Please, Shoot the Piano Player!

We had a crowd of screeners last night.  It’s often that way early in the season.  We’ll see how long the new folks (or the old) last, as the new people learn that exposing oneself to raw art is hard work, the old folks burn out.

We were greeted by a night of horrendous piano music in both screening rooms, as it becomes clear that new filmmakers are not taking advantage of the wealth of knowledge presented here over the years.  Look back on past posts about film scores and you’ll see that time and time again movies come in with wall-to-wall piano plunking, often accompanied by a cello or synthesized strings.  People, film scoring is an art unto itself.  It’s not just any ole music played throughout, and no music is better bad music.  Seriously, if you haven’t submitted your film and you have a score of nothing but random piano cords, you’ll be better off taking it all out.  If you have submitted, and you’re worried that the music will make us pass on your film completely, don’t.  No film is perfect.  If you’re strong in other areas, we let my little nitpickings slide, but in general, the less we have to let slide, the better.

We had a nice short doc that made me compliment it for the journalistic integrity, which is rare these days.  If you’re making a Doc, or considering one, remember, you’re a journalist first, filmmaker second.  Even if it’s an opinion essay, like Michael Moore’s work, it still needs to be in the style of good journalistic editorials.

Speaking of essays – we had our first 100% voice over film of the season.  We get these a lot, and sometimes they are good, sometimes great, but more often they get a big PASS.  When you limit yourself to just a single voice in a movie, you have to understand what a burden you’re starting out with.  One voice, one point of view.  That voice and the story must be engaging enough to hold our attention.  The words must all be special.  And when the narrator isn’t speaking, the pictures must be strong enough to hold their own.  It’s a big challenge.  Live up to it, or crash and burn.

This brings me to another thing we see over and over again – the total hyphenate.  A multi-hyphenate is the writer-producer-director.  A total hyphenate is the idiot who does everything and doesn’t listen anyone’s input – and it shows.  At every level of production, from “I’m thinking of making a movie” through script drafts, on the set, and in the edit bay, get other people’s opinions.  Sure, they might all say “it’s great, honey,” so you’ll have to read between the lines.  You’ll also have to find people who give, good, professional feedback.  The film industry isn’t non-competitive soccer.  Awards (and jobs) do not go out to everyone who participates.  Get help at every step of the process.

We had a couple of movies with great kids in the cast in very different projects.  From 1960’s little-known Cold War History, to lessons on gun control & gardening – we saw some future stars in action.  Nice job, kids.  (And the adults, too).

I’d like to leave this post with a challenge to the American Film Institute.  We see your submissions year after year, and they are often some of the best films we see – but they are all so heavy.  The one we saw last night was fantastic, but just once, I’d like to see a comedy from AFI.  Please!

If you can do that, then maybe we can get USC to make a movie that isn’t a visual effects extravaganza.

You're In - And Other Body Issues

While FSU sports fans gathered in Pasadena this week, their movie fans should have been at Dances With Films submissions screenings last night.  We have a stack of FSU films, which is great!  These are almost always well done, so we look forward to watching them, and we saw some good ones last night, so thanks for that.

But before we got to the shorts, a screener and friend told me he watched 3 features over the past week, and they all had peeing scenes in them.  Obviously, some filmmakers are not reading my blog.  It seems like every other indie filmmaker thinks it's uber-cool and cutting edge to show characters expelling things from their bodies - pee, puke, poop and other 3-year-old p-words.  Sure, if it's necessary to the plot, or tells us something about the character (besides the fact that they pee) or it's uncuttablely funny (and not just to you, but to little old ladies from the aforementioned Pasadena), keep it in - but don't fool yourself into thinking you're being original.  Almost everyone does it - and it's almost always a bad idea.

While we're on the topic of things we see every year, the very first short in my screening room (we have two going each night), was a dance film.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with a GOOD dance film, but they are extremely hard to do well.  We often get the feeling that filmmakers think we only show dance movies, or that they'll have an edge because they've made a dance movie.  Neither is the case.  Please, just make good movies - dance or otherwise.

We had a few shorts with something I don't recall seeing - little flashback montages of what we just watched. These would usually come as the character remembers the good ole days of way back when - but it was just a few seconds ago for us.  In some cases, it was just a few minutes ago for the character.  Neither the audience nor the character needs reminding of what just happened.  Save that for a mini-series.

