Further Up and Further In

I am so jealous! When my film was in DWF, the winners got a statue by John Berry, which is friggin' cool. More cool was being in Mark V. Olsen and Will Sheffer's office on Big Love, pointing to their statue and saying, "I have one of those."

Then Canon USA came on as a sponsor and we started giving away top-of-the-line cameras along with the statues. Where's my camera? Just announced today, CAA has come on as a sponsor. I don't think they are doing anything fancy, like offering a career to the winners, but still, where were they when I won? Can I get a meeting?

You guys are so lucky!

Not so lucky are filmmakers who lie to us.

Folks, we have access to the internet, you know. We know how to use Google. If you tell us you've never screened in Los Angeles or California, or wherever, and we find you listed in other festival programs, you're toast! What are you thinking? We often take films that have screened elsewhere – though, admittedly, we're starting to toughen-up on that count – but we never take movies from people who lie to us. Period. DWF is very proud of our alumni. We feel like we're building a family, and in a family, you don't lie to Mamma. Got it?

This year's slate is forming up. We haven't made any hard decisions yet, but I can tell you the Jello is jigglin'. I shouldn't admit this, but most years there are one or two films that standout where each of us programmers think, "Yeah, one of those is probably going to win." We usually don't say it out loud; that would be bad form. Not that it matters, none of us are judges and we love all the films that are in the festival. This year, though, the field is truly even. The quality is high, as usual, but no one film is leaping up above the others. It's going to be a scrap right down to the final buzzer.

Okay, so the NBA playoffs start this weekend and I'm a Lakers fan, so sorry for all the basketball references.

But, as co-founder Michael Trent always says, we're not about the competition. When you can put Dances With Films on your resume, you're already a winner. I promise no one will ever ask, "Were you in competition? Did you win?" I always think of it like competing in pinball. You don't care how good the other guy does, you just want to play your best. The rest is up to gravity.

So good luck to everyone. You're all still in the running – well, unless, you know, as mentioned above. We will be in touch one way or the other, and I'll still be blogging, so:

Thanks for reading.

140 characters

I watched a feature film submission a couple of days ago that was so good I sent out my first real Tweet – other than the ones I send to promote this blog. Right after that, I saw a movie so bad I felt the urge to Tweet again.

What's up with that?

I have 22 movies to watch before 1:00 tomorrow, so for all of you sitting on pins & needles who would like to make the wait even more torturous, follow me on Twitter. I'll see if I can't drop a few hints from there. I am @RSMellette.

Having Adobe on as a sponsor has gotten me to thinking about how the digital revolution has become the video revolution, and changed all of our lives – not just filmmakers, but everyone. A kid growing up today who doesn't learn the basics of movie-making will be as far behind the curve as someone who couldn't do math or use computers in our generation. My novelist friends over at From The Write Angle have been talking among ourselves about the latest trend in literary marketing, the book trailer. Different from a TV commercial, these are little short films – often made by the author – meant to entice you to buy their books. They range from full productions, to the author sitting in their backyard droning on in a monotone snore. The point being, when the literati start discussing rendering speeds and FLASH formats, a seismic shift in communication has occurred. The wise filmmaker will find a way to take advantage of their skills to stand out in this, the video revolution.

Speaking of which, we watched a cute movie last night that deals with the personal communication revolution in a charming way. That was followed by yet another "is it a doc or a moc?" film. Five of us watched the entire movie with no consensus as to whether it was a documentary or a spoof. That's not a good thing. If it was real, then it was hilarious. The people (not characters, if it's real) were ridiculous and needed to be laughed at. If it was a spoof, it was boring. The characters (if it's a spoof) were asking to be laughed with, but did nothing to let us know they were trying to be funny. I've talked about this before. We, the audience, need permission to laugh. Nothing big. Just a wink and a nod to let us know you've got that at/with thing figured out, and we won't be rude by laughing.

We need a couple more film convention moratoria. First, it's time to put on the shelf the bit where a character kills someone, or does some other outlandish thing, just before we jump cut back into reality and we all say, "Oh, that was a fantasy.. ... how clever." It's no longer clever. It's been done to death. Also done to death, the security camera / organic video source movie. "Oh, how ... clever ... an entire feature film taken from security cameras, or webcams, or cameras that the characters actually have." Blair Witch was so 1900's. Get with the 21^st Century and just tell us a great story.

