“Anecdote – it used to be that the hot new movie directing talent came up through commercials and music videos – think David Fincher. McG is, I think, the last name I can think of that came up that route that has achieved commercial success. Anybody else? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? There was a list of top 50 hot talent something or other. Nobody under 30. Where’s the new talent coming from? Not from music videos anymore – there’s barely a market, and certainly no real money, in that anymore.”

The reason this jumped out at me is because I had just seen another one of those “win a marginal amount of money for creating our viral ad campaign for us” contests. I have been generally down on this type of thing in the past, mainly because you really are guaranteed to forfeit all ownership and rights to your work upon submission, with only a small chance of any compensation. Further, most of said contest yield so much garbage, even the lucky winner.

However, with the supposed decline of one development path for filmmaking talent, and no end in sight for theses contests, could the latter serve as a possible replacement for the former, at least in a very small way? Probably not, but if a young/student filmmaker were to scour the web for contests that suited his interests, deconstructed the judging criteria, product in question and marketing strategies, and use these elements as real world exercises for honing their craft, it might pay off. Call it the Lazlo Hollyfeld film school.

Bias warning: I personally am not a fan of the horror genre. I have a variety of personality traits that prevent me from getting much enjoyment horror movies. Mostly I prefer to be in control of as much as possible at all times. Perhaps I am just not able to let go of this, and thus the idea of impending doom actually creates more anxiety for me rather than releasing it. Regardless, my general ambivalence to the genre has prevented me from studying it too closely. However, the above theories are very intriguing to me as a filmmaker.

It seems there are hundreds, if not more, awful horror flicks made each year. Most of the movies made by my casual acquaintances and friends of friends are horror movies. These movies are poorly written and made, but never seem to lack for cast or crew, or strangely audience. Perhaps the genre itself is able to ignite enough passion to perpetuate itself, even in spite of the fact that so many works lack the quality that other films and filmmakers strive for.

If this is true, and also, if there is any merit to the theories of vicarious catharsis, horror might serve as a perfect case study for what indie filmmaking can achieve. Horror tackles deep psychological ailments of the masses. It has a built-in audience (though this is a characteristic of all genres), and it is able to inspire people to sweat the unglamorous parts of production with little to no hope of money or recognition. If a filmmaker were to explore complex and universal elements of the human psyche and to write and produce to pre-existing communities united by a common passion, they might be able to repackage the success of the horror genre to further their own unique point-of-view. I am not advocating using the horror genre as a veil for any theme that may inspire you. But, if you were to truly study why horror works and deconstruct it, you might be able to harness the potential that keeps Hollywood churning out slasher films. Further, the tumultuous times within which horror thrives, times like the one I am writing in, present ample opportunity for art to raise a voice. Whether by tackling political issues (Frost|Nixon, Good Night and Good Luck) or the precious and precarious balance of security and justice/freedom (Bourne Ultimatum, The Dark Knight), indie filmmakers can couple the unique contexts of their time and space with the lessons of the horror genre, and perhaps carve a place for themselves in the public consciousness.
]]> http://mitchmclachlan.com/2009/01/horror-as-a-model-for-indie-film/feed/ 1 http://mitchmclachlan.com/2009/01/polymathism-and-indie-film/ http://mitchmclachlan.com/2009/01/polymathism-and-indie-film/#comments Wed, 28 Jan 2009 02:15:00 +0000 Mitch http://mitchmclachlan.com/2009/01/polymathism-and-indie-film/ On one hand, some of the most important intellectual work of our civilization was done by great, creative thinkers not bound to one area of specialization. Da Vinci was “a scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, painter, sculptor, architect, botanist, musician and writer”; Newton a “physicist, mathematician, astronomer, theologian, natural philosopher”. Modern society is built upon work by polymaths.

On the other hand, one of the most oft cited (and very valid) criticisms to auteur theory is that filmmaking is a collaborative process. However, I have already discussed how current economic conditions now allow for the entire industrial side of filmmaking to be executed by teams as small as one. So how could a creative, intelligent individual perfectly execute every step in the filmmaking workflow to create a film of unified vision, high art and quality?

Yes, filmmaking is a very industrial process. It has many integral parts that must be executed at a high level to achieve a certain amount of quality. Writing, directing, editing are just some of the more sexy rolls that must be strong to make a movie good, but there is many subtle things that must happen in between too. I believe if one was creative, talented and systematic enough, they could hone skills across the filmmaking workflow and create a tight, cohesive and quality movie worthy of auteur study.