We had some editing that didn't match in naturalistic narratives.  This is very jarring.  If you find you can't make two cuts go together, go to a quick reaction shot and come back.

We screen mostly on DVDs.  We have a lot of pressure from some to accept streaming files - which usually don't work very well - and when we come down to decision making time, it's harder to remember a film without the DVD in hand, or to pop it into a machine as a reminder.  At the same time, we saw some badly compressed films last night.  Folks, you're making a short.  You shouldn't have to compress it at all to fit on a DVD.  Watch your own movies.  Look at the background.  If the fog or a blank wall looks like little squares from the 1980's ... you've over compressed your files.  Try again.

We had a lot of hitting on the head in the shorts.  Sometimes with dialogue; when the characters talk more like they are summing up a book report or telling how they feel instead of just feeling or doing something.  Other times it was with the filmmaker's message.  Don't get me wrong, I like a good message movie, and in a short, you certainly can hit the viewer over the head with a blatant message.  Rod Serling did it all the time. But do it in one, hard shot and end the movie.  There's no need to pound over and over again.  We get it.

Ending on an up note:  I caught a nice single card for a Production Designer, which reminded me that, all too often, design is ignored in smaller budget films - and that is a big mistake.  First, a good designer can actually save money, and they can certainly make the audience forget they are watching something done on the cheap.  When you're ramping up for production it's easy to forget that the little things are going to be what make your story more entertaining than your average micro-budget film.  And designers are all about the little things.

Until next week.

Turning 17 - What Life Is All About

With the New Year comes a new season of Dances With Films.  While preparation for year 17 began as soon as the lights, projection systems, pipe & drape and posters came down on year 16, the work of screenings, preparing panels, promotion, more screenings, and choosing the final slate begins in earnest this month.  Which means it's time for me to dust off this blog and start posting again.

My regular readers know that the purpose of this blog was originally to help future submitters make better movies, so I wouldn't have to watch an endless stream of bad ones.  Life is, after all, all about me.  I still entertain the idea that I'm molding young creative minds, but I've also been where you are now – waiting for news on your submissions.  I understand that the real purpose of the blog might just be to give you something to do other than pace and bore your non-filmmaking friends with how anxious you are to hear from any of the festivals you've submitted to.  Your life is, after all, all about you.

Returning guests, please be patient while I explain to the new submitters what they can expect from this website between now and the time they are either in the festival, or, sadly, not. 

For the most part, I will post here once a week with a general discussion about the kinds of movies we're seeing in our screening sessions.  NO TITLES WILL EVER BE MENTIONED IN THIS BLOG.  Each year we see trends in bad filmmaking, which is what prompted this blog.  Years ago, it was Romantic Comedies that were neither, and tended to make you think the filmmaker (male or female) had some serious issues with their opposite gender.  Then it was the Mocumentaries – that trend continues.  The, "I'll make a movie in the style of the latest hit TV show / Movie" is always big.  There are also the technical issues, like unfinished sound, lack of any kind of lighting, etc.  The list goes on.

 

I call out these problems, but never for any one film.  If I complain about seeing long scenes of people walking to nowhere in particular while bad piano music plays, and you have a scene like that in your movie, I might be talking about your film, but I'm also talking about four others.  If you want the world to know it's your movie that sucks, then post a comment like, "It's unfair of you to criticize my movie that way, you jerk!"  But remember, a single problem in a film will not knock it out of consideration, while a bad attitude from a filmmaker certainly will.

On the good side, I will also say what jumps out in a positive way.  In those cases, I like to drop a hint to the filmmaker and anyone who knows the movie that, yes, I'm giving you a pat on the back.  It's not an official review, so I won't give the title.  I just feel that we all work so hard in this business, and we get so much rejection, that any compliment should be given – even if I'm really not supposed to.  But remember, if you think I've mentioned your movie in a good way, that doesn't mean you are in the festival.  This might be the official blog of Dances With Films, but nothing here is by any stretch of the imagination binding.

