Filmmaking — A Filmmaker's Journey

Indie Film Distribution – A Way Forward

January 5, 2012 By admin 9 Comments

By many accounts, it would appear that the old system is dead or at least in intensive care with an undertaker on call. “What system is that”, I hear you ask. We all know it so well, the filmmaker’s dream or fantasy. Make your ultra low budget movie with friends and anyone else you can rope in. Finish it out, submit to festivals, win prizes, get a distributor, land a movie deal and another lucrative career as filmmaker is launched. It would appear that’s not happening much these days and perhaps the reason is plain to see. The multiplex has now become almost exclusively a big budget arena, which means films put into distribution through them require massive spend on prints and marketing in order to ensure a return. So a distribution spend of tens of millions on a low budget indie film of 100K is what you’re looking at and the people with the money have become risk averse. That will always happen in a recession. So we know the old system is dead, the problem is the new system for low budget indies has not yet been born.

The strange thing is that the tools are in place. For very little money, you can assemble camera, lights, sound equipment and the channels of distribution have also materialised like iTunes, Amazon download and Netflix and even Youtube. But how do you fund that initial budget to kick things off. Of course we have crowd sourcing sites like Fundit and Kickstarter where you can begin to build a buzz and audience for your film and more importantly a budget, but can you really build a business model where your funding relies on donations. Indeed the real question is can you build a business around low budget movies. Roger Corman once boasted that he never lost money on any film he ever made, but what’s often missed about the iconic indie is that he was first and foremost an excellent businessman.

Many filmmakers are pondering these very same questions and will openly admit that as yet they haven’t come up with a bullet proof business plan, but they’re working on it. A recent article in the LA Times titled “Indie director Ed Burns is betting on video-on-demand”, explores the same question.

“The audience that loves independent films have stopped going to the theaters,” said Burns. “There are a couple of reasons for that. It is tougher for smaller movies to get a spot at the multiplex next to all the big-budget Hollywood blockbusters and the specialty theaters that feature independent movies are becoming fewer and fewer during these tough economic times.”

Burns, who made his mark with the independent features ”The Brothers McMullen” and “She’s the One.” has been something of a pioneer when it comes to experimenting with new means of distribution. In 2007, he released his romantic comedy “Purple Violets” exclusively through iTunes.

Now he’s focused on video-on-demand. Last year, he self-financed and released “Nice Guy Johnny” on VOD as well as his new low-budget movie “Newlyweds,” about a recently married couple whose lives are disrupted by the appearance of a volatile relative, which will debut Dec. 26.

“Newlyweds” will then have a small theatrical run in January in Chicago and San Francisco. But the director doesn’t anticipate that his film will have much of a life in cinemas.

For Burns, VOD is the safer bet.

“The economics of a theatrical release for these films just doesn’t make any sense. All of the indie distribution companies will tell you theatrical is a loss leader,” Burns explained, adding, “The amount of money you have to spend marketing these films is insane.”

Burns said “Nice Guy Johnny” was profitable for him. “This is not a business model where you are making millions of dollars, but you are making really healthy robust six-figure numbers.”

The budget for “Newlyweds” was only about $100,000, according to Burns. “Everybody works for free on the film, but everybody owns a piece of the pie, it’s like an indie rock band approach.” Better technology helps too.

“Digital cameras have gotten to the place where you can shoot with a three-man crew and available light and get a great-looking film,” he said.”You don’t have to have films that look like little art house indies.”

“Newlyweds” is being sold for $6.99 via On Demand, the video-on-demand service available through most major cable and satellite operators. Burns said if “Newlyweds” can bring in between $500,000 and $900,000 it will be a “very healthy profit.”

Another guy attempting to answer the same questions is Jason Brubaker, an LA based producer. On his website you’ll find a podcast where he explores some possible answers. Jason believes the way forward might be as follows. Create a studio with a slate of at least 5 films. Put in place a development department, production, marketing, sales etc. Then go after investment with a strong business plan, the emphasis on web distribution and long tail economics. Crucially you also involve the people working in the company in a profit share system as Ed Burns outlined in his plan. I like this structure which he will openly admit is still in development because it moves the activity of filmmaking squarely into the business arena. But of course it raises the obvious question and that is, how attracted would the investment community be in such a proposition. To be honest I don’t know, but time will tell.

This prince isn’t quite ready to be born yet, but the King is dead, long live the King.

Filed Under: Filmmaking

A Way Back!

June 23, 2011 By admin 6 Comments

It doesn’t seem that long ago the last time I came across a Sunday supplement asking “where has it all gone wrong for Irish film?” or in this case stating “we made fine films once” in the Sunday Times recently. While the statement has the hard core of truth about it, the article is a little short on any meaningful analysis. It is true that since the various triumphs’ of Neil Jordan and Jim Sheridan in the 80′s and 90′s and beyond, no Irish filmmakers since have found it possible to pave a similarly successful path.