Last night was our last short screening get together for the season. With the exception of the inevitable stragglers, bad DVD's that need replacing, and possibly one that fell behind the filing cabinet, all of the short films have been seen. NOT all of the second round notices have gone out, so don't ask about that. It is possible to be accepted into the festival without ever getting an official second round notice – rare, but possible.

For the next week or so the programmers – myself included – will watch the shorts and features we haven't seen, but others liked. This is the fun part for me, since I know when I put in a DVD that it's probably not going to suck. I hate it when they suck.

This will be followed by the worst part, where we have more good movies than screening times. Worse still, what one programmer thinks is a brilliant film, might not be another's cup of tea. So the tea cup is thrown across the room, furniture is thrashed, and bedlam breaks out as we all fight for our favorite films. Once we do finally settle on a movie and notify them, they get back to us that they are saving their world premiere for Sundance, which they are absolutely positive they will get into. More than once, we've seen films re-submit a year later with their world premiere still unsullied – but their drop-out your opportunity. It ain't over 'til the "thank for your submission, but..." letter is in your e-mail.

So sit tight, and while I watch all of your movies, it's only fair that you get to watch one of mine. This was a little bobble I made with friends a few years back that I never finished to a level suitable for theatres, but seems okay on line. I'm sure I've made all the mistakes I point out in DWF submissions, so feel free to call me out on them.

Enjoy. Thanks for reading, and watching.

M.P.A.A. - watch more funny videos

You're Already A Winner!

Congratulations! Absolutely every film that submitted to Dances With Films this year has gotten into the festival!

Uh... check the date of this post.

Before I get to last night's screenings, I want to give a shout out to From The Write Angle. This is a new blog group that some of my novelist friends have started. It launched today... no, really, that's not an April Fool, it did. My first entry, A Name I Call Myself, might give some comfort to the filmmakers who get those terrible pass letters that will be coming out in the next month or so, or any artist that might be going through a hard time. Stop on by and leave a comment so I know you're there.

I have a stack of feature films to get through and last night's Lakers' game to watch, so let's get right to the shorts from last night.

We had a film from Chapman University, which is always nice to see. Like FSU, Chapman always seems to produce quality work. Other universities do as well, of course, but those two have stood out in the past couple of years. If you're at another university, it might just be that we aren't enough submissions from your school, so get those suckers over to us.

We often get, but I've rarely talked about, films with scenes that are overwritten. Usually, this is a problem that doesn't stand out because so many other problems mask it, but last night there was a film that was just right in almost every way – good acting, filmmaking, story, etc. – but a few scenes had more dialogue than necessary. When a character speaks their emotions, or tells another character something they should already know, or slips into cliché phrases, then you get the feeling the writer is putting in more than is needed. This is when script editing has to go from the big hammer & chisel to the fine work of sandpaper and polish. Little tiny snips of a sentence here, or a word there, make all the difference in the world. Often this can happen on set. The director and cast should keep a sensitive ear. An overwritten line will sound like a flat note in a symphony; hard to pick out of the whole, but glaringly obvious once spotted.

We had a film that not only laid flat for all of us in the room, but also suffered from what's known in the business as "Bonanza Casting." That's when actors playing parents and children seem like they are really the same age. Not a huge problem. I've done it myself, but it's rare one gets to work that phrase into a conversation.

We had another film with a sound issue we often hear – or rather, can't hear. It had an uneven mix. The effects were loud and clear. The dialogue was barely audible. The loudest sounds were blaring, the softest not there at all. Folks, sound is as important as picture. Get it right or 50% of your movie sucks right off the bat.

We saw a delightful little documentary, much of which was shot right across the street from the Sunset 5 Theatre where we hold the festival. We got a laugh out of that, as well as the film – which is good, since it's intended to be funny. Often our biggest laughs come from films that didn't mean to get that reaction. Never good when that happens.

