Training Yourself As An Artist

1. Practice makes perfect.

2. What I mean is, the more you practice, the more tools you have in your box. You become highly skilled and develop expertise.

3. But it can so easily lead to autopilot. You use your tools, the work is passable, but nobody truly connects.

4. All the great writers and directors, they had a golden moment, genuine magic was created. You can't force that moment just by picking up new tools.

5. So you must have life experience. Imagination is great on its own, but it's at its best when mixed with genuine insight.

6. Every great piece of art needs insight. That's what makes your favourite movies your favourite movies.

7. We can't have insight every day. I think when I started this blog, I had unique perspective, something different to say. I'm a better blogger now, I have so many tools -- but the fresh insights are harder to come by.

8. That's why you have to live more, and be open to influence and new ways of thinking.

9. You have to let go. When you define yourself by your profession all day long, you're a bore. Go for a walk around a lake with someone, and while you're there, completely drop the identity you've built for yourself as 'writer', 'actor', etc. They're just words, mental concepts. Above all, you're a human!

10. Eat healthy.

Care to share?

Tweet

Question From A Reader, re: Film School

Kid, I need your help. I'm a young filmmaker - 15, actually. Of course, the question of film school is popping up, within my own mind and my parents. My parents believe producers and studios won't give a filmmaker millions of dollars to produce a film if they don't believe he can do it. They say a film school degree will show them I know how to produce a film, how to make them money. 

What's the truth?

Thank you for answering. It's a question that's been plaguing my mind for some time now. Cheers, 

Alex.

It's all about your track record. If you make a movie for $300 and it wins some awards, someone will give you $2000. If you make that movie and manage to sell a heap of copies online and make $5000, then a producer will think "this kid is profitable!", and more money will come your way.

It's never a flowing stream. It's never easy. When it comes to film financing, and getting hired by studios, it's all about business. Whether you went to film school or spent your entire teens and early twenties fishing, they don't really care. They want to know -- can you make them money? 

At least, that's how it is when a lot of money is involved. 

With smaller, independent film producers, they often care more about art. They want to put something great into the world. And sure, you need a great track record, but not so much a financial one. It's more about your reel. How many people have you inspired? How many festivals have your films been in? How many people are clambering to work with you? 

I have been paid well to write, and paid reasonable amounts to direct -- although not at the big-budgets your questions imply. But I know many people who have done, some of whom are at the top of the pile in Hollywood. And you know the one thing nobody EVER asks them when they're being hired? "Where did you go to film school?"

Film school is a tool. It's a place to meet like-minded people. A place where you have permission to sit in a tiny room all day with a pretty girl watching French New Wave movies. Can it help? Of course! You have access to so much equipment and so many amazing people. But it doesn't guarantee a job. 

Despite what I say, many will no doubt have completely opposite opinions. Truth is, there are people who walk out of top Film Schools straight into big directing jobs. Just like there are random kids from Spain who win a competition and then are signed up immediately, having never been near a film school. 

As the old wisdom goes, there are no rules, and nobody knows anything. Figure out your path and follow it. Somewhere between everyone's advice, your parent's hopes and your own intuitions, you'll find the answer. I hope you come back here and share it! 

Care to share?

Tweet

Independence Within Hollywood: The Actors Who Are Paving Their Own Way

Channing Tatum could, quite easily, hop happily from '21 Jump Street' to '21 Jump Street 2', without having to do much else. Yet he starred in the subtly brilliant 'Son of No-one', which hardly anyone saw. And he produced and starred in '10 Years', an independent film full of hugely talented actors.

'10 Years' is an important film to look at, because it stars some of the best acting talent in America. And they all did it for virtually no money, because they were longing to do something meaningful, where they get to play.

Ari Graynor is my favourite actress of the moment. She steals your attention in everything she's in. 'Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist' being the perfect example. She was heartbreaking in '10 Years', hilarious in 'Whip It' and frustratingly difficult in 'Celeste & Jesse Forever'. And then she did 'For a Good Time, Call'.

It's her best and biggest role yet. Her comedic and dramatic talent is undeniable. But how often does she get the chance to truly shine? Perhaps not enough, which is why she produced 'For A Good Time, Call'. Increasingly, actors on the periphery of Hollywood blockbusters are doing their own thing as a way of making memorable and personal films.