There can be a lot of reasons for that and the truth is probably a combination of many. Is it limited talent, lack of scale in our stories as Ted Sheehy suggests or the market place has become very competitive as Birch Hamilton of the Screen Directors Guild claims? Like I said, all of the above are factors, but to truly address the problem, for problem it is, open and honest discourse within the industry and indeed between the industry and the audience is a must. Not for the first time have I come across this statement or similar from other articles.

“The reasons are deep and manifold (for the decline of Irish film) and getting people to talk about them is like interviewing establishment economists in the property boom: (and then the author’s projection of why that might be) they are afraid to admit there is a problem in case the whole edifice collapses.”

When has any problem ever been solved by sticking heads in sand. By and large that’s not a strategy that’s going to give results, particularly because the hard questions will be asked again and again if for no other reason than film-making is a subsidised activity and the hard pressed tax payer is footing the bill. Obfuscation and three card tricks are not going to do it for much longer.

I attended the Irish Playwrights and Screenwriters Guild AGM recently which James Hickey, the new IFB CEO attended by way of introducing himself to writers. He cited the problem of our daily language being English as a serious impediment to box office numbers. This is a problem in English speaking Canada and Australia where a distributor told him he would find it easier to sell the new Irish film “The Guard” than any locally produced films.

There are many problems for sure, but perhaps we should address those things we can do something about. Not a lot can be done about the language we speak or that our films must compete with huge productions with even bigger marketing spend. Like any small fry in any eco system, we’ve got to get smart.

And that comes down to our unique selling point, what is it an Irish film can offer an Irish and indeed worldwide audience that films from no other country can. For me that comes down to relevance. It is in this area that countless filmmakers from around the world found success and it can be done here too. That does not mean to say we can only make art films or kitchen sink dramas, on the contrary stories vested in a time and place, reflecting a snapshot of ourselves, can be told in any genre from black comedy to drama to horror and yes even thriller. (Hidden Agenda – Ken Loach).

The recent box office success of “The Guard” has proven yet again that there is an audience for Irish films. On my way into the local cinema recently I overheard one young woman say to another as she pointed to a poster of “The Guard”….”that one…..the guard, I heard it’s funny! To which the reply from her friend was, “no thanks…..I don’t like Irish films”. Irish film, like everything else in this world is a brand. It takes a long time to build up and can be damaged over time with mediocre offerings to the silver screen Gods.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Screenwriting

Consuming Moving Images

May 15, 2011 By admin 1 Comment

According to an article in the Los Angeles Times recently, cinema attendance is significantly down. I believe the same is true for our domestic market. I live in Kilkenny, Ireland which is a town (a city by Royal Charter going way back let it be said) of about 25,000 people. Those who know me are aware of my constant gripe about how badly served we are, cinema wise which is a four screen cineplex. Cinema owners are business people first and will therefore show the latest 3D FX driven star vehicle ahead of lesser ticket selling, though perhaps more thought provoking low budget fare. But there’s a problem, that which used to pull the punters, no longer is. At least not in the numbers from only a year previous.

Up until recently, we had two DVD rental stores in town then one of them closed, even after having diversified into gaming, mobile phones and internet access. That store was an indie, what’s left is a store from a nationwide chain – Xtravision, which apparently has its own debt problems. I decided to rent The Black Swan on its DVD release, but when I got to the store, they had all been rented. A whole night had been planned around watching this film and there I was left empty handed. I took myself off to HMV and bought the Blu-ray version because I got a copy for my iPod as a bonus. But the point is, I was quite prepared to buy rather than be inconvenienced by yet another night of unavailability. The Social Network was unavailable to rent for an entire week. Now I can also download from iTunes and that’s great but here’s the thing, I don’t want to wait in future and more than likely will buy or download before I even check if it’s available for rent. The rental store is a model that’s dying, like the VHS tape, it’s had it’s day.

While my demographic is finding the cineplex a wasteland for good films, networks like HBO are stepping into the breach with some excellent dramas. But even there I will much sooner wait to see reviews and catch the buzz on these things before spending God knows how many hours following before concluding that it’s not for me. If I subsequently hear that something is worth watching, I’ll buy the box set. I guess that means that time is more precious to me than money, but isn’t it for all of us?

How we watch, what we watch and when we watch it is in flux right now and will probably remain so for a number of years to come. That’s not such a bad thing when you think about it. When producers fight for your viewership, be it on cinema screens, TV, PC, iPod or whatever, quality will most probably win the battle. Or is that just a little naive?

But this is where it gets interesting, as predicted by Chris Anderson in a Fora.tv video in 2006. Long Tail economics are now kicking in at an accelerated pace. This has to mean enormous potential and opportunity now for low budget independent films, because it is now possible to chart a business model that will sustain that activity, without endless reliance on either state funding or for that matter crowd funding. Like everything else in the market place, if what you produce is good, it can now sell.