There was another funny and intelligent short that came off like a Southern Mamet sketch. The timing of this film was interesting, as it dealt with race. Just before that, we watched a movie with obviously well-educated, middleclass, articulate actors playing street characters. The writer didn't seem to have a handle on the idiom, either, which didn't help. Being a Southerner, it kind of reminded me of some of those cooking shows where the hosts say "ya'll" way more than is natural, or where writers have characters say it to just one person. Word of advice, "ya'll" is plural – ya feel me?

Finally, we watched a movie that I would like to carry with me 24/7 – along with a portable DVD player. Not because the film was good. On the contrary, it was about five minutes long, but I swear it slowed down time. The movie took forever. Time nearly stopped. I want this film – or any of the numerous slow shorts we get every year – on me at all times in case of emergency. If I'm in a car accident with only 3 minutes to live, and the ambulance is 20 minutes away... "Quick! Put on that movie that stops time!"

Keep an eye out here as we get to making final decisions on films. And if you want something to do while waiting, don't put on the movie that stops time, but get over to From The Write Angle. Maybe you'll learn something.

Thanks for reading.

Crunch Time

Our late deadline is March 30^th, which is tomorrow as I write this.

That means on our end we've got to get down to decision making. On your end, it's time for the worst part of the wait. Believe me, I understand how hard the waiting is. I'm not only a filmmaker, but also a novelist. Glaciers move like jack rabbits compared to literary agents and publishers, and the higher up the food chain you go, the harder the waiting gets. It really, really sucks – but cheer up, it's about to get worse.

If you flip though the archived comments of my blog to about this time last year, you'll see that a few people got very upset with me the closer we came to announcing our final screening list. I'm sure that will happen again this year, as some folks can never be pleased, but in an effort to keep you all in the loop I thought I'd give you an outline of how things go from here.

Right now we still have features and shorts that have yet to be screened. Keep that in mind, I'll remind you about it later.

Over the next week we expect a flood of entries from the procrastinator set. It never ceases to amaze me how people insist on paying twice the amount of money for the same thing. A little inside information: Without a Box, the festival submission service, requires that we have this late deadline, which is actually well past our comfort zone. Consequently, we jack the price up to what we think is an equally uncomfortable level – and yet, every year we get submitters who'll pay it. Go figure.

So, with movies yet to be screened and the expectation of more submissions, we're under the gun. At the same time, there are movies we've already seen that we know we like. These have been sent an e-mail saying something about a second round, blah, blah, blah. We do this for two reasons:

1. Screening history update since you've submitted. Did you get into the LA Film Festival? Great! Good for you! Good exposure. We'll give your DWF slot to another deserving film.
   
2. To give you a heads up so you can plan your festival strategy.
   

That second one is tricky. Every year we have more good films than we do screening slots. Getting that second round notice means you've got a film to be proud of. It means someone like me is in your corner fighting to make sure you get one of those slots, but it's not a guarantee of anything. So say we've reached out to you and another California festival wants you in. Get in touch with us. You might have a bird in the hand with the other festival, but the two in the bush are singing at you. Is it a tough decision, yes. The kind of tough decisions you want to have to make throughout your career.

Now is the time I remind those filmmakers who have not gotten such an e-mail that we still have movies in the bins we haven't screened. So the answer to your "what does it mean if I haven't gotten a second round notice?" question is... well, you can figure it out. I will add that when screening, we pick the movies out pretty much at random, so yours might be the first movie submitted, but the last one screened.

As we move forward in time the fat lady starts warming up, but she does not sing until our final list is announced, and our pass letters have gone out. Why is this? Films drop out, last minute decisions have to be made, screening times change, a brilliant programming idea might shake things up, etc. Last year filmmakers complained on this blog about how we were slipping information out when they hadn't heard anything. In fact, we had slots still open. And FYI, if your film is on the bubble, pissing off the festival directors is a great way to make their decision an easy one... POP!

But not to worry. In over ten years of doing this, I've learned that good films are made by good people. In nearly every single case, the people who complain irrationally have made the worst movies. Rational complaints are another matter.

Good luck to everyone, and thanks for reading.