Shane Carruth and Robert Rodriguez may one day achieve this modern day Renaissance Man/Auteur/indie status. Carruth’s very first movie won two awards at Sundance. Rodriguez’s first picked up one prize at Sundance. Not bad for ~$10K in productions costs, combined.

Carruth reversed engineered the process of filmmaking, keeping costs down by doing as much himself as possible (writer, director, producer, actor, editor, composer. Does this list remind you of anything?). Rodriguez has spent most of his life honing every facet of production. If one day either of these filmmakers has the body of work to study in the context of auteur theory, it would be interesting to see what the effects of the “one man crew” method might have on the subject. Additionally, the free/powerful animation tool Blender, putting Pixar (circa 1994) power in the hands of every potential auteur, making possible things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPcimeiqLE

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUPcimeiqLE

In the mean time, I believe this approach to filmmaking could produce some of the most original work in decades, and would be the perfect laboratory for developing a modern day auteur school.

What went wrong? My goal was to workout the digital, no-budget workflow. And I did that, at least somewhat. But making awful movies for the sake of production kills your creative drive. Every time I locked the edit of another bad movie, I had a little less desire to write the next one.

Now, I am a producer first and foremost. Soon I may post about why every filmmaker should think of themselves as a producer first and director when it is necessary, instead of the other way around. Producers do a lot more than make some calls and pick up best picture Oscars. But they are often misunderstood and often mistrusted (rightfully so, in some cases.) However, you need to learn to be a fantastic producer for you own work, or you are not going to understand why it sucks.

So my new plan: Be a producer first. I will still work out workflows to optimize my product and post. But the producer in me will use every tool available, like modified classical film theory and market research, to do things right this time.

My plan as a producer is as follows: find ways to make production as economically viable as possible (minimize production, distribution and marketing costs), develop the ideas that have the best chances of making a good movie and finding an audience, and getting the most out of the other roles by having a clear vision of each project, so that while I am writing, directing, editing, etc, I am making one cohesive picture that is the best that it can be.

Because, like many critical studies, the politique des auteurs ignored the contexts that helped shape it, once social and economic conditions changed, the framework as practiced by the New Wave filmmakers was too rigid to adapt and survive.

It should be reinforced that very real conditions were responsible for the formation of the framework: production became cheaper, smaller budget films had some financial success in distribution, an influx of products from the Hollywood studio system, the marginalized voice of a political movement. These conditions allowed the New Wave filmmakers to make new and personal films with a new message, using a new cinematic language. This is a fine development, but as conditions changed, the theory did not change with it. New Wave filmmakers stuck with a framework that was tied to no longer existing contexts, and eventually the movement was choked out.

Modern critical studies, especially those practiced by filmmakers, should learn from this lesson. Recognize your context, develop a framework that tackles your current conditions, but be willing to tweak or even reinvent your framework at anytime, even your height, if the conditions dictate it.

I have observed the large role played by the critic in critical studies. Of course this should be obvious, but the critic commands too large a role and can directly cancel out some parts of his or her framework. The hierarchy of importance in most studies appears to be:

1. Critic, who imposes meaning on films after the fact
2. Director, whose work has no meaning without the critic revealing to the masses, even if the director himself had an explicit purpose
3. Audience, who must rely on the critic to filter and value movies

I should note that two and three above might be switched, depending on the school of thought, if required by the theory.

The role of critic as filter is certainly important, as are all filters. However, because we are concerned with the filmmaker’s perspective, unless a producer is specifically targeting the loyal following audience of one particular critic, which in most cases would not be productive, focusing on a critic’s perspective would be harmful noise in the creative process.

Critics also tend to completely ignore context and conditions. The usefulness of this practice is important; if a critic’s work can be marginalized tomorrow by changing conditions, then what inherent value does that work possess? In many cases, the results of film study must be beyond context in order to have any longevity or legacy. However, this will eventually limit the effectiveness or credibility of the work. For example, the outlook of some British theorists on authorship resembled that of the Cahier critics. However, because both devalued context, they had very different opinions on Hollywood. The French New Wave critics, who were completely deprived of American films, romanticized Hollywood once access was restored. Their British counterparts, who felt over run by American cinema, completely rejected it. This rejection of context is of little use to a filmmaker. If I make a film that could be a critical success 5 years after I make it, and perhaps achieve a real following even later, it is likely that that work will never be of much value to me. In order to see any return at all I am likely to take a very unfavorable deal, lose all rights completely or, the work itself could become orphaned, lost to the world completely. If instead I am able to apply the knowledge of the critic to my present or likely future conditions, there is a greater chance for me to be able to profit from that knowledge.