Filed Under: Filmmaking

Irish Film Board – Transition in a changed World

February 16, 2011 By admin 7 Comments

A time of transition invites us to look back and assess the accomplishments of an outgoing incumbent’s time in office and also to look forward and ponder what a new office holder will do differently or better. Simon Perry spent 5 years as CEO of the Irish Film Board and it is perhaps premature to measure his achievements or otherwise. For the first year or two of Simon’s tenure, many projects which came to fruition would have been initiated by his predecessor Mark Woods and equally, many projects initiated by Simon will not reach screens for perhaps the next year or two. Nonetheless, part of the process of moving forward is glancing in the rear view mirror and that will happen in due course.

So I began to think about a wish list, if I were to be asked about what changes I would suggest to better serve Irish filmmakers, tax payers and audience (the stakeholders), what would I come up with. There’s one overriding fact we have to bear in mind right now and that is that our country is bankrupt, so doing things the way we always did them is not an option. We have to do things better, more cost effectively, more transparently and with a lot more accountability and of course make films that attract an audience. The Irish Film Board will receive something in excess of €15 million this year while at the same time people are going hungry, doing without heating in their homes many of which will be repossessed and essential services are vanishing.

1. Transparency and Accountability

The application process lacks transparency, that’s not just my view, but the view of many who engage with the process. I suggest firstly that it should be a process that more closely resembles how the industry at large works. In other words it begins with a pitch, followed by a treatment/synopsis, followed by more treatments, followed by a script followed by production support. I doubt there are many bad ideas, just ideas in need of development and that costs time and money. The process in place right now lacks engagement and a process of advancement and development, you either gain support from an application, or you don’t. It should also be possible to pitch projects to both a development and production panel (particularly for those projects which are significantly advanced).

Which brings me to the second point. The decisions on applications lack transparency, in fact those decisions when they arrive are not even accompanied by readers reports, they have to be subsequently requested. To counter these problems, I suggest as a model the competency based assessment system. It’s a selection process used by many organisations to select new employees as well as candidates for internal promotion and it works like this. A set of competencies are set down as the baseline for candidates. All applicants must put forward in writing where and how they believe they have demonstrated each competency. An interview follows whereby these examples are explored and a clear and open scoring system is employed from which the strongest candidates emerge. The interview panel is also comprised of internal and external personnel. Naturally this process begins with short listing adhering to clear criteria. Those who have been unsuccessful in gaining support will at least begin to see their own shortcomings and can choose to address them.

And finally on the point of accountability, it’s not acceptable that box office and ancillary distribution results are not made public. Any film project which receives tax payer’s money should be open to interrogation in terms of its finances and return on investment.

2. Drop Budgets – Make more Films

I have a theory and it is this. The more films you make the more likely it is that talent will emerge. For that to happen, budgets have to drop. There’s no reason why 12 films at a budget of €100K and 12 films at €250K could not be made in a year. That’s 24 films at a cost of €4.2M. Don’t get hung up on the numbers, the essential point is this. There has been an abundance of examples, both here and abroad and indeed some initiated by IFB, that have been very successful micro budget films. From Ken Wardrope’s “His & Hers” and JohnCarney’s “Once” to Gareth Edwards “Monsters” ($15,000) and many more.

3. Subsidise Cinema Tickets

In virtually every other market, products are priced according to their perceived value to the consumer. For some reason that commercial imperative does not apply to film and more specifically the cineplex. No matter what film you choose to see, the cost of your ticket is exactly the same. IFB do have a scheme whereby a film can apply to have it’s distribution costs diminished by way of a grant, in some cases I believe up to €70K. The flaw in this plan is that if an audience fails to show up, the money is gone, never to return. So here’s an idea, use that money to sub vent the cost of every ticket sold so that now the punter has the option of a low cost ticket to see a low budget film. If the audience don’t show up, the cinema will pull the film and no one’s worse off. Perhaps these films run only during the day and God knows unfortunately we have many thousands of people with no paid activity in that time. The French do this by way of a tax on foreign (Hollywood) films and it works.

4. RTE – IFB Alliance

Although Mike Leigh is now recognised as an internationally successful filmmaker, the fact is that after his first feature film Bleak Moments, he didn’t make another film for the cinema for another 17 years. In common with contemporaries like Stephen Frears and Alan Parker , he was able to polish his craft in television with a multitude of standout dramas. In Ireland we have two state bodies, RTE and IFB, yet there seems to be little if any cross pollination and that is perplexing and frustrating. Conor McPherson’s most recent film Eclipse got its first outing, even prior to a cinema screening, on RTE (a condition I believe of their financial participation). Whatever the fortunes of this film at the international box office (understandably there was no Irish cinema release), in terms of getting an audience, I guess this film may have achieved anything between two and three hundred thousand of an audience, far in excess of what could be dreamt of at the home box office. An audience is an audience.