For official notifications, we'll communicate by e-mail.  If you've submitted to us, but haven't gotten an e-mail notification that we got your film within a week to ten days, check your spam filter.  If there's nothing there, CONTACT US.  Make sure we have the right e-mail address.  Nothing sucks more than us going through the trouble of finding a movie we love, then not being able to get in touch with the filmmaker.

Over the course of the next few weeks we will send out notifications that say something like, "your film has cleared to the second round..."  If you don't get one, don't worry.  We don't watch the movies in any kind of order, and final decisions are not made until all the submissions have been screened.  It's entirely possible that you could hear nothing from us even after the press release announces the "final" slate.  Things happen; films drop out; slots open up; we're forced to make a press deadline before we're done.

So, no news is not great news, but it's not a "no."  Until you get our famous pass letters, you're still in the running.

The reason we send the second-round, third-round, etc. letters is two-fold.  First, we want you to know we're interested in your film, so you don't go do something dumb like premiere at a festival that isn't one of the 25 coolest in the country just because they said yes before we did.  We're opening lines of communication with the round notice, so take advantage of it.  Stay in touch.  If another festival wants your movie, let us know.  We can't tell you what to do, but we can give you the advise that comes with 17 years of experience.

 

The other thing we're doing with this communication is a little sneaky.  We're checking on your professionalism.  Having a film in a festival is a partnership of sorts.  We want to know if you're going to get back to us in a timely manner.  Are you polite and informative?  Are you smart enough to admit that this is your first time in the festival circuit, but are willing to learn?  Are you the type of company that we would like to do business with?

By the way, you should use these early communications to make the same judgments.  Partnership is a two way street, and Life is, after all, all about us.

Follow Dances With Films on Twitter #DWF17

How To Read A Manuscript

Having as many novelist friends as filmmaking friends, I often find I’m handing a script to a novelist for notes, or the other way around.  So on my literary writing blog, From The Write Angle, I’ve written a primer on how to read a screenplay.  Here, for my filmmaking friends, I thought I’d offer some advice on beta reading for your budding novelist friends. I hope it helps you, because one day you may help me – and you know... it’s all about me.

The biggest difference between a screenplay and a manuscript is that a screenplay isn’t intended to be a finished product anymore than an orchestra score is meant to be read over the radio.  Manuscripts – aka unpublished novels – are the complete deal.  Sure, you might be reading a rough draft, but that’s the same as watching the first cut of a film, not reading the script. 

What’s the same between the two is all the hard stuff: story, character separation, flow, objectives and obstacles, etc.  As a filmmaker, you should be as well-versed on these issues as a novelist.  This primer is intended to help you with issues that are more important to the novelist than the filmmaker.

So, here we go:

Point of View is important in both disciplines, but the rules are stricter, and harder to adhere to, for the author.  Writer’s can move in and out of character’s thoughts, feelings, etc.  Often, that’s a good thing, but not if the narrator’s point of view is established otherwise.  The most common points of view are:

FIRST PERSON: The narrator is a character in the story.  In these cases, you can help your author friends most by making sure there is a plausible way for the narrator to experience everything that’s in the book.  You’ll find yourself saying, “how did s/he know that?” or “I don’t buy that s/he would be there.”  Also keep on the lookout for characters telling the narrator a bunch of stuff.  Just like a movie, an author must show, not tell.  But the hardest part of first person are other characters’ feelings.  The narrator can’t know for certain how other people feel.  He or she is like the camera in a movie.  They can only tell us what they see or hear.

LIMITED THIRD PERSON: The narrator is not a character in the story, but is tightly glued to one – or sometimes two – characters.  Like first person, every aspect of the story must be experienced by these characters.  Harry Potter is a good example.  Nothing happens in those books that Harry doesn’t do, observe, or hear about.  This is often the point of view of films as well, but movies have a long history of playing fast and loose with the convention.  It’s normal in a movie to introduce story elements away from the view of the hero – which is one reason you’ll hear authors grumble about movies.  That’s cheating!

Omniscient  THIRD PERSON:  In this convention, the narrator knows and sees all.  They can jump in and out of the heads of anyone, so the reader often knows more of what’s happening than the characters.  In a manuscript in this style, it’s easy to lose focus, so make sure you are always aware of where you are and what’s happening.

Together with point of view, is tense.  Films are all written in present tense because the audience/reader sees what’s happening as it happens.  Novels are often written in past tense.  Being a non-novelist beta reader, you won’t be expected to catch subtle differences in tense, but if something feels wrong, look to the verbs.

Speaking of verbs, it’s important for the author to use as many active, action verbs as possible.  If the words just lay on the page, look for boring “to be” verbs.  Chances are you’ll help them flush out passive voice.

Word choices are to novels what edits are to movies.  In film, a scene might lag because the editor isn’t cutting on motion, or has left in too many footsteps.  In a novel, the author might be using too many words to get to the point.  If that’s the case, look for adverbs – you know, the ones that end in “-ly”.   They can almost always be cut.

Echoes and repetitive phrases are the novelist's nightmare.  Echoes are words that get in the writer's fingers and repeat themselves in close proximity.  If you find the same words popping up over and over, point them out.  You'll be thanked for it. 

Repetitive phrases have a lullaby effect, and they tend to hang out around dialogue.  Look out for: "...she said, as she ___________ ,"and "...he said, _________ing his head."  If you find yourself rocking like an old Southern on the porch to the predictable rhythms, then you should make a note of it.

Margin notes help authors as much as screenwrights.  Just a quick word or two about what you're thinking or feeling right at that moment on the page. 

Volumes have been written on what makes a good novel, but since a manuscript is intended to be a finished work, you don't need any special training to say how you feel about the story, characters, flow, etc.  The ultimate question is, does the story move you?  If so, great.  If not – some of these simple notes may help you understand why, and help your friends fix the problems.

The Big Lesson of DWF16 and The Off Season

The big lesson I came away with this year was that a cheap DCP file isn't worth it.  If your DCP doesn't come with a full QC, then don't bother - because you can't do it yourself.

I have some posts in mind for the off season, starting this Friday, but nothing specific and definitely not every week.  So, feel free to cruise by and see what's up here - but don't worry if there's nothing new.  It just means I'm working on my own scripts, or novels, or acting, or sleeping.

Have a great summer everyone!

Any Given Sunday

There will be joy in Hollywood tonight.

And where there is joy, there is disappointment. 

But where there are winners, there are only losers in the minds of those who choose to see themselves that way.

I'm talking, of course, about tonight's award ceremony for Dances With Films year 16.  We give awards because a few, special mentions might help the winners promote their work, without hurting those terrific films that do not win. 

So the films that do not win, do not lose. 

This year's films were so diverse that choosing a winner for the Grand Jury was close to impossible.  Every film had a champion.  Each had multiple reasons why it deserved to take home the wire man.  Each elimination ripped a piece of the judges' hearts.

So when the winners are announced tonight, whether your name is called or not, let there be joy in your heart.  Joy for your accomplishments.  Joy for the newfound friends' accomplishments.  Joy for being a Dances With Films alumni of year 16.

Congratulations to all.

It's In All Of Us

It's in our DNA.  It defines us.  It separates us for the rest of the Animal Kingdom.  No, not our opposable thumbs, or our ability to make tools.  It is our need to share stories.

From cave paintings, to the theatrical Festivals of Dionysus, to the Guttenberg press, to Hollywood and the internet, we as a species have a primal need to share our stories.  Some tell them, some listen, a symbiotic relationship between artist and audience.

It is in our DNA.

This year's filmmakers have the same drive to share their stories as the cave painters of prehistoric France, as Socrates and Euripides.  They have struggled to get words on paper as much as the early authors of the Middle Ages, and have fought as hard as Mary Pickford, Charles Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, or Stephen Spielberg to bring those words to life on the screen.  Sure, the tools of storytelling have changed over the years, but not the drive.

On Friday, Timothy and Patrick Chapman pit familial DNA against artist DNA in Phin.  In Waking, Skyler Caleb and Ben Shelton question reality, Fate and Destiny in the form of a love story of dreams.  Zak Forsman pumps us full of adrenalin and fulfills our secret desires to be a bad-assed anti-hero when things get Downand Dangerous.  Then for some late night fun, Jeffrey Schoettlin and Robert Taleghany look at just how stupid love can make a man in American Idiots.