It seems that criticism, in general, is not self-aware enough to be useful for filmmakers. By ignoring the privileged place of the critic, and the present conditions within which the observations are made, criticism is quickly devalued. If instead we can apply this observation and theory to the context of any time or place, we then have a framework that can be helpful for the production of new artistic works.

1. It does not take very much study of Auteur Theory to run into some of the fundamental conflicts I have alluded to earlier. One of the biggest is this: can film even be art (like a painting or poem) since it is a commercial commodity (like orange juice or gasoline).
2. I am in no way an advocate of art cinema. I think Ingmar Bergman and Truffaut made amazing, and important films. I think La Passion de Jeanne d’Arc is one of the most artistic works I have ever seen, in any medium. However, Bergman, Truffaut and Dreyer made some of the most boring movies in history. They are perfectly suited for the darkened screening rooms of film schools or the endless Netflix queues of budding critics. However, the will never be mainstream.

The new economics of the Long Tail and digital video production make modern art cinema a viable endeavor. Yes, today as much as ever, filmmaking is a capitalistic exercise. However, these new economics can open a lot of doors. Let’s explore how the process of art cinema production might work today.

1. Message: At its core, art cinema tries to say something. All movies should have a message (explore the family storyline in the action film Last Crusade), but art cinema tends to value its message much more vehemently than filmmakers creating entertainment. Often avant garde filmmakers belong, or at least feel they belong, to a slighted political minority. They are searching for a creative outlet and a voice. Today, self-publishing, such as blogging, coupled with the intrinsic community building and information filtering properties of the internet allow anyone to have and hone their unique message. Further, there are pre-built niche communities that can actively seek and promote such new content. If you can harness these aspects of the internet and niche communities, you can have an audience for your art movie.
2. Production: For as little as a couple hundred dollars, anyone can buy a digital camera and couple it with free video editing software bundled with their operating system. Instant movie studio. You will have a difficult time moving your opus to 35mm, but likely, not more than a handful of your audience will ever be within driving distance of each other anyway, so theatrical distribution should not concern you. Of course there are technical limitations to a $200 movie studio, but you are not competing with Speilburg, you are competing with blogs and YouTube videos. Further, there are no conventions in art cinema. What George Lucas may see as a limitation can actually enhance your ability to craft you art piece. Carl Dreyer made Jeanne d’Arc without sound; instead he made one of the most visually compelling movies ever.
3. Clarity: This is really a combination of the above two points. If you know your message, and have an artistic vision, the production economy allows you to put your film together, from beginning to end without outside influence. Filmmaking has always been a very collaborative enterprise, because scores of people, or at least a handful were needed for production and post. Today you can write, direct, star, produce, edit and score your movie fairly easily, regardless of talent level. Again, this is a conventionless platform. You need not rely on anyone else’s interpretation of your vision. In the end this independence and freedom can help you fully realize you vision as clearly as possible.
4. Distribution/Marketing: We have established that audience building tools exist, and that the cost of production is approaching zero. As a result, very little return from the finish product is needed to make the entire exercise economically feasible. You do not need to bankrupt yourself to make your works, and therefore you don’t need to sell your work to Hollywood. In fact digital distribution can be absolutely free via video sharing sites and free blogging tools. You can now afford to give away your incredibly cheaply produced work for as long as you need to until you have cultivated an audience that can support you financially. Again, in art cinema, your production costs do not need to scale with scope. Later, you can use essentially free publishing-on-demand tools like Lulu and Amazon’s offerings, free store applications via Amazon, which will also freely market your work through filtering and suggestion algorithms, and even freely set your prices based on market demands.

Let’s design a theoretical example. Say I am someone completely unfamiliar with filmmaking, but incredibly passionate about fighting poverty in developed countries. I spend my time volunteering at shelters and soup kitchens; I attend rallies and local city council meetings; I spend 10 hours a week or so on internet message boards, forums and grassroots websites.

One day I watch some abstract art cinema piece recommended by a friend. I am moved by the starkness, the inherent power of the work. Suddenly I realize that I can make a movie with the same aesthetic but focus on my own message, ