The dream of the hale & hearty master: Scorsese on 'Wolf'
For more information and a look at a pretty great interview, visit: Scorsese Explains His Cinematic Approach for 'The Wolf of Wall Street' in P.T. Anderson Interview
I think it was a pretty fantastic listen. Scorsese says some things which of course I don't understand and can only guess at. He talks about designing sequences and shooting in camera movement -which I imagine has to do with using the camera to translate areas of coverage within a scene rather than the typical master, coverage, coverage, insert setup.
He talked a lot about knowing when to let go of a shot or a scene. He understood at which point the audience would understand and when it was necessary to push the film forward. I suppose when he had to choose how to deliver information he worked from the essence outward until it became fluff and then chose not to do the fluff.
The interview explored his necessary versatility and flexible handling with the film to play to the actor's strengths and the production constraints. Ultimately it seems he had a lot of fun.
As a storyteller, he explains that showing the moral compass would inevitably lead to a forgetful film. Instinctively, I go straight to the point. I've been marathon watching AMC's 'The Walking Dead' and all I can think about is solving their problems. Not creating them which would have been my responsibility if I were writing the thing. You have to learn to betray your desires to explain, and make things right, to harness truly compelling, disturbing, moving conflict. You have to make things wrong. Scorsese just knows this now. And I hadn't heard that lesson before.
Before all the wild nonsense I'd discussed in just the previous post regarding the pain of uncertainty, I do get a sense of the joy it must be to problem solve compelling story for 1-3 months a clip. My heart is there already. It's waking up and trying to bring the best of something to light. That's a good life.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Can you enter your middle-age and enter the film industry at the same time?
Can you enter your middle-age and enter today's film industry at the same time?
For more information, visit So Money An oral history of Swingers
I haven't wanted to write recently. I'm trying to write a script. I'm trying to figure out event planning for my school. I'm also thinking about production; both for class and a pet project I wanted to do for myself.
I'm tense.
A friend sent me this article on how 'Swingers' was put together. As usual I'm inspired. The way films become cult classics is anyone's guess but it appears it has to both capture an age and a feel, as if it's born from reminiscence, AND it has to come together through sheer obsession and ultimate constraint. The creative leadership here was in their mid 20s.
Hitting 30 is a bleak experience in this economy. There wasn't a parade or anything. We couldn't afford to go out. My mom, like many baby-boomer parents, is struggling to find work. My parents split early so it's just been us. I almost got out of the apartment when I was working in IT and sharing a place with my ex for like 6 years. Everything went to hell at some point. My job went bankrupt, the IT field became a vault filled with ex-communicated VPs needing a middle income salary and my ex and I pretty much decided we hated each other.
Then there was film school. As soon as the production classes started . . . wow what a reality check.
The argument goes: "don't waste your money there, spend it on filmmaking." Well that presumes you have money to spend on filmmaking while making massive, sometimes dangerous mistakes. Without money you have to contend with the idea that maybe filmmaking is reserved for the wealthy but you read books like "Rebel without a Crew" or just about any indie producing guide, and you see everyone's broke. And then you look at the date and think maybe it's the decade.
From the 90's to the early 2000's, I think we were still taking notes from the "Raging Bull' era. And the economy wasn't great but people had part time gigs. There wasn't enough for us to save at home and the amount of money I would go through just putting together my first 16mm film was more than I had ever held at one time (I'm talking like $1,000 cause before I was a filmmaker I was an avid video gamer and book worm). That's not a hobby. I'm sorry. But you have that first film and it's pretty much crap and you know you have to make another one but you can't just take an entry-level job that makes you work 30 hours a week at crap pay because what you get leftover after taxes and a drink or two, maybe a date to Tad's Steak, is just enough to get back to the job and certainly not enough energy to pour into a film. If you take anything higher it's full time and I've known enough managers that piss on education to know it's not a solid argument that you need to shoot.
Production isn't a pickup basketball game. It isn't poker night. It requires crew, lights, 10-18 hours, a script you care about, locations that will have you and, if your serious, a strategy to reach audiences. We know the deal. I didn't even mention a budget. I just did.
So when I read how 'Swingers' came about I wonder if I would ever have had the guts. At 30, I really believe poverty...I believe that no one should have to go through it. Who can think about storytelling on the verge of eviction? or while they're starving? But I'm 30, and only as aware of the process and my identity within it to the extent that I am because the city and state and, to a great extent, the government, pay for me to be here.
Film school, for those who can't casually play 'director' because that money is desperately needed elsewhere, is a place where time, a community, and funding is provided to temporarily bring you across the gap of ignorance into some context of what it takes to be a professional in this industry.
One downside is that by the time you leave, if you've been on more than a handful of rough sets and you have half a stomach for it, you can't do anything else with your life. You sense a tremendous waste even thinking about becoming a cop (no offense to cops). Quitting seems ultimately wrong.