5. Funding for Board Members

Perception is the driving force for a lot of change today. Last weekend we had the future Taoiseach Enda Kenny renouncing his teacher’s pension for exactly this reason. What was acceptable 5 years ago, no longer can be. If industry practitioners who are not in a position to forgo IFB funding for the duration of their tenure cannot be found (i.e. taking a sabbatical, or returning to study etc), then it may be time to find individuals from outside the industry to sit on the board. This is no revolutionary idea, many boards, state and otherwise are occupied by people who have no participation in the sector of the organisation they serve. On the other hand, perhaps the remedy is to significantly shorten the term of service. There is a system in Belgium I think where film makers are taken on a rolling basis to advise the fund. The term is quite short (6 to 12 months) and with a small stipend has the benefit of a constant stream of fresh thinking and gives the film making community a sense of being part of the system rather than being on the outside looking in. This is perhaps a preferable solution to the question.

6. IFB Open Days

This point ties into two things, communication and accountability. Filmmakers and screenwriters need to be very clear as to the kind of projects IFB will and will not support and why. At the same time, filmmakers should have regular opportunity to inform IFB about the kind of films they want to make. This should be a continually evolving position and therefore a website policy statement is insufficient. If, once every two or three months, an open day was held when filmmakers, screenwriters and IFB personnel could interact informally together with policy announcements, Q&A session etc. I believe this could be very beneficial for all.

7. Online Interactivity

This is an idea which was suggested at an IFB gig in Galway well over 5 years ago. Since then we’ve had Web 2.0 where web interaction is the name of the game. I know IFB have a Facebook page and Twitter account, but these are only used as announcement platforms, rather than what they were designed for, i.e. building and interacting with a community. The web technologies now exist to enable regular and vibrant interaction between IFB and Irish filmmakers on the IFB website. Yes we can all go to Filmmakers Network and that is very welcome, but from what I can see, there is no IFB participation on this forum, so the conversation is taking place on one side of the street.

8. Reduce Admin Costs

No doubt, this will be a demand of whichever Government minister takes control of the parent department and rightly so. I think the running costs of IFB is something in the region of €2.4M. I feel sure there are numerous ways of significantly reducing this and I wonder in a small country, if there is a justification for two offices which have now drawn a lot closer due to a state of the art motor-way.

9. Statement of Vision and Intent from new CEO

The new CEO James Hickey will take up his full time position on 1st June. From the perspective of a filmmaker who will be seeking support for various projects, I need to know in very clear terms what is the vision and intent of IFB for the next five years which will to a large extent be determined by the CEO in conjunction with the board. The sooner this happens the better and I’m not sure it can wait until the summer. Whether you agree or not with the vision expressed, at the very least you will have a clear idea – is my project meeting with or counter to it.

10. Cut off point for Filmmakers

In a time of limited resources, it is essential that as many aspirants as possible get support to make their mark. It therefore follows that there must be a cut off point where a conclusion is reached, that despite several funding initiatives, a filmmaker has failed to connect with an audience. In this set of circumstances, a decision will have to made in terms of no further funding in favour of supporting someone new. Of course it’s not possible to be black and white on this issue, nonetheless it would also serve to engender a culture of “upping your game”.

And finally I would like to wish James Hickey the best of luck in his new post. The Irish film industry has enormous potential to benefit the Irish economy both directly and indirectly. This I believe can be best achieved by doing things better, more cost effectively and with greater participation of the principle stakeholders – the filmmakers.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Irish Film and TV Drama Tagged With: film funding, filmmaking, IFB, irish film board

The King’s Speech – A triumph of filmmaking

January 4, 2011 By admin Leave a Comment

Take a man and give him a seemingly insurmountable problem, pile on the pressure until finally he stands victorious and you have the the baseline of many films too numerous to mention. Film heroes from James Bond to Indiana Jones to Rocky have all trodden a similar path – and yet “The King’s Speech” is a triumph and well deserving of all its plaudits, not least the 12 Oscar nominations for this reason. It is different in so many other ways. And what is breathtakingly refreshing about this movie is it doesn’t try to assault the senses, on the contrary, like a fine wine, it’s allowed to breath and envelope you in its consummate craftsmanship.