For all the hype surrounding Rashida Jones --she was universally praised for her role in 'The Social Network', for example-- it's still ridiculously hard for talented women like her to find truly great roles in Hollywood. So what did she do? She wrote 'Celeste & Jesse Forever'. It's a film about staying friends with your ex, and she penned it with a guy she once dated, ouch! (Will McCormack) That's what it takes to create a great movie. Go deeply personal!

The film is full of insight, openness and honesty, in a way that most big-budget movies lack. The difficult thing for the studio films, is that they need to cater to everybody, whereas a great indie only has to appeal to somebody. Not everyone will relate to Celeste & Jesse, but those who do will connect in a more thorough way than they would with a bigger movie because it has more genuine insight. That's why these small films are so important.


Back to '10 Years', because it really is a fascinating film to unravel. It was by a first time director, Jamie Linden, who was previously known as a writer. The film stars Kate Mara and Brian Geraghty, who were in 'We Are Marshall' (which Linden wrote), and Channing Tatum who was in 'Dear John' (also written by Linden).  This proves the most important rule in independent filmmaking, it's about who you know - who you can get to do favours. 

Which doesn't mean you have to be related to Steven Spielberg to make it in the film industry. It means that the relationships you build are crucial. When Jake Pushinsky edited 'A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints', he'd never edited a movie before. But the job he did was great. He went on to edit two more films that starred Tatum, 'Son Of No-One' and 'Fighting'. So when Tatum produced '10 Years', guess who he called on to edit? And is also stars Rosario Dawson, who was also in 'Saints'.

That's a huge part of why the film works. It was a huge collaboration, on a tiny-budget. Packed full of friends and colleagues amassed from projects prior. And that's kind of what the film is about too, everything that happened in the past and where everyone ended up since.

With the ever advancing technology and bigger appetites of Hollywood directors, we're always in danger of losing the subtle and small. That's why projects like '10 Years' are so refreshing. We get to see humans being human. Luckily, young actors like Justin Long and Aubrey Plaza prioritise the indie films, and because of this, their careers are building artistic longevity. They're not in it purely for the money, for the box office. They're doing work they care about.


It's a mistake that so many upcoming actors make. They think it's about rising to the top. And the top, of course, meaning big studio movies. But Ari Graynor did a no-budget short as recently as two years ago. It looks cheap, not all of it works, but it's creative! And she got to play an interesting role. I've met actors --unsuccessful ones-- who say "I'm done with short films. I don't work cheaply anymore". But Graynor did 'No Deal' for virtually nothing, and the entire cast of '10 Years' worked for scale, and it included the likes of Rosario Dawson and Max Minghella!

It's great to see some of the best Hollywood talent taking matters into their own hands, by producing personal works that they're proud of.  There are great independent films in America, you just have to look for them, and the people making them.

Care to share?

Tweet

FEEDBACK, RE: Illegal Streaming

Responses to "Illegal Streaming Is Shaping The Future Of Film Distribution"

JAINA, rightly wishes for common sense from the studios:

It's frustrating the stubbornness of the film industry to get up to date with how people want to watch film these days. Surely it's in their best interests to get their films seen by as many people as possible, in a way that's easy for them? 

The months in between US and UK film releases is painful. The likes of Django Unchained, Flight, Les Mis, Zero Dark Thirty - no wonder people turn to downloads.

TERI BROWN offers perspective: 

You're right that the studios are signing their own death certificates by continuing to do it that way when anyone who knows how to Google can find those movies available to view online. 

And her thoughts on a solution: 

I do like that some studios (and indies) have been releasing films on PPV at the same time as they are released in the theater. It costs more than the $1/night Red Box rental, but it's considerably less than seeing it in the theater and you don't have to wait. I think *that* is the future of movie distribution. 

ANONYMOUS chips in with some incredibly insightful thoughts that I wish I could get the Studios to read: 

Ditto on all accounts. 

To what Teri said about studio and indies being released on PPV, they should continue doing and also push it available for other countries.

The US iTunes "Indie" section has movies such as Struck By Lightning, Fitzgerald Family Christmas that have opened in US and also pre-theatrical releases such as John Dies At The End, Charles Swan and Freeloaders.

For this point, I'm too lazy to check if they are available in the UK store but they are not available at least in one of the Scandinavian countries.

What it comes down to is will I buy US itunes gift card from ebay and give my money to someone in China or wherever and buy the movies from US Itunes which is still illegal as I have a fake address and name in my US iTunes account as you cannot use different country store with your actual information and credit card or do I save my money and download them illegally from torrent sites.