The other downside is the "educations" remains incredibly insufficient. From the digital markets to digital cinema, changes in workflow and the demands of political capacity and gatekeeping, everything grand strategy related to the sustenance of the filmmaker and his crew is left out of the classroom. It's next to pure memorization exercise save where the film students go out and shoot and that's very much on their wallet (thank you Obama for Direct Loans).
Time and again I think about what the most important assets were to these run-and-gun risk-takers. It appears to me that it was always the people that stuck by them - from the 'Swingers' cast to the star of 'El Mariachi,' Carlos Gallardo and all the supportive people in between these films and the audience.
I look to fellow students who suffer years expending all that faith with each other on purely academic assignment and by the time they graduate, that energy that sustains them through suffering is next to spent. Who knows how people continue? I've only started developing my thesis approach and I'm exhausted. My hair's thinned, I've lost weight, sleep-loss has slowed me down and the closer I get to graduation the more I need to go on...
I want this very much to be a rallying call but I didn't start a blog to give e-hugz and pass out lolz. The truth is the business belongs to young men who haven't burned themselves out yet. Cynics and skeptics tend to be balanced by their checkbooks, many of the mistakes made having gotten them somewhere. I'm generalizing but this is how it appears to me. The rest are scattered about in perpetual limbo wondering what's next.
I accidentally moved the mouse over and opened up Movie Magic Scheduling...maybe that's God telling me to shutup and get to work. But humor me a while longer.
Factor out that we're under pain of death, filmmaking is a great exercise, a great expression of energy and heart and creativity and willfullness... It's challenging in a way so few other things are. The people that succeed don't always appear to earn their success because profit motivates a lot of quick successions. I try to tell myself this to feel that the timing is exactly what it needs to be. But without knowing the future, every new day finishing up this degree and putting my exiting films together involves a desperate struggle for bits of faith.
Some will read the oral history of 'Swingers' and be inspired. I was. But it was in such a way that I stood up wanting to do something, remembered I already was (writing, researching, practicing, studying), sat back down and remembered the reason I started taking things so seriously was because I hit 30 and I had to make a choice. And for some insane reason I chose the movies...
I don't have a fortune but what has ever constituted one to me I gave to cinema. Comforts, laziness, procrastination, a private imagination, money for games and dating and generally joy, and several chances at stability. But without a film...
"Swingers' costed north of $200k ultimately. That amount just seems impossible. But. We know in depth only what yesterday's success story looked like. I wonder what today's looks like because after everything I've read, it appears more and more about not being found but being made. So many tools are out there and looking back is nice but it isn't a complete story. The industry has shifted and ultimately it's in all that uncertainty that I find the greatest hope for absolutely anyone and everyone willing go after what they want. In the uncertainty there are definite questions and once you know what people want you can fight to give it to them.
I suppose the greatest feat of strength in pursuing a career as a filmmaker is in figuring yourself out. Hitting 30 is very much about that. I'm not half way to 31 and it's either gonna be a year worth celebrating or something else and just too depressing.
4 genre shorts, no-budget, shared universe, character driven, two in April, one in October, my thesis next summer and I'm out!
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
For more information, visit So Money An oral history of Swingers
I haven't wanted to write recently. I'm trying to write a script. I'm trying to figure out event planning for my school. I'm also thinking about production; both for class and a pet project I wanted to do for myself.
I'm tense.
A friend sent me this article on how 'Swingers' was put together. As usual I'm inspired. The way films become cult classics is anyone's guess but it appears it has to both capture an age and a feel, as if it's born from reminiscence, AND it has to come together through sheer obsession and ultimate constraint. The creative leadership here was in their mid 20s.
Hitting 30 is a bleak experience in this economy. There wasn't a parade or anything. We couldn't afford to go out. My mom, like many baby-boomer parents, is struggling to find work. My parents split early so it's just been us. I almost got out of the apartment when I was working in IT and sharing a place with my ex for like 6 years. Everything went to hell at some point. My job went bankrupt, the IT field became a vault filled with ex-communicated VPs needing a middle income salary and my ex and I pretty much decided we hated each other.
Then there was film school. As soon as the production classes started . . . wow what a reality check.
The argument goes: "don't waste your money there, spend it on filmmaking." Well that presumes you have money to spend on filmmaking while making massive, sometimes dangerous mistakes. Without money you have to contend with the idea that maybe filmmaking is reserved for the wealthy but you read books like "Rebel without a Crew" or just about any indie producing guide, and you see everyone's broke. And then you look at the date and think maybe it's the decade.
From the 90's to the early 2000's, I think we were still taking notes from the "Raging Bull' era. And the economy wasn't great but people had part time gigs. There wasn't enough for us to save at home and the amount of money I would go through just putting together my first 16mm film was more than I had ever held at one time (I'm talking like $1,000 cause before I was a filmmaker I was an avid video gamer and book worm). That's not a hobby. I'm sorry. But you have that first film and it's pretty much crap and you know you have to make another one but you can't just take an entry-level job that makes you work 30 hours a week at crap pay because what you get leftover after taxes and a drink or two, maybe a date to Tad's Steak, is just enough to get back to the job and certainly not enough energy to pour into a film. If you take anything higher it's full time and I've known enough managers that piss on education to know it's not a solid argument that you need to shoot.
