Good Cupcakes & Good Movies

This week's screening started with maple syrup cupcakes topped with icing and sausage, bacon, or nothing for the veggies.  These were provided by Cuddle Cakes in Burbank, so please shoot Juanita an e-mail to thank her for supporting the festival, and order some of the little temptations for yourself.

From time-to-time on this blog, I just go straight through my notes for each movie as it happens.  This post is one of those times, with a few annotations where applicable.

Film #1 – Good sound.  Good cast (Spanish-speaking).  Filmmaker is in control.  Nice to see a film that's not set in the filmmaker's apartment.  MUST SEE.

ANNOTATION – The key note here is "Filmmaker is in control."  What I'm telling myself is that, from the combination of good dialogue, good cast, and good technical skills, I feel like I can trust this storyteller.  If I have a question about what's happening on the screen, I trust that I won't have a question by the end of the movie.  That's very important at this "raw art" level of screening.

The "filmmaker's apartment" comment is a little snide way of saying I liked the location.  In many ways it was just a family dwelling – at the same time, it felt like they were living in a cave.  It suited the story well, was completely dressed, and most important, it was interesting.  Nice job.

Film #2 – Bad Sound.  Bad Video.  Campy style.  Funny, but production quality is too low to put on a big screen.  Bad Ending.  PASS

ANNOTATION – Some people in the room liked this film, so it will get another look, but the audio is so bad I have deep reservations.  Most of the dialogue clips – meaning, in short, the volume was recorded in such a way that the sound waves were too big to fit in the machine.  Literally, the tops and bottoms of the sound waves are clipped off.  This makes for pops and clicks that, when played on speakers the size of a house like they have at the Chinese Theatre, are painful to hear.  Yes, we've screened movies with bad sound before, but those films have had exceptional stories.  This one – in my opinion, didn't have the story or filmmaking skills to overcome the bad audio. 

"Campy Style" by the way, is a compliment.

Film #3 – Bad acting.  Bad sound.  That over-used feedback sound effect.  On the nose dialogue.  PASS.

ANNOTATION – "On The Nose Dialogue" happens a lot.  Anytime you're writing a character telling us what they feel, then it can almost always be cut – unless they are wrong or lying.  Think about it.  How often in life has someone told you exactly what they are feeling, or doing, or explained to you for the benefit of anyone who might be listening exactly what the eavesdropper needs to know to follow the plot of your life?  Write dialogue like dialogue, not like a synopsis.

Film #4 – This filmmaker is in control.  Good characters.  Great Dialogue.  Brilliant movie.  Nice to see the snow in NYC put to good use.  MUST SEE.

Film #5 – Just really, really bad.  PASS.

Film #6 – Good cast.  Good dialogue.  Nice showcase for young talent.  Good, campy, horror.  Good ending.  MUST SEE

BREAK FOR MORE CUPCAKES

Film #6 – Good logo.  (FYI – the rule of thumb is, "Good Logo = Bad Movie").  Poetic dialogue.  Points for trying, but it becomes cliché.  Good filmmaking skills.  Uneven talent.  So-so script.  Big Logic hole.  SECOND LOOK.

ANNOTATION – I have a sensitive ear for cliché dialogue – and the "good filmmaking skills" is always worth a second look.  Often, in a discovery festival like ours, the talent of the production team might outshine the script or cast – and that can be worth a screening.  This film will be on the bubble.  Things like, the quality of all the other submissions, its world premiere status, is it local, etc. will help tip it in or out.

Film #7 – A recognizable character actor.  Textbook shots.  Good dialogue.  Good film.  MUST SEE.

ANNOTATION – I happen to love the actor who is in this movie.  If this film gets into competition, we'll get some flak from people outside of Hollywood about it having a "star," but DWF has never had a policy against working actors, or character actors.  Just because you recognize their face, doesn't mean they are a star.  If you have to say, "It's… you know, that guy, from that movie with the superhero…" then you're talking about a fine character actor – not someone that a banker will open their checkbook for.

"Textbook shots" is not necessarily a compliment.  It can also mean "well-done, but uninspired."  In this case, I think the filmmaker will soon throw the textbook away, and that will open his/her career to a new level.  There's two steps to any artistic training: First, learning the right way to do it - then forgetting everything and doing it your way.  Both steps are necessary for greatness.

We finished out the night with music videos, which are always hard to judge.  We end up with a few categories.  Good song?  Good singer?  Good band?  Good filmmaking skills?  The first one had it all.  The second was fun.  Good song.  Good singer for the genre.  Not the best filmmaking skills, but not bad.  I didn't bring home any notes on the third one, so I don't remember it.  That means, I'll probably have to watch it again when it comes time to decision-making.  After a decade-plus, you'd think I'd learn!

Thanks for reading.  Comments welcome.

Know Thy Market

We had three of four 30-minute-plus documentaries at our screening last night, which is fine for the festival world, but filmmakers – like every artist who has ever existed – have to be aware of their markets.  Plays from Ancient Greece all have about the same runtime, and most of them end in some kind of Deus ex machine.  Comedia del Arte used stock characters everyone could understand from a distance without having to hear the words.  Etc.

Yes, in every time, artists came along and broke the mold, but they are few and far between.  Yes, given the insanity of online distribution, no one really knows what the mold is anymore –but, there is still television, which is where most docs under 2 hours look to pay for themselves – which is important if the filmmaker wants to keep on working.  On PBS, a 30 minute doc can be truly 30 minutes, but most are between 23 and 28.  None are 32, or 34, or anything over 30 and less than 45 – which is where you begin to be an hour long doc. 

Festivals have problems programming shorts that are longer than 10 minutes.  We'll do it, but it's a struggle.  DWF, will often program long shorts on a similar subject into one screening block, but you have to hope your 30-minute doc fits thematically with other long-short docs. 

And I have yet to see a 30+ minute doc that wouldn't be better at 20-something minutes or less.

We had a couple of erotic short films, which can be fun.  One was a hit.  One prompted a screener to say, "How could they make porn boring?"  (Don't analyze that comment too much, all roads lead to therapy.)

I'm going to coin a new genre here – Techno-Romance.  We've seen a few of those in the past, some good, some not.  A Techno-Romance is any Romantic story where technology drives the coming together of the couple.  You heard it here first – even if You've Got Mail is an old movie.

We had film last night that speaks to the balance we talked about in some recent comments – that is, the balance between storytelling and filmmaking skills.  Come to think of it, the film last night that got me on this train of thought had neither, but we can all learn from it.  Some people have interesting stories to tell, but they have no idea how to make a movie.  Some are great filmmakers, but have nothing interesting to say.  Any good film needs to combine these two diverse departments at an equally high level. 

We ended the night on a good note, literally.  We watched what I called a "black and white Fantasia." It was a joy, thank you for that.  I believe it has screened in several festivals, so it will be a fight to get it into DWF.  That's a reminder to everyone – keep your powder dry when it comes to premieres.  As we become more of a premiere-oriented festival, it gets harder and harder to squeeze in one or two excellent movies that have been seen at some beach festival, or screened with a thousand other shorts in Hollywood.  

Still – I'll be in there fighting for the ink spots.

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!