Love, sex, and emotional confusion go hand-in-hand, so are often the focus of our need to share stories.  On Saturday, Michael Doneger and Michael David Lynch tackle the pain of life on the rebound as they tells us about This Thing With Sarah.  Tom Glynn explores our relationships with our cars.  In Automotive, the car in question belongs to a man confused by love, and trapped in a life of crime.  Then, what Saturday night would be complete without a midnight movie of blood, screams, and dreams of an eternal life of youth and beauty?  We've told scary stories around campfires for centuries – now we tell them in horror movies.  In Chastity Bites, Lotti Pharriss Knowles takes this genre to a new level – with intelligent, hilarious, dialogue, a flawless cast and tons of fun.

We bring out our Sunday best with two entirely different styles of indie film.  Cement Suitcase will charm you with J. Rick  Castañeda's script and Dwayne Bartholomew's performance of life's every day struggles in small town America.  Drew Thomas's Channeling shows us the danger of exploitation of our real-life stories, while filling our need for for fast-action, emotional insight, and sic-fi adventure.

Monday night brings Ryan James Russell's Reach., which dives into two of humanities deepest enigmas, love and death, while Chioke Nassor wonders just what our impact on the world is, and if they'll miss us when we're gone, in How To Follow Strangers.

Tuesday, we get to re-live adolescence through the wonderfully stylized eyes of Dan Lee in MurtRamirez Wants To Kick My Ass.  Later, we jump back into the complex adult world as Sam Hancock, Dan Mayer and Matt McKay – together with a standout performance by Alanna Ubach – delve into the limits of acceptance in Us.

Livia De Paolis and Sarah Nerboso also wonder about this human obsession of sharing ourselves – from groups online, to individuals in our lives – in their modern family  drama, Emoticon ;).  Later, David F. Morgan and Cora Benesh tell the story of a generation lost in over and under achievement in City Baby. 

It's only paranoia if you're wrong.  Friday, Eddy Salazar, Peter Kenneth Jones and Monty Miranda do what Shakespeare did in The Scottish Tragedy – as The Insomniac explores a life without sleep.  What happens to our minds when we don't dream?  Whatever it is, it isn't pretty.  Joe Eddy then takes a good hard look at family, friends, foes, and immigration laws in Coyote.  Then Jono Oliver wonders exactly what is Home?

On our first Second Friday (kind of like Second Breakfast),  Steve Chong Finds Out That Suicide Is A Bad Idea, as Owen Hornstein III unravels a drama in the isolation of a lake-house.  Odin Ozdil uses the 2008 housing crash to see how world economic forces effect our everyday lives  in California Winter, while J.C. Schroder takes the apocalypse even further in Forever's End.  Midnight is once again turned on its head when Will Prescott's imaginary friends get a job Feeding Mr. Baldwin.

Since Comedia del Arte or the 1500's we've seen love stories about gambling over amorous conquests, but what happens in modern times when The Bet is between grandfather and grandson?  That's the story Annie J. Dahlgren, Christina Eliason and Finola Hughes tell us Saturday afternoon.  Paul Osborne then wonders how far an otherwise moral, upstanding, person will go when things start to unravel around him, just for asking a friend for a not-so-simple Favor.  Tamas Harangi feels the pangs of injustice, and explores the pros and cons of vigilantism in The Advocate, while Bernie Van De Yacht and Brett Donowho wonder exactly what is Salvation?  But who really cares about such weighty issues when there are boobs, booze, and buds at midnight, in Scott Donnelly, Erik Lindsay and Greg Garthe's Last Call?

Sunday afternoon, we look behind the walls of prejudice to find out the truth of matters in the purgatory between freedom and incarceration, via James Brannon and Richard Friedman's Halfway To Hell.  Brian Jun and Jack Sanderson turn us back to the observation of this year's festival, storytelling is in our DNA – when She Loves Me Not looks into a famous author's inability to tell another story, while his assistant can't get the world to listen to her first one.  Then put your dancing shoes on, and fill your glasses for the rock & rollingest good times of Lance Lindahl's Hay Days.  And finally, Blu de Goyler and David Mun plunge us into the oldest story of all time, in the House of Good and Evil.

Like DNA, each of these films – and the shorts and documentaries too numerous to mention here –  are unique, yet they have so much in common.  They are the creation of their mothers and fathers – our filmmakers – and yet, they now take on a life of their own.  A life we hope you will all enjoy.