Production isn't a pickup basketball game. It isn't poker night. It requires crew, lights, 10-18 hours, a script you care about, locations that will have you and, if your serious, a strategy to reach audiences. We know the deal. I didn't even mention a budget. I just did.
So when I read how 'Swingers' came about I wonder if I would ever have had the guts. At 30, I really believe poverty...I believe that no one should have to go through it. Who can think about storytelling on the verge of eviction? or while they're starving? But I'm 30, and only as aware of the process and my identity within it to the extent that I am because the city and state and, to a great extent, the government, pay for me to be here.
Film school, for those who can't casually play 'director' because that money is desperately needed elsewhere, is a place where time, a community, and funding is provided to temporarily bring you across the gap of ignorance into some context of what it takes to be a professional in this industry.
One downside is that by the time you leave, if you've been on more than a handful of rough sets and you have half a stomach for it, you can't do anything else with your life. You sense a tremendous waste even thinking about becoming a cop (no offense to cops). Quitting seems ultimately wrong.
The other downside is the "educations" remains incredibly insufficient. From the digital markets to digital cinema, changes in workflow and the demands of political capacity and gatekeeping, everything grand strategy related to the sustenance of the filmmaker and his crew is left out of the classroom. It's next to pure memorization exercise save where the film students go out and shoot and that's very much on their wallet (thank you Obama for Direct Loans).
Time and again I think about what the most important assets were to these run-and-gun risk-takers. It appears to me that it was always the people that stuck by them - from the 'Swingers' cast to the star of 'El Mariachi,' Carlos Gallardo and all the supportive people in between these films and the audience.
I look to fellow students who suffer years expending all that faith with each other on purely academic assignment and by the time they graduate, that energy that sustains them through suffering is next to spent. Who knows how people continue? I've only started developing my thesis approach and I'm exhausted. My hair's thinned, I've lost weight, sleep-loss has slowed me down and the closer I get to graduation the more I need to go on...
I want this very much to be a rallying call but I didn't start a blog to give e-hugz and pass out lolz. The truth is the business belongs to young men who haven't burned themselves out yet. Cynics and skeptics tend to be balanced by their checkbooks, many of the mistakes made having gotten them somewhere. I'm generalizing but this is how it appears to me. The rest are scattered about in perpetual limbo wondering what's next.
I accidentally moved the mouse over and opened up Movie Magic Scheduling...maybe that's God telling me to shutup and get to work. But humor me a while longer.
Factor out that we're under pain of death, filmmaking is a great exercise, a great expression of energy and heart and creativity and willfullness... It's challenging in a way so few other things are. The people that succeed don't always appear to earn their success because profit motivates a lot of quick successions. I try to tell myself this to feel that the timing is exactly what it needs to be. But without knowing the future, every new day finishing up this degree and putting my exiting films together involves a desperate struggle for bits of faith.
Some will read the oral history of 'Swingers' and be inspired. I was. But it was in such a way that I stood up wanting to do something, remembered I already was (writing, researching, practicing, studying), sat back down and remembered the reason I started taking things so seriously was because I hit 30 and I had to make a choice. And for some insane reason I chose the movies...
I don't have a fortune but what has ever constituted one to me I gave to cinema. Comforts, laziness, procrastination, a private imagination, money for games and dating and generally joy, and several chances at stability. But without a film...
"Swingers' costed north of $200k ultimately. That amount just seems impossible. But. We know in depth only what yesterday's success story looked like. I wonder what today's looks like because after everything I've read, it appears more and more about not being found but being made. So many tools are out there and looking back is nice but it isn't a complete story. The industry has shifted and ultimately it's in all that uncertainty that I find the greatest hope for absolutely anyone and everyone willing go after what they want. In the uncertainty there are definite questions and once you know what people want you can fight to give it to them.
I suppose the greatest feat of strength in pursuing a career as a filmmaker is in figuring yourself out. Hitting 30 is very much about that. I'm not half way to 31 and it's either gonna be a year worth celebrating or something else and just too depressing.
4 genre shorts, no-budget, shared universe, character driven, two in April, one in October, my thesis next summer and I'm out!
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
Friday, January 24, 2014
Snap! JOBS Act Trending. Welcome Passion First!
Snap! JOBS Act Trending. Welcome Passion First!
For more information, visit: Online Film Financing Startup Passion First Funding Portal Announced at Sundance
My professor, just a few hours ago, was kind enough to offer me a seat for the 'Film Interchange on Saturday January 25th' event tomorrow. I didn't know who Richard Guay was. Then I did. Then I saw the topic and thought 'oh, how nice,' but I couldn't attend because it's my mother's birthday.
And that's life. Gotta keep a balance and remember all we do is to support the peace in our home and the opportunity to validate the time we have with our loved ones.
Then I read the article at the head of this post. It had been waiting for me for a few days on one of my numerous open tabs. And oddly enough, Richard Guay is the founder of PASSION FIRST. Well, shit...