Time

I want to give a shout out to the 2-Minute 2-Step short film competition as we enter our fifth year of doing this madness.

There are a lot of short film competitions on the festival circuit, but as far as I know, the 2-Step is the only one that lets you make the movie you want to make. By that I mean, others typically give you 24 to 48 hours to make a movie based on an opening sentence, or a theme, or some piece of dialogue you have to work into the script. At the start of the game this sentence is reveal with great fanfare. The filmmakers then disappear to make a movie – except... they don't have a script. As a writer, I have to say I enjoy the discovery of what a large percentage of the limited time is spent on writing.

On most sets, if the writer is there at all, he or she looks like the laziest person in the world. They roam around giggling and messing with the producers, directors, and stars. Occasionally, they'll have some pages in their hand that shoot the next day or the next week, but for the most part, they look like they don't have a care in the world.

But when there is no script, the roles are reversed. The crew stands around playing grab-ass while the poor writer sweats bullets, pulling ideas out of his or her brain and trying to smash them into the computer in some orderly fashion. This is what any writer on any film has done long before the crew has been hired, so it's no wonder they have that stupid grin on their face during production. They've worked their behinds off and are now reaping the rewards.

So the DWF 2-Minute 2-Step celebrates the writer and all aspects of pre-production. Competitors are given all the time they need to write, cast, rehearse, staff, design, etc. the 2-minute movie they want to make. The game for our competition is; once they roll – or whatever the digital equivalent of "rolling film" is – on their first shot, they only have 4 hours to finish the movie.

Another difference for us is that the filmmakers don't run away, make their masterpiece, and come back with the finished goods. They do it on site in front of everyone. Our stage is the filmmaker's lounge. Our edit bay is the lobby of the theatre. It is so much fun to see people with movies already in the festival - dressed in their nice clothes, noshing on tidbits from our sponsors, and schmoozing with people who they hope can get them their next gig – interrupted by a sweaty assistant director desperate to finish on time screaming, "Rolling! Quiet, please!"

And because everyone there is in some way related to the industry, they fall dead silent, wait for the shot to finish, then either pick up the conversation where they left off, or happily use the filming as an excuse to get away from a bore.

And what's the end result? Take a look:

Jerry Kernion did such a good job in his production strategy that he actually finished making the movie before he finished shooting it. How? Come to this year's event and find out.

On to this week's submissions.

First, a personal confession. I will admit when screening features I have kicked the speed up to 1.5 times. It's not something I'm proud of. I have never done it in the first ten minutes of a movie. I've never done it with a movie that has even the slightest chance of being in the festival. I only go to 1.5 times the speed because at that rate I can still hear the dialogue. If anything remotely interesting happens (it usually doesn't on films this bad) I stop, go back a little, and watch the scene. I take solace in the fact that some other poor screener – usually one that hasn't been doing this for the 10+ years I have – will sit through the entire movie to give it a 100% fair shot.

Why am I making this confession? Because 99.9 times out of 100 when I do this, the movie seems completely normal at a higher speed. For some reason, lesser filmmakers seem to think slower is better. Their establishing shots not only let us know where the scene we're about to see takes place, but they give us the feeling we've lived our entire lives there – that's entire life as in long past our deaths. The cast can be just as guilty. Sure, Meisner Technique, speak only when you're motivated to speak. Well, get off your dramatic butt and motivate faster!

If you're a first time filmmaker with a rough cut grab a test audience and show them the movie at 1.5 times the normal speed and see if they notice. If not, get back to your editing and take the pauses out. Thank you.

We had another movie with the film industry as a backdrop. I wish this filmmaker could take their same characters, same story, same cast & crew, and just change the business the lead character is in. There was not enough cleverness to this slice-of-life movie to overcome the groan factor of another movie about a 20-something working in the movie business. I know that's a prejudice against the second largest US industrial export that's as old as the automobile industry, but that's life. Get used to it.

We had a film that didn't have enough spark to overcome one of the most confusing plots I've seen in a long time, but did remind me that bars and party scenes are for some odd reason really hard to pull off in low budget filmmaking. The 2-Minute 2-Step above did a pretty good job of it by packing as many extras into an impossibly small space, but that's rare. So heads up. When you see "INT. BAR" or "INT. ROCKIN PARTY" in the script, you've got a big hurdle to overcome.