The story it tells is a factual one about the ascent of King George VI (Colin Firth) to the English throne on the death of his father King George V (Michael Gambon) and the abdication of his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) who wishes to marry an American divorcee Wallace Simpson. The film opens as Bertie (King George VI to be) attempts to make a speech to a crowd in Wembley Stadium at the Empire Exhibition of 1925 and is defeated by his crippling stammer. His loving and loyal wife the Duchess of York (Helena Bonham Carter) feels her husband’s pain and tries to make eye contact with him to infuse him with her support. Believing someone somewhere has the knowledge to help the Prince, she finally meets Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a self styled Australian speech therapist who honed his craft at the coal face of shell shocked WW1 vets, but as he admits himself, possesses no doctorate or letters after his name. An uneasy trust builds between these two unlikeliest of friends, royal and commoner as the events of history unfold and Lionel tries to get Bertie to recognise that the root of his problem is fear of his father and his brother. This angers Bertie when Lionel pushes his point that he would make an excellent King should his brother abdicate and a short break in their friendship follows. But as his coronation approaches Bertie concedes and seeks Lionel’s help once again. I love the moment when Lionel’s wife comes into her sitting room and finds there the Queen of England helping herself to a cup of tea and in walks the King leaving her completely speechless.

It’s a simple tale about a revered monarch beset by a crippling stammer. The worse thing about a speech impediment is that it lays bare to the world that which we all work hard to conceal and to a large extent succeed and that is our fear. Worse still is the apparently universal fear of public speaking. There’s a very touching moment when the King’s wife finds him trying to come to grips with his new enormous responsibilities as King as he pours over state documents. He breaks down under this weight and is comforted by his wife who reveals that she turned down his proposal of marriage twice, not because she didn’t love him, but rather she didn’t relish the life of a royal. But she tells Bertie he has such a beautiful stammer and had hoped they would be left alone because of it. The film is peppered with beautiful, quiet and personal moments between the King and Lionel also. When the monarch tells him he doesn’t know how to thank him for his help, Lionel prompts “a knighthood” with a mischievous grin.

But war with Hitler’s Germany brings this film to it’s conclusion as Britain declares war and the King makes his speech to his subjects over radio, recognising the horrors and loss that awaits them. This is a speech where he is determined to sound resolute and yet empathetic to the people. And once again, with the coaching of Lionel in a private booth, he rises to the occassion and infuses his listeners with courage and hope to see them through the coming trial. What is touching to see is that, powerful and wealthy though the King of England may be, nonetheless he draws strength and inspiration from the same well we all do, family and close friends. Quite simply filmmaking in its purest form, fine script, great performances and impeccable direction.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Screenwriting, Uncategorized Tagged With: The King's Speech

Christmas, Ireland and the IMF

November 21, 2010 By admin 3 Comments

“It was the worst of times, it was the best of times”. So began one of Charles Dickens’s greatest novels – “A Tale of Two Cities”. Depending on your point of view, the arrival of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into our country this week most likely provokes one of the two sentiments expressed in the title of the 1859 novel. Personally speaking, it engenders both seemingly contradictory judgements, but I spout enough about that on Twitter. Story wise, I began thinking about the whole concept of intervention and how it’s reflected in the saga’s we tell on screen. Like everything else, there are many forms of intervention, good, bad and indifferent, from marauding aliens invading our planet to spiritual beings taking a hand in our lives to avert disaster. In ancient Greek drama, when a play became too convoluted to tie up neatly at the end, a concept known as “Deus Ex Machina” was employed to speedily resolve everything. Essentially, a God or emissary of God would descend, make pronouncements as to who was right and wrong, good triumphed over evil and everyone went home happy. Today this weapon in the arsenal of storytelling is roundly dismissed and unless employed correctly from the beginning of a story, rightly so. But there’s something about that idea of a superior being arriving on the scene to fix everything that is universally comforting. The apparitions in Knock Co. Mayo a century ago, is a prime Irish example of that – a poverty stricken, hungry and ignorant people were perfect candidates for such an intervention, giving if not real sustenance, at least hope in the bleakest of landscapes.

Christmas is a time of the year when we all become children in many ways, but in one way in particular which is often overlooked. Every year we do the same things, listen to the same songs and Carols and to a large extent, watch the same movies. Two of which movies are prime examples of interventionist stories – “Scrooge” or “A Christmas Carol” and “It’s a Wonderful Life.” How many festive seasons have we spent fighting back a lump in our throats as George Bailey stands in his living room surrounded by family and friends as we all are brought to realise the truly important things in life have no monetary cost, yet are priceless, or when Ebenezer Scrooge pays an unexpected visit to Bob Cratchit’s poverty stricken humble abode on Christmas Day, laden down with presents for all. “It’s a Wonderful Life” is an epic tale of a man not realising how happy or how lucky he was. His guardian angel Clarence sets out to rectify this in a wonderfully absorbing story. “A Chrsitmas Carol” on the other hand tells the story of a man consumed by money at the expense of all human warmth. Again it is supernatural beings who set about putting Scrooge straight on a few things. And Dickens was one of the first novelists to point out in his work, that the well off and privileged in our society had a duty of care to those less fortunate.

Perhaps that other dimension does stand ready to help us in dark times but, like the IMF, they can only do so by invitation. What a pity it is that at a time when numbers have never been as low in our churches as they are today, when fear and hopelessness stalk thousands of family homes across this island, when apparent prosperity convinced us all that money and credit could solve all problems, when very intelligent minds were telling us that the awesomeness and spectacular grandeur of the universe could be explained without the concept of a God, that it is now that we could do with all the intervention we can get. Some wonder why the Irish people haven’t taken to the streets en masse. My theory is this. We are used to betrayal, is there anyone left who hasn’t betrayed us, the church, the state, the banks, the institutions, the politicians, it goes on. We should expect better for ourselves, we should demand better for our children. We should take control of our destiny as a nation. I would like to quote Charles Parnell here: “No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country: thus far shall thou go and no further”. So many have betrayed the march of this nation, it is up to us to decide whether that continues, or not.

People need hope and maybe that’s why the greatest interventionist story of them all, the story Hollywood called “The Greatest Story Ever Told” the story of what Christmas is all about will offer renewed hope and vision to a betrayed people.

So I offer an early Happy Christmas to all.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Screenwriting Tagged With: bailout, christmas stories, imf, international monetary fund, it's a wonderful life

I Wanna Go Home!

November 12, 2010 By admin Leave a Comment

I’ve taken to watching films I’ve seen before, I know we all do that, but it’s interesting to see if they stand up many years after release. So last night I watched Martin Scorcese’s 1985 film “After Hours” with Griffin Dunn, Teri Garr, John Heard, Rosanna Arquette and Linda Fiorentino. In the script writing manuals, they all agree on one thing, give your protagonist a compelling goal, otherwise your audience will have little interest. In this wonderful movie, which incidentally stands up very well after 25 years, the central character Paul Hackett’s (Griffin Dunn) only goal is to get back home.

Early on a conversation takes place in a diner where Paul and his date Marcy (Arquette) discuss their favourite movie “The Wizard of Oz” and it’s plain to see how this movie was inspired by it. So obviously a compelling goal doesn’t have to be “stopping the maniac who is about to destroy all of mankind”, getting home to your bed works just fine. Films from “The Wizard of Oz” to “It’s a Wonderful Life” to “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” to “Apollo 13″ to “Gladiator” all share this simple yet powerful premise – “I want to get home” . What’s also interesting about this film is that there is no plot, not in the traditional sense. Sure a lot of things happen to the central character all working against his mission to get home, but they are merely isolated incidents, not a continuous, progressive narrative (more than once the incongruous events loop back on themselves) where if you pulled out one scene, the whole thing would collapse, not so and in that sense, very much akin to life.

The events in “After Hours” are contrived and unbelievable at times, but then that’s OK because if Paul’s experiences in the Upper East side of Manhattan in the wee hours of the morning, were any less than nightmarish, we wouldn’t share his hunger for home. Paul works in a large office, not only carrying out mundane repetitive computer input work, but also training a new employee Lloyd (Bronson Pinchot). Lloyd shares his dream of publishing his own magazine with Paul, who distractedly observes the office drones around him. We know what he’s thinking – “There’s got to be something better than this. But he knows and we know that Lloyd will never become a publisher, because he will never do anything about it. That night, bored in his apartment, Paul sits reading a book in a local diner and is engaged in conversation by Marcy (Arquette). On leaving, she gives Paul the phone number of her friend, who’s loft she is now leaving for. Back in his apartment, Paul has had enough of taking no action, calls the number and unexpectedly finds himself once again talking to Marcy. She invites him to the loft and Paul sets out on his surreal odyssey. Hailing a Yellow Cab, he climbs in and finds himself battling the forces of physics as the cab speeds and swerves it’s way across town. His only 20 dollar bill flies out the window and he’s forced to welch on the fare to the consternation of the cabbie.

Paul finds the loft where Kiki (Linda Fiorentino) is working on a paper-maché sculpture in her black bra and leather mini-skirt. Marcy arrives back from the drug store having purchased (Paul surreptitiously learns) a tube of ointment for 2nd degree burns. They go out for coffee where the proprietor tells them it’s on the house adding “Different rules apply when it’s after hours”, setting the tone for what’s to follow. I won’t go into detail about the rest of the plot, besides you’ll find all that and more on IMDb, enough to say that Paul has a very eventful night ahead of him.