I'll bother him via his blog at some point.
Why am I excited?
One because I have an indirect connection to him and two because he is open to taking questions personally. Lastly, he's on the forefront of utilizing what the JOBS act has to offer. I wrote about this a while back when SLATED did a post on the potential investor strategies that will be adjusted now that investors can get involved for a return via public mechanism. Crowd-funding is likely gonna shift in some big and unforeseen ways. Ted Hope is a long time advocate of qualifying investors and staged funding also.
I don't particularly understand it all yet. I've been putting the pieces together. But I think it's all about building infrastructure and standardized business practice within Indie Cinema to reduce risk by rewarding preparation, education on both producing and financing ends. I think it's very cool to see the forces in motion.
I also think this process is going to redeem film schools while simultaneously causing a restructuring on what production programs offer. The language is changing; right now! It can easily leave aspiring filmmakers in the dust just as new technologies are quickly making education in celluloid obsolete. It all ties together but not when it's unraveling.
The standard definitions are evolving and it's good in that it's all to promote greater efficiency in the near future hopefully. But curriculum and general outreach needs to remain contemporary, flexible and a consistent priority. We need more outreach - especially in public institutions like CUNY where there's a wealth of talent without the proper type of current industry perspective to make an impact.
I've got my work cut out for me... Any mentors our there??
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
P.S. One last note on the implications of productions being valued like stocks: Business standards are great. Incentives for organization and validation are wonderful. But let's not forget that where serious art lies tends to remain the obsessive ego, the unrestrained soul, the passion of those that are absolutely murdered by bureaucracy. GE CEO Jack Welch advised to beware too much paperwork and support autonomous leadership - to coach policy but not strangle with red-tape. I hope that whatever new avenues of opportunity arrive, they don't completely obstruct the leg-room needed for emerging artists to be properly appraised. I've heard about those foreign pre-sale value systems and all art-commerce concerns remain a slippery-slope.
For more information, visit: Online Film Financing Startup Passion First Funding Portal Announced at Sundance
My professor, just a few hours ago, was kind enough to offer me a seat for the 'Film Interchange on Saturday January 25th' event tomorrow. I didn't know who Richard Guay was. Then I did. Then I saw the topic and thought 'oh, how nice,' but I couldn't attend because it's my mother's birthday.
And that's life. Gotta keep a balance and remember all we do is to support the peace in our home and the opportunity to validate the time we have with our loved ones.
Then I read the article at the head of this post. It had been waiting for me for a few days on one of my numerous open tabs. And oddly enough, Richard Guay is the founder of PASSION FIRST. Well, shit...
I'll bother him via his blog at some point.
Why am I excited?
One because I have an indirect connection to him and two because he is open to taking questions personally. Lastly, he's on the forefront of utilizing what the JOBS act has to offer. I wrote about this a while back when SLATED did a post on the potential investor strategies that will be adjusted now that investors can get involved for a return via public mechanism. Crowd-funding is likely gonna shift in some big and unforeseen ways. Ted Hope is a long time advocate of qualifying investors and staged funding also.
I don't particularly understand it all yet. I've been putting the pieces together. But I think it's all about building infrastructure and standardized business practice within Indie Cinema to reduce risk by rewarding preparation, education on both producing and financing ends. I think it's very cool to see the forces in motion.
I also think this process is going to redeem film schools while simultaneously causing a restructuring on what production programs offer. The language is changing; right now! It can easily leave aspiring filmmakers in the dust just as new technologies are quickly making education in celluloid obsolete. It all ties together but not when it's unraveling.
The standard definitions are evolving and it's good in that it's all to promote greater efficiency in the near future hopefully. But curriculum and general outreach needs to remain contemporary, flexible and a consistent priority. We need more outreach - especially in public institutions like CUNY where there's a wealth of talent without the proper type of current industry perspective to make an impact.
I've got my work cut out for me... Any mentors our there??
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
P.S. One last note on the implications of productions being valued like stocks: Business standards are great. Incentives for organization and validation are wonderful. But let's not forget that where serious art lies tends to remain the obsessive ego, the unrestrained soul, the passion of those that are absolutely murdered by bureaucracy. GE CEO Jack Welch advised to beware too much paperwork and support autonomous leadership - to coach policy but not strangle with red-tape. I hope that whatever new avenues of opportunity arrive, they don't completely obstruct the leg-room needed for emerging artists to be properly appraised. I've heard about those foreign pre-sale value systems and all art-commerce concerns remain a slippery-slope.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Spiritual Strategies #1
Note: this isn't me. This is paraphrasing all the people that've been screaming at me to readjust certain aspects of my general approach when tempted to be defensive.
Tools for the upstart: If a person in a higher administrative position overseeing your agenda pulls you in for questioning (see: naysaying), respond "yes" for things you agree with and "good point" for things you don't agree with. Practice neutral-face for 2 hours every day. Then go as far as you can before they realize what's happening. You won't learn what you have to any other way. But if you reveal your cause, you give them everything they need to shaft you.
Clarification: everyone has an ultimate goal. In cinema, one ultimate goal is to create the film. Another is to make an honest film. Another is to make art. One can also entertain or educate. Another is to just complete the damn thing. Another is to sell the film. Another is to make sure as many audiences see the film as possible. Another is make sure you collect as much from those exhibitions as possible. Another is to profit. Another is to share that profit with loved ones. Another is to pursue a life free from hardship other than what you choose to undertake in service of your fellow man. <that last goal comes with a qualifier we know as the golden rule cause if you're not careful, karma will make the best of you and there's not much value in a life where you have to look over your shoulder for vengeful people. Further, it binds the pursuits of all other tiers of effort and wraps it up in a nice bow. Let me reiterate: the golden rule is the only thing capable of balancing the interests of all of the above. It's the hardest work but absolutely wonderful once everyone is on the same page. I won't say what should happen to the people that aren't with it, but know they can do a lot of damage if their ultimate goal doesn't allow for anyone else's.
Some folks are tied to you through circumstance but have an ultimate goal so far outside their involvement with you that all they can muster is energy to reduce the demands you place on them. They might just want to get through the day. That's fine, but history saw fit to give them say over you. They resort to putting up conditions to protect themselves that, on occasion, thwart you. Some of it's worthwhile, some of it's just emotional undercutting.
If a person thwarts you with conditions that, once met, can make your endeavor more resilient: then "yes"
If a person thwarts you with conditions that ultimately are just conveyors of doubt (sans wisdom, criteria, facts, or an ultimate goal worth achieving as an evolved alternative to the goal you started with (trade up if anything): then "good point." It's polite at least.
Don't fight with them. Someone once told me there are conceptual people and literal people. The literal people who need to get in your way just suck ass. They can't see beyond their own eyelashes and you represent a change to the habits they've come to live by. They practically want to kill you by indirect abuse of your intent by tooling fear and doubt to coax you into willful submission. Don't fight with them. They put you in their own familiar territory and if you weren't stuck fighting them you'd be off winning somewhere. Plus it makes you vulnerable to the ultimate attack: conversion.
You don't want to be a hypocrite and be caught reverse nay-saying, effectively letting them turn you into an asshole you thought you weren't. Come to find out we're all guilty at some point or another, but that's no reason to kowtow to figures who overtly couldn't care less about your passion or success. Also, these figures are almost always conservative and they hate progress or anything else they don't understand. Being difficult won't make a difference. Outdoing and outliving them will.
Let's get what we came for with "Yesses" and "Good Points" and brutal flanking maneuvers,
C.M. Sanchez III
Tools for the upstart: If a person in a higher administrative position overseeing your agenda pulls you in for questioning (see: naysaying), respond "yes" for things you agree with and "good point" for things you don't agree with. Practice neutral-face for 2 hours every day. Then go as far as you can before they realize what's happening. You won't learn what you have to any other way. But if you reveal your cause, you give them everything they need to shaft you.
Clarification: everyone has an ultimate goal. In cinema, one ultimate goal is to create the film. Another is to make an honest film. Another is to make art. One can also entertain or educate. Another is to just complete the damn thing. Another is to sell the film. Another is to make sure as many audiences see the film as possible. Another is make sure you collect as much from those exhibitions as possible. Another is to profit. Another is to share that profit with loved ones. Another is to pursue a life free from hardship other than what you choose to undertake in service of your fellow man. <that last goal comes with a qualifier we know as the golden rule cause if you're not careful, karma will make the best of you and there's not much value in a life where you have to look over your shoulder for vengeful people. Further, it binds the pursuits of all other tiers of effort and wraps it up in a nice bow. Let me reiterate: the golden rule is the only thing capable of balancing the interests of all of the above. It's the hardest work but absolutely wonderful once everyone is on the same page. I won't say what should happen to the people that aren't with it, but know they can do a lot of damage if their ultimate goal doesn't allow for anyone else's.
Some folks are tied to you through circumstance but have an ultimate goal so far outside their involvement with you that all they can muster is energy to reduce the demands you place on them. They might just want to get through the day. That's fine, but history saw fit to give them say over you. They resort to putting up conditions to protect themselves that, on occasion, thwart you. Some of it's worthwhile, some of it's just emotional undercutting.
If a person thwarts you with conditions that, once met, can make your endeavor more resilient: then "yes"
If a person thwarts you with conditions that ultimately are just conveyors of doubt (sans wisdom, criteria, facts, or an ultimate goal worth achieving as an evolved alternative to the goal you started with (trade up if anything): then "good point." It's polite at least.
Don't fight with them. Someone once told me there are conceptual people and literal people. The literal people who need to get in your way just suck ass. They can't see beyond their own eyelashes and you represent a change to the habits they've come to live by. They practically want to kill you by indirect abuse of your intent by tooling fear and doubt to coax you into willful submission. Don't fight with them. They put you in their own familiar territory and if you weren't stuck fighting them you'd be off winning somewhere. Plus it makes you vulnerable to the ultimate attack: conversion.
You don't want to be a hypocrite and be caught reverse nay-saying, effectively letting them turn you into an asshole you thought you weren't. Come to find out we're all guilty at some point or another, but that's no reason to kowtow to figures who overtly couldn't care less about your passion or success. Also, these figures are almost always conservative and they hate progress or anything else they don't understand. Being difficult won't make a difference. Outdoing and outliving them will.
Let's get what we came for with "Yesses" and "Good Points" and brutal flanking maneuvers,
C.M. Sanchez III
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Who's Money Do You Trust?
Who's Money Do You Trust?
For more information, visit: Thinking in Money
Point taken. Having not received any real money yet to do much of anything, you all know I've done my share of dreaming. At some point it did cross my mind that I might be too excited when the first prospect revealed itself. And what would I do? Who knows?
Before this blog post from Slated, I probably would have suffered from depression stemming from the realization that I wouldn't know where to begin. I've recently finished Robert Rodriguez's book, "Rebel Without a Crew," which is a fun and informative read of what a trip to Hollywood was like in the early 90's. He was effectively taken care of and his life changed almost overnight.
However this isn't the 90's and considering serious business from the standpoint of a novice seems like entering a shark tank with no armor on. What a wonderful thing the internet is? Simply put: interview your investors. It's a major concern from the upper echelon who's doing what and associated with whom. Your financiers reflect on you. It's not that your investors have to be royalty. But they should be credible. They should be flexible and on the same page with you, preferably have some film experience or have advisers that are educated in film business, and most importantly there should be transparency about their history. That said, and as written in this blog post, Hollywood has a penchant for eccentrics not always on the proper side of the law. With tens of millions of dollars to throw around, the average emerging artist is dealing with a perspective that is as good as alien.
I fear there's no way to prepare for someone with that kind of power other than to meditate on the fact that all of that money comes with a shortened imagination. It's constantly seeking a way to increase its wealth and it can't do so without investing in something as yet undiscovered or as yet exploited. If that product is you than there is an inherent value you have as a creator with which you can contend. And while the world may not have fully established that creative aspect as equal to gold, it certainly is respected for its ability to create gold.
Regardless, take time and do your homework. Map the industry, learn the faces slowly but surely. Don't agree to the first thing that sounds nice. Protect what you have, who you are, and your ability to keep working first before anything.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
For more information, visit: Thinking in Money
Point taken. Having not received any real money yet to do much of anything, you all know I've done my share of dreaming. At some point it did cross my mind that I might be too excited when the first prospect revealed itself. And what would I do? Who knows?
Before this blog post from Slated, I probably would have suffered from depression stemming from the realization that I wouldn't know where to begin. I've recently finished Robert Rodriguez's book, "Rebel Without a Crew," which is a fun and informative read of what a trip to Hollywood was like in the early 90's. He was effectively taken care of and his life changed almost overnight.
However this isn't the 90's and considering serious business from the standpoint of a novice seems like entering a shark tank with no armor on. What a wonderful thing the internet is? Simply put: interview your investors. It's a major concern from the upper echelon who's doing what and associated with whom. Your financiers reflect on you. It's not that your investors have to be royalty. But they should be credible. They should be flexible and on the same page with you, preferably have some film experience or have advisers that are educated in film business, and most importantly there should be transparency about their history. That said, and as written in this blog post, Hollywood has a penchant for eccentrics not always on the proper side of the law. With tens of millions of dollars to throw around, the average emerging artist is dealing with a perspective that is as good as alien.
I fear there's no way to prepare for someone with that kind of power other than to meditate on the fact that all of that money comes with a shortened imagination. It's constantly seeking a way to increase its wealth and it can't do so without investing in something as yet undiscovered or as yet exploited. If that product is you than there is an inherent value you have as a creator with which you can contend. And while the world may not have fully established that creative aspect as equal to gold, it certainly is respected for its ability to create gold.
Regardless, take time and do your homework. Map the industry, learn the faces slowly but surely. Don't agree to the first thing that sounds nice. Protect what you have, who you are, and your ability to keep working first before anything.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Ire Deutchman on the condition of art-houses
Ire Deutchman on the condition of art-houses
For more information, visit: Art House Convergence Kicks Off: Here's Why Art Houses Need to Be Advocates
The primary notes of the speech that stuck out to me:
A) We're in a greedy business. Everyone's incredibly independent. At a certain point you want everyone besides you to lose. It was more of a side-note and comparison of the times to indicate that now we're working together as proof of the existence of some shared enemy. The machine isn't supporting itself. Too many are struggling and we need to come together.
This isn't unheard of at stages as early as film school. There are two philosophies that are staggeringly apparent. When I became president of the Brooklyn College film society I spoke out about a unified push toward understanding what I now know to call direct distribution. Before I just labeled it as a mission to turn filmmaking into a sustainable lifestyle.