What is it about bad acting that the person doesn't need to say a word or even do anything and you know right away they have no talent? I've seen it a lot and can't figure it out. Worse still, what is it about a director who can't see that when casting? Your thoughts are appreciated on this subject.

There's a big trend we're seeing in poorly recorded voice over narration. Folks, we're going to play these movies on systems with speakers as big as your house. A few badly popped P's and we'll have blood dripping from the audience's ears. If you're going to do narration have it professionally recorded.

We ended the night on a good note. A film with a solid cast, including teenagers – who are hard to find – and a complicated story that laid itself out without on-the-nose exposition or taking up too much time. The dialogue was natural, and the script had a perfect blend of humor and drama. A lot of things go into deciding whether or not a film ultimately finds a slot in the festival, but I'll be fighting for this one – if for no other reason than to see if the kid's hair has grown back.

Thanks for reading.

Hey, Have You Heard The News?

Some big announcements about this year's festival. Check out these items from our Newsletter:

THE INDUSTRY CHOICE AWARD
New this year, all films selected for the festival will be in consideration for the Industry Choice Award.  What's this?  One film (could be a doc, music video or narrative) will be announced at the Closing Awards Ceremony.  The winning filmmaker will receive a meeting with a high profile industry director, producer or executive (to be announced later).   Last year's unofficial industry choice was Audience Award winner, 'GO FOR IT!' filmmaker, Carmen Marron, who sat down for a meeting with Lucas Foster and stepped that much closer to her deal with LIONSGATE.  [GO FOR IT! will be released nationwide May 2011.]

ADOBE's in the HOUSE!!  
ADOBE, the leading company helping artists create, deliver and optimize compelling content, joins Dances With Films for year 14!  "We are very excited to announce that Adobe is joining the DWF family," stated Michael Trent, co-founder of DWF, "they are one of the most significant platform designers helping filmmakers realize their vision."   

PANELS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO TODAY'S INDIE FILMMAKER 
While DWF has long focused on the films that make the indie circuit great, we have also produced a limited number of panels that are relevant to what's happening in the indie world. Instead of panels that are geared toward a Beginners' "How to?" we prefer to stay focused on "Where to?" As in: 'Where do you go from here?'... DWF has put together a couple of amazing panels for the June 2011 festival that are sure to be heavily attended: Panelists will include: Award-winning Casting Director, Deborah Aquila (Sex, Lies & Videotape, Shawshank Redemption, Smart People), Manager/Producer JC Spink (I Am Number Four, The Ring, upcoming Arthur) and Alcon Entertainment's SVP/Producer, Steven Wegner (The Book of Eli, The Blind Side).  Click here for more information.

We are getting close to our final deadline for submissions, which means different things to different people.

• If you have already submitted, our final deadline means you're that much closer to hearing from us. Things get wild and crazy on this blog right around that time, so keep an eye out. A word to the wise – you're not out of the running until you get that sad e-mail from us that says thanks, but no thanks. Up until then, we are furiously trying to fill slots.
  
• If you haven't submitted, then it means you need to get a move on! Do those final edits of the slow rambling walking with the bad piano plunks accompaniment and get that DVD over to us ASAP.
  
• If you don't have a movie to submit, then get to your computers, typewriters, or sticks in sand and start writing a 2-minute (2-page) or less script to submit to the 2-Minute 2-Step short film challenge. You can make a movie during the festival that gets screened in the theatre the next night! How fun is that? Plus, we give great prizes to the winner.
  

Okay, back to watching movies.

Thanks for reading.

Rules of Criticism

I think there are four types of reviews: Good, bad, favorable and unfavorable. Granted, we'd all prefer favorable reviews, but given a choice between a bad review that's favorable and a good one that's not, I think I'd go with the latter. A good critique teaches the artist as well as the audience, and there are some simple rules for formulating a good critique.

