palatable and savory, at best.  It’s the first thing backers see.  You only have one chance to make a first impression, and so it better be solid – it better be good.  Here are some “goodness” rules of thumb:

1.   Pick the Right Platform.

Some of the crowdfunding sites out there are: Kickstarter, IndieGoGo, Kiva, Peerbackers, ChipIn, Sellaband, and Pledgemusic, to name a few.  Each has its own unique niche. For example, Kickstarter leads the pack with over $100 million in contributions towards filmmaking alone. Peerbackers was created to help business owners garner funds for startup or expansion costs, and Kiva works intercontinentally with microloans to “help people create better lives for themselves and their families.” In theory, all three could be tapped for, say, a documentary on the effects of Kiva, empowered by a newly created small business venture.  But Nicole Fende on a podcast called, “SmallBizFinance,” suggests narrowly focusing your campaign and driving it forward through strong marketing strategies.  It’s important to research which option will be the right fit for right now.  Start with one platform and diversify later, if need be.

2.   Research Other Campaigns (competition).

There are 42 pages of campaigns on Peerbackers; 5 categories of film and video on Kickstarter; and Sellaband has helped over 80 artists or groups through more than $4 million from investors.  Crowdfunding is a big deal – and a successful one at that.  Know what you are up against.  Listen, watch and research what already exists or has achieved success.  The only way to stand out is to know where you stand – and what stands next to you.

3.   Script. Plan. Practice. Polish.

The newness of the platform does not negate the need for quality and detail.  Developing your presentation is no different than preparing a pitch.  Gordon Firemark of Entertainment Law Update reiterates the importance of preparation and due-diligence, saying:

“I am often consulted by film and stage producers who tell me they are ready to start work on raising the financing for their films/ plays/ musicals, or what-have-you, but often as not, as we get to work, it becomes clear that they’re not as ready as they think.” (Firemark, 2012)

Package yourself for success.  Assuming you take yourself and your project serious, treat the preparation of your campaign the same.  Remember: first impressions will never happen again.  Get it right the first time.

Additional Links of Interest:

Sen. Brown Law Proposal:

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/11/scott-brown-next-steve-jobs/2/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=Previous

Craig Newman: Crowdfunding fraud??

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/12/crowdfunding-big-thing-fraud/

Nat.l Endowment for the Arts:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/the-nea-responds-to-kickstarter-funding-debate.php

Film Crowdfunding Success:

http://www.boiseweekly.com/Cobweb/archives/2012/03/01/crowdfunding-responsible-for-31-films-at-austin-festival

Entrepreneur Magazine “How To”:

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/222813

Five Successful Crowdfunding Campaigns:

http://exclaim.ca/Features/Spark/five_successful_crowdfunding_campaigns

Small Business Trends:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2011/04/small-business-financing-sec-eases-crowdfunding-regulations.html

Ode to the Athenian Philosophers

Dear TEDtalks.  Oh how I wish I could say you are both enlightening and inspiring to me, but I cannot.  There is nothing ground breaking or revolutionary about your initiative (i.e. the term “accelerated innovation”), as all I could think about when watching your videos were the competitions hosted by Socrates and Plato during the reign of the Roman Empire.  The only difference is the forum for exhibition is a digital one.  I will say I was impressed with Christopher Makau: a man who organized a TED event in the Kibera Slums of Kenya.  I also identified with the words of Gale Tzemach Lemmon in her speech about women entrepreneurs being the example - not the exception.  Still, I struggled to sit through enough videos to find a topic I could find my own heart in.  Maybe it’s because I’m more inclined to watch American Film Institute interviews, or “Behind the Scenes” vignettes included as part of DVD supplemental materials.  And maybe it’s a matter of taste, not preferring to sit through pontifications of budding orators presenting established thoughts and ideas as if they were brand new.  It’s harsh.  I know.  But what is a blog roll without a little honest opining?

I prefer humble, private discussions with leaders in my favored industry – directors like Sydney Pollack.  Here’s a man who is totally unassuming, yet a genius when it comes to interpreting the life of humanity through film.  Director Shekhar Kapur spoke in a TED event on how we are the stories we tell ourselves, and I appreciated that.  But the format for delivery is not for my taste.  Give me a two-camera shoot with the subject and interviewer sitting in a private den or study, talking about the simple geniuses of every day life – not as if they are new discoveries, but in a place of respect and reverence.  I don’t need all the trappings of elaborate set design and hoards of enamored people.  Let the films, the work of these greats speak for themselves.  

“By their fruits ye shall know them.” 

Florida Film Connections for Women (and Men)

http://www.womeninfilmfl.org/

Florida is not Los Angeles, and it is not New York.  But that doesn’t stop Florida’s film industry from growing increasingly stronger with the years.  Florida ranks as one of the top three states for tax incentives and, according to the Orlando Business Journal, follows only Louisiana and Illinois.   Additionally, statewide resources well-justify the tax benefits and rebates available to filmmakers.  Renovated in 2010 and located in Sarasota, the Florida Sound Stage touts 20,000 sq. ft. of open space with power coming from three locations. There are almost 60 local film festivals listed in “Film in Florida’s” website, and trade organizations including the Screen Actors Guild, Teamsters and the Writer’s Guild have chapters throughout the state.  One notable chapter is the Women In Film & Television, Florida.  Women In Film was founded in 1973 to represent women in all disciplines of film and television.  In 1989 the WIFT-FL  was established with the goal of increasing and promoting more film work throughout the state – for both women and men.  In concert with both the tax benefits and resources that Florida has, Women in Film stands as a formidable connection point of empowerment.  Joining the WIFT adds nodes of contact by helping members hone skills, expand influence, and enhance careers through mentorship and a supportive network of professionals.  Sponsors enable outreach programs, and association committees represent the organization throughout the community.  WIFT-FL uniquely joins advocacy with 40 other chapters around the world in promoting equality and productivity. Under the umbrella of the Women In Film organization of Los Angeles, filmmakers in Florida can connect through the parent organization’s various programs, classes and competitions.  Mentorship is a key factor of success in any industry, but imperative in the field of film.  As a highly competitive career path, trying to be the lone wolf is suicide – especially in Florida.  Although tax incentives and resources continue to draw talent to the East Coast of America, Hollywood still stands as the loudest voice of cinema.  If filmmakers want to “make it” in the industry, finding some clout to lean on is a necessity.  The Women in Film & Television, Florida appears to be a viable and reliable resource existing for that very purpose.