When I did this, and I hadn't yet known this was on the mind of so many other people in the industry(we really didn't have a contemporary context in class with economic considerations) I received quite a bit of nay-saying: The ideas were too broad, the students won't listen, no one has the time, it's all about who-you-know, it's good that not everyone is equal, it's not the school's responsibility to promote career success - just education, but also film education is a joke - it's all about getting into unions, screw your classmates cause too few them know why they're here and less have half a chance in hell at making it and half of that small amount will live in slavery and fear of being exiled, and the few left will be comprised of one-hit-wonders and early-age stroke victims, and maybe there's one guy who'll do OK if one of us doesn't kill him first.
I had to look all that in the face and take a deep breath. Thank God general possitivity in the professional world is a rule rather than the exception. And thank God twice that there's a whole other argument that ignores and disproves the first.
Ira moved onto Art-houses specifically but I think a lot of what he said has loose translation for independent artists. He explained the need for community-entities to become politically outspoken. He explained the need for standards of operation as well as flexibility. When he talked about the deals made between distributors and exhibitors, he might as well have been talking about emerging filmmakers and the need for constant negotiation.
I've been accused of exclaiming "kum-ba-yah" non-sense, but when Ira reminded us that despite cinema being this less than stable industry within the states, it's a cornerstone of our culture (implying its unique historical, global value as a major US export). There's no reason why U.S. policy shouldn't be in greater support of the arts when it has the capacity to employ so many and such a wide array of professionals.
Later on when he explains why this is, and should be treated within, a global context, it reminds us what to do with all the supply we have considering the proliferation of digital content. We have this capacity, even within a low income range, to share our content with the world. It's a unique privilege for any class of citizen to have, and made possible by the era. As cultural diffusion becomes more powerful, less so the dividing lines. There's a real human benefit here that is being sponsored by the artistic democracy in effect with platforms such as Kickstarter and VHX.
Working together is something our generation owes itself and the planet. Every industry comes across this truth and I'm always inspired to see speakers that have clout within ours in support of a better tomorrow.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
For more information, visit: Art House Convergence Kicks Off: Here's Why Art Houses Need to Be Advocates
The primary notes of the speech that stuck out to me:
A) We're in a greedy business. Everyone's incredibly independent. At a certain point you want everyone besides you to lose. It was more of a side-note and comparison of the times to indicate that now we're working together as proof of the existence of some shared enemy. The machine isn't supporting itself. Too many are struggling and we need to come together.
This isn't unheard of at stages as early as film school. There are two philosophies that are staggeringly apparent. When I became president of the Brooklyn College film society I spoke out about a unified push toward understanding what I now know to call direct distribution. Before I just labeled it as a mission to turn filmmaking into a sustainable lifestyle.
When I did this, and I hadn't yet known this was on the mind of so many other people in the industry(we really didn't have a contemporary context in class with economic considerations) I received quite a bit of nay-saying: The ideas were too broad, the students won't listen, no one has the time, it's all about who-you-know, it's good that not everyone is equal, it's not the school's responsibility to promote career success - just education, but also film education is a joke - it's all about getting into unions, screw your classmates cause too few them know why they're here and less have half a chance in hell at making it and half of that small amount will live in slavery and fear of being exiled, and the few left will be comprised of one-hit-wonders and early-age stroke victims, and maybe there's one guy who'll do OK if one of us doesn't kill him first.
I had to look all that in the face and take a deep breath. Thank God general possitivity in the professional world is a rule rather than the exception. And thank God twice that there's a whole other argument that ignores and disproves the first.
Ira moved onto Art-houses specifically but I think a lot of what he said has loose translation for independent artists. He explained the need for community-entities to become politically outspoken. He explained the need for standards of operation as well as flexibility. When he talked about the deals made between distributors and exhibitors, he might as well have been talking about emerging filmmakers and the need for constant negotiation.
I've been accused of exclaiming "kum-ba-yah" non-sense, but when Ira reminded us that despite cinema being this less than stable industry within the states, it's a cornerstone of our culture (implying its unique historical, global value as a major US export). There's no reason why U.S. policy shouldn't be in greater support of the arts when it has the capacity to employ so many and such a wide array of professionals.
Later on when he explains why this is, and should be treated within, a global context, it reminds us what to do with all the supply we have considering the proliferation of digital content. We have this capacity, even within a low income range, to share our content with the world. It's a unique privilege for any class of citizen to have, and made possible by the era. As cultural diffusion becomes more powerful, less so the dividing lines. There's a real human benefit here that is being sponsored by the artistic democracy in effect with platforms such as Kickstarter and VHX.
Working together is something our generation owes itself and the planet. Every industry comes across this truth and I'm always inspired to see speakers that have clout within ours in support of a better tomorrow.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
What is High Concept?
What is High Concept?
For more information visit: Story Talk: High Concept—Yes—It Actually Means Something! & High Concept Defined Once and For All
- On the digression of the imagination's burden: The Wolf of Wall Street VFX Highlights
For those of us interested in a life beyond indie cinema, or maybe in a life of big budget indie cinema, there is a question about this widely used term and why it's taken hold of us and the industry we're plying ourselves to.