After Hours is a wonderful little 97 minute diversion that Scorcese took on to direct after his initial attempts to bring “The Last Temptation of Christ” to the screen floundered and he sought something small and quick to do. Thelma Schoonmaker, Scorcese’s editor from film school, tells us on the extras that working on this film was just like the days of being a film student, shooting fast and tight with a small crew. Perhaps that’s why this film is still so fresh 25 years on.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Screenwriting

The Beat That My Heart Skipped

November 8, 2010 By admin Leave a Comment

Having bought a DVD a couple of weeks back on a recommendation, I finally got a chance to watch it. It’s a French film called “The Beat that my Heart Skipped” directed by Jacques Audiard and released in 2005 (so this is not a review). It tells the story of a young man Tom (Romain Duris), who involves himself in the dark end of the property business, wrecking apartments so that homeless people wont find refuge for free and releasing a bag of rats on a family to force them to quit, not to mention employing extreme violence when neccessary. His own father Robert (Niels Arestrup) is a veteran of this shady business and calls on his son as enforcer. But Tom has a love of music and it turns out was quite a good pianist, or at least that’s the opinion of his late mother’s friend who was manager to her concert pianist career. Upon a chance encounter, the manager tells Tom to schedule an audition as he believes Tom possess’ real potential. Tom seeks out a tutor in the form of Miao-Lin (Linh Dan Pham), who painstakingly polishes Tom’s innate abilities. Finally reaching a point at which they are both happy, Tom auditions and fluffs the opportunity because the darker side of his life encroached on his rest the previous night. Tom’s inner conflict increases when he begins an affair with Aline (Aure Atika), his friend Fabrice’s wife, who has discovered that Tom covers for her husband when he meets other women for sex. At the same time Tom’s father becomes entangled with a sinister Russian Minskov (Anton Yakovlev) and is murdered in his apartment. We jump forward two years and find that Tom is now Miao-Lin’s manager and quite possibly her lover. On his way to her concert, he encounters Minskov and attacks him in a stairwell, stopping short at blowing his brains out with his own gun. Tom cleans himself up as best he can in the toilets and takes his seat in the auditorium to listen to Miao-Lin play the piano.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film and it brought to mind the age old debate of character driven stories versus plot driven. Two Irish films which excelled in this area were “Garage” and further back “Adam and Paul” both directed by Lenny Abrahamson and written by Mark O’Halloran. I’ve often heard it said “why does a good film have to be exclusive of one or the other”, and I suppose the answer is they don’t have to be. It’s a big risk to dispense with plot, but very often a risk worth taking because when you do, you are afforded the opportunity to lay bare the honest minutia of life, that is very often missed in the need to advance the plot. Although character driven stories are for the most part associated with European film, Hollywood is quite accomplished in this area as well. Two recent examples are “The Wrestler” with Mickey Rourke and “Crazy Heart” with Jeff Bridges.

These stories depend heavily on two things, a visceral honesty not only in the script but also the portrayal of the characters and a top class performance. Get these two wrong and you have nothing to fall back on in your film. Get them right and you have a film which will stand the test of time.

Although it’s legitimate to express a personal preference when it comes to character as opposed to plot driven films (and personally I enjoy both) it’s equally important to accept that both forms of film are valid and simply form part of the vast variety of film types around the world. Very often one encounters an elitist, high brow dismissive attitude to plot driven stories. This serves no one – producers or audience and quiet honestly, is more damaging to the form they believe they hold in esteem. It’s a little bit like, I would be more Green if it weren’t for the Greens.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Screenwriting, Uncategorized

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes!

October 26, 2010 By admin Leave a Comment

Came across an interesting piece from the Tokyo International Film Festival over the weekend, you can check it out here. It offers an insight into the business of filmmaking from the vantage point of an Oscar winning Irish screenwriter and director Neil Jordan, and it’s not a comforting one. I’ve long since felt that change is now such a constant feature of how people consume their entertainment that finding calm waters is a bit like setting your course for a safe harbour in the middle of a storm with no compass, rudder or sail. Where ever we’re going, few can predict with any accuracy and the driving force behind all this flux is as Neil Jordan stated, the internet but not I believe exclusively.

Other factors at play are gaming and quality TV drama on our 50 inch LCD screens with surround sound (not to mention the endless hours of brainless gunk). The multiplex has now been staked out as the preserve of the “studios” who have the deep pockets to drive marketing campaigns that sometimes cost as much as the visual extravaganza they herald. It’s not that difficult to get a film into the cinema chain, especially now with the arrival of digital projection. What is enormously difficult is to get an audience into that film and if you fail to do that, it’s pulled.

Take a look at Entertainment.ie and you’ll find a list of 42 films now showing nationwide in Ireland. Filter that list to find films which are relatively low budget, non-star sfx driven, independent films and according to my count that amounts to maybe 4, non of which will make their way to my local 4 screen cineplex here in Kilkenny. When the cinema going demographic arrive in the multiplex lobby, the last thing they want to see is the quiet, contemplative drama made on a shoestring. Yet we shouldn’t lose heart, in recent years films like “Juno”, “Sideways” and “Little Miss Sunshine” have all done well at the box office. And what about the success of “His & Hers” and “Once”, both made for less than €150k.

The glory days of 1970′s cinema have probably passed for all time, never to return. A decade that gave cinema films like “The Conversation”, “Dog Day Afternoon”, “Badlands”, “Rocky”, “Chinatown”, “Taxi Driver”, “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, “Day’s of Heaven”, the list goes on. All films I believe that would find it difficult if not impossible to get funded today.

So yes, there are I’ve no doubt many film directors who are unemployed, finding it difficult to get their projects off the ground. But many have migrated to TV and the gaming industry and that goes for writers too. Normally at this point I like to draw some kind of conclusion but find I can’t. We’re in the midst of a revolution and how that turns out is quiet honestly, a crap shoot.

Filed Under: Filmmaking

Bill Cullen and Irish Film

September 25, 2010 By admin 1 Comment

Come January, the Irish Film Board will be without a CEO, so here’s a thought – put Bill Cullen in charge. Better still, why not make a reality TV show out of it, a cross between “The Apprentice” and “Project Greenlight” with a dash of “Ireland’s got Talent” (I know the latter doesn’t exist, let’s not dwell on that too long). For every month of one year, 12 filmmaking teams all come before Bill and present their film project. Every team is set the same task every episode and the first task would be “Make your Pitch” and that pitch has to be to people like Morgan O’Sullivan for instance or someone similar, who knows what it is to sell concepts to studios and TV networks in order to stay in business. At the end of each episode, a score is awarded each team and they carry that forward to the next task. Other tasks would be to have your script independently rated by a panel of 3 professional script analysts, have an independent audience rate your marketing campaign, poster, logline and two sentence synopsis, next you’ve got to shoot a 5 minute segment in a day and again the result scored. Each episode would see a team eliminated until the winning team are awarded a budget of €500k to make their film. Over the span of a year we have twelve competitions also generating a wealth a TV content and advertising revenue and ultimately 12 films that are guaranteed to attract a whole lot more audience than the current spend of €17 million is achieving right now.

Some of the above is, I will admit tongue in cheek, but the point I’m trying to make is not and that is – nothing was ever improved without competition and a clear focus on the consumer. Or put another way – meritocracy over patronage. I’ve said this in a previous post and I’ll say it again. You can’t keep doing the same thing and hope for a different outcome.

Here’s another thought. What about a reconstituted IFB. Now more than ever, the spend of tax payers money is under close scrutiny and every euro must and should be justified. Right now a budget of €17m is handed over once a year to be dispensed, as is seen fit with no obligation to make money back for the state. I know a lot of that money is given out as loans and as such is required to return. Very often it doesn’t because the obligation only stands if the film makes money. No, what I’m suggesting is a new IFB set up as a state body with a commercial remit. So over a period of 10 years, the body is required to achieve 100% cost recovery, building 10% per year. This would focus minds in the direction of the consumer and that’s no bad thing. Many high minded artistic types I know would scoff at such a suggestion and complain that their artistic integrity would be compromised. If so then go make your films with your own money.

A while back, I spent a couple of days on the set of “The Tudors” in Ardmore Studios. During a chat with Morgan O’Sullivan, he related to me how in his early days as an Irish based producer, he perceived a lack of craft and experience in Irish film practitioners. So before he took on anything else, he took a bunch of people to LA and immersed them in filmmaking in the worlds capital of film. On his return, I think his next project was “The Mannions of America” and he’s never looked back. That’s simply identifying the problem and taking action to remedy it. The opposite of hoping for a different outcome whilst…..well you know the rest.

So, why are Irish films only commanding 0.3% of domestic box office share and virtually nothing of International, with a spend of €17m per annum. Could it have something to do with the quality of scripts or lack thereof. Let me make this point and I say it in IFB’S defense, maybe the scripts that are getting funding are the best of what’s coming in the door, because being a State agency, they have to spend their budget. A particularly depressing thought for those of us who could wallpaper walls with rejection letters, but the jury is still out on that one. Eight years ago or so, the legendary Ed Pressman along with some Irish partners and John Schmidt of Miramax and October Films, announced with some fan fair in Galway the launch of “Content Film” in Ireland. On offer was a pot of money to make low budget films at, I think €1m a pop and all they were waiting for was the scripts. A few years later in conversation with one of the Irish producers I asked where’s the first Irish “Content” film. I was told none was ever going to materialise. It turns out they were inundated with scripts, not one of which was worth developing, never mind shooting. Today, Content Film International is a dynamic film sales and finance company, specialising in high quality, commercial feature films. They just quietly slipped away from our shores. Sad but true.

So what’s the answer. How about shutting down all production for a year or even two and putting Irish screenwriters through an intensive training program. Well it worked for Mr. O’Sullivan and I suspect the good Dr. Bill wouldn’t argue with that either (once he’d fired half of them in the first place). I could just hear him now, “Yiz are all a shower of namby pambies, get off yer arse and sell your film….before you make it, den you’ll know if you should make the bloody thing at all”.

Filed Under: Filmmaking, Irish Film and TV Drama Tagged With: Bill Cullen, Irish screenwriting, Morgan O'Sullivan

Indie Film Distribution – A Way Forward

A Way Back!

Consuming Moving Images