In both cases, I'm doing illegal things. As opposed to those indies being released on this Scandinavian iTunes store and I could pay 5-17 € per movie (rent or buy, SD or HD). 

The positive changes are happening with television. Recently both Netflix and HBO streaming services were launched in Scandinavia (yes, that is right, Netflix is a shiny and new thing in the late 2012 Scandinavian world).

Today marks the first time we are able to watch a US show (even with local subtitles!) without downloading it within 24 hours it premiered in US. Banshee premiered yesterday in the States and people from Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are able to watch it on Saturday (the episode was available afternoon) via HBO Nordic who have deals with Starz and Cinemax as well. The same will be for the new seasons of Girls and Enlightened that premiere on Sunday and will be available on Monday with local subtitles.

On the Netflix side of things, House of Cards is the 2nd show that we can enjoy fully legally right from the start.

Both instances, HBO Nordic shows and Netflix originals have something in common - quality and cable/subscription. Clearly it will take time when we are able to legally watch network shows but I have faith that day will come. What type of changes are needed for that to happen (distribution, economic, big US corporations possibly buying smaller companies in Europe and elsewhere etc), that's a whole new topic.

Care to share?

Tweet

Illegal Streaming Is Shaping The Future Of Film Distribution

Amazon.com are offering a new feature which allows you to to listen to any CD you've ever bought from them, via streaming.

http://nyti.ms/WUabBu

"Variations on this have existed before, but they have often met resistance, if not litigation."

This is how modern distribution works. A few kids figure a way to bring music to the masses and the distributors panic and rush to court.

But years later, they follow the paradigm set by the youngsters. The youngsters who were catering to a future that the distributors were too reluctant and narrow-minded to see.

They thought Napster would literally kill music, but the evolution of distribution needed to happen. Any of you volunteering to give up your mp3s and iPods?

The same thing is happening with film right now. The distributors are trying to keep us in the dark ages. For example, the USA get cinema releases before the rest of the world, then gradually they come to places like the UK. Previously, there were various reasons for this, mostly to do with profit margins; but the key reason: the film prints! When you distributed movies the old way, the costs were huge!

Yesterday the Academy Award nominations came out. In the UK, we still haven't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty' or 'Lincoln', but there are perfect viewable copies online, available illegally.

It's about supply and demand. WE LOVE MOVIES AND WANT TO SEE THEM! People don't sit down and watch a film illegally because of criminal intent, it's because they want the joy of film for two hours. On Facebook, all my American friends and colleagues have seen 'Lincoln', they have strong opinions about it. I'm desperate to see it! Why are you making me wait? For every ticket buyer they win by holding a film back, they lose two more who will view it online. 

I wrote something like this before and a bunch of the comments criticised my viewpoint, saying I'm selfish and want my own way, basically that I'm just a greedy consumer. But that's not the point ----- the point is that distribution is still modelled on a structure that doesn't even exist anymore. Home Video is dying (in 2012 in the USA the rental market took $400million less than 2011). And disc sales are falling by 6% a year (that percentage will steeply rise in coming years). Videos spread online like wildfire in a way that the old formats never did and never will. 

Piracy via streaming is rife. Studios are trying to crack down and get sites closed. It's the same nonsense they tried with Napster, Limewire, Kazaa, iMesh, etc. These changes to distribution are happening for a reason.

You want us to spend two hours wages on a cinema ticket, and three hours worth on the popcorn. Then you want us to rent the DVD, then buy the DVD, then buy the Special Edition, then the Blu-Ray limited edition, then the bonus version and after that the anniversary disc.

But times are changing. The music industry thought YouTube would end music, but then they figured out how to monetize it. And Spotify seems revolutionary, yet Napster did it fifteen years ago!

We are actively partaking in the most exciting shift in distribution since the birth of cinema. Without question, we must pay for the art we consume; but the Studios and distributors need to get on board with the changes. The digital revolution puts power back in the hands of the people. You can no longer sell us formats that will quickly become obsolete. 

Yes, I love the cinema experience. Nearly everyone reading this does too. But the statistics and the rate of privacy prove that people want to stream from the comfort of their own home just as much, if not more. It's ridiculous to try and deny this simple fact. 

DISTRIBUTORS & FILM STUDIOS: Stop suing the innovators. In the future, all of our films will be streamed -- and, ironically, you'll be stealing all your ideas from the very people you took to court. 

Care to share?

Tweet