From the articles above you'll notice that neither one brings the concept itself to one or two lines. Everything has to be explained. So how is something so dense used to attribute pitches meant to be so simple?
Fabricating something High Concept, rather than letting it speak to you through childish inspiration will always be complicated. But it's that complication which is a clue. If it were so simple that a child could get behind the idea and call it love or hate, hope or something funny, you'd be on to something. Except it couldn't have been done before in the way you're doing it. That poses a problem because then you're thinking about everything that's been done instead of what you could be doing. It's a trap.
I think high-concept will take care of itself when appropriate. And it's possible that people who use it are just challenging you to make sure you've done homework on how marketable your vision is before they invest; i.e. can you prove two dads and a baby is a novel idea? Can you prove a robots vs. monsters idea is something that people have to go see - AGAIN? Oh this time the monsters are the good guys? Try again. You wanna swap out robot for machine and make man the ultimate design of an alien race which has a locked potential that must now be released to combat a brutal menace? Well I'm curious. It's a metaphor for individual capacity and deep down all of us want to be super.
And there's the thing: producers can sell easiest a truly original concept because no one knows what to expect from the story and everyone's curious. No one will ever have that nuanced stage set for that concept after you do it and if it's cool enough it's money because you're banking on curiosity which is perhaps more primal and unique to the human condition than anything else. We dig possibility.
That said, I look at the VFX highlights from the 'Wolf of Wall Street' and while I'm not certain if glorifying a villain isn't something we've done for decades with dracula among others, just witnessing where we can go now using technology - or rather where we can take others, astounds me. These guys make it look so easy. Even more it's revealed an overall shutdown to my imagination since life hit with all it's requirements and distractions, and it challenges me to keep my vision clear and open.
You can change the world and reconstruct it to suit your tastes for the purposes of the story. You can truly bring audiences where you want to take them. The more power you have the more complete the transformation. It's an amazing process and one through which we should all be filled with hope and awe.
It's in that moment of wonder that the child awakens and begins to ask the "what if" questions and for the purposes of writing, pitching and selling your script I suggest you listen to it because somewhere inside all of us are the "what if's" we share and would pay money to have answered.
As a last note I used to think High-concept was something that required a $200 million budget and a star attached with half or more of the environment as CGI. But now I think high-concept is closer to something obvious, forgotten and waiting to be rediscovered.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
For more information visit: Story Talk: High Concept—Yes—It Actually Means Something! & High Concept Defined Once and For All
- On the digression of the imagination's burden: The Wolf of Wall Street VFX Highlights
For those of us interested in a life beyond indie cinema, or maybe in a life of big budget indie cinema, there is a question about this widely used term and why it's taken hold of us and the industry we're plying ourselves to.
From the articles above you'll notice that neither one brings the concept itself to one or two lines. Everything has to be explained. So how is something so dense used to attribute pitches meant to be so simple?
Fabricating something High Concept, rather than letting it speak to you through childish inspiration will always be complicated. But it's that complication which is a clue. If it were so simple that a child could get behind the idea and call it love or hate, hope or something funny, you'd be on to something. Except it couldn't have been done before in the way you're doing it. That poses a problem because then you're thinking about everything that's been done instead of what you could be doing. It's a trap.
I think high-concept will take care of itself when appropriate. And it's possible that people who use it are just challenging you to make sure you've done homework on how marketable your vision is before they invest; i.e. can you prove two dads and a baby is a novel idea? Can you prove a robots vs. monsters idea is something that people have to go see - AGAIN? Oh this time the monsters are the good guys? Try again. You wanna swap out robot for machine and make man the ultimate design of an alien race which has a locked potential that must now be released to combat a brutal menace? Well I'm curious. It's a metaphor for individual capacity and deep down all of us want to be super.
And there's the thing: producers can sell easiest a truly original concept because no one knows what to expect from the story and everyone's curious. No one will ever have that nuanced stage set for that concept after you do it and if it's cool enough it's money because you're banking on curiosity which is perhaps more primal and unique to the human condition than anything else. We dig possibility.
That said, I look at the VFX highlights from the 'Wolf of Wall Street' and while I'm not certain if glorifying a villain isn't something we've done for decades with dracula among others, just witnessing where we can go now using technology - or rather where we can take others, astounds me. These guys make it look so easy. Even more it's revealed an overall shutdown to my imagination since life hit with all it's requirements and distractions, and it challenges me to keep my vision clear and open.
You can change the world and reconstruct it to suit your tastes for the purposes of the story. You can truly bring audiences where you want to take them. The more power you have the more complete the transformation. It's an amazing process and one through which we should all be filled with hope and awe.
It's in that moment of wonder that the child awakens and begins to ask the "what if" questions and for the purposes of writing, pitching and selling your script I suggest you listen to it because somewhere inside all of us are the "what if's" we share and would pay money to have answered.
As a last note I used to think High-concept was something that required a $200 million budget and a star attached with half or more of the environment as CGI. But now I think high-concept is closer to something obvious, forgotten and waiting to be rediscovered.
Let's get what we came for,
C.M. Sanchez III
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)