Is The Artist's Objective Clear? If you're watching a movie, is it a comedy or a drama? What's the point of the novel you're reading? The artist has asked you to invest your time in this particular piece. Why? If you're looking at a painting, is it classical realism or Jackson Pollock abstract expressionism? In music, is it a lullaby or a dance tune?

Does the Artist Achieve The Objective? Did the comedy make you laugh? The drama give a catharsis? Did the themes make you think? Is the realistic portrait objective? Does the artist's hand show in the abstract? Did the lullaby ease your tension? Did the dance number make you move? Was it all worth your time?

Finally, Do You Like It? It is important that this is the last question. I remember both Siskel and Ebert giving Rambo: First Blood positive reviews, even though neither of them liked the movie very much. If the artist's objectives are clear, and they achieve them in an interesting manner, then the critic is obligated to say, "if this is your cup of tea, you'll like it, even though I don't."

Following these rules is how a good critic can review a movie one minute and a bottle of perfume the next. What is being reviewed doesn't matter. How the thing achieves its goals, does.

Which leads us to this week's short film submissions.

We've had a slew of submissions that start with the old 8-second leader with the 2-pop – which I've always wondered, is that were the rapper got his name? Folks, we know you're shooting digital. Even if you shoot on film, you don't need the 8-second leader on your DVD submission. The projectionist doesn't have to sync up you reel changes, and we hope that you've already got your sound right. If you get into the festival, we're going to ask for an HD tape and Michael might instruct you to put on an 8-second leader, I don't know. I finished on film. I do know that: 1) you do not want any festival screening the same DVD you submitted. They get scratched, have a high failure rate, and a tendency to drop a couple of frames out of sync. I know a lot of festivals do screen off DVD or hard drives where they've copied the submission over. We ain't that cheesy, so that leads to: 2) we don't need to see the 2-pop.

But don't worry, and don't write in. Having it will not affect the first two rules of our critiques.

I was reminded of another theatre saying that filmmakers would benefit from burning into their brains. Savvy stage directors will often say to the lighting designer during technical rehearsals, "turn the lights up, I can't hear." They aren't kidding. If we can't see an actor's face, then it is harder to understand what they are saying. Our brains tell us we can't hear them, but in fact, we can't see them. This happens a lot in DWF submissions.

The music has been better this year. I had that thought as we watched a film done by someone who obviously didn't read my blog last year. Slow piano... over slow shots... of people walking... slowly... or people... sitting... or people... doing nothing. If that isn't bad enough, slow synthetic cellos are brought in to make sure that anyone who might still be awake is given artistic Quaaludes. Counterpoint, folks! Slow music is fine if you're setting us up for something – or have so overwhelmed us in action or plot or emotion that you know we need the tiniest of breathers – or maybe the action on the screen is the craziest car chase ever, then try a slow piano cord here and there as a juxtaposition. But dragging music over slow action is like putting lead weights on a jelly fish.

Speaking of weights on jelly fish... we often see films like one last night, where there is nothing blaringly wrong with the final product, except that every aspect of the movie – writing, acting, design, tech, etc. – falls just a little short on quality. Together, these little problems bring the whole down enough that it is ultimately a pass. Those are tough for us, because we hope the filmmakers will keep at it. All they need is experience.

We had another soldier coming home from war movie that just gave lip service to an important issue. In trying to help, they insulted. I don't know if the filmmakers have real experience in the subject matter or not. If so, they don't have the filmmaking skills to pull off their goal. It takes both experience and skill to handle such difficult subject matter.

I know I've harped on opening credits in shorts before – please don't pretend we're about to see an epic, just start the damn movie. The same applies for end credits. When you're watching a studio movie and you see a bunch of credits at the end, then the title of the movie, then the same credits over – like Cast (in order of appearance). That's because they are contractually obligated to each person whose name you see before the title to have "above the title" credits and a certain kind of credit "in the crawl." If the producers don't want all of that crap playing over action at the beginning, then they have to put it at the end. It's not an artistic choice, it's a legal one. In most cases with DWF submissions, you don't have those problems, so credit you're cast and crew, of course – but don't go crazy with it.

That's it this week. Thanks for reading and comments, questions, and suggestions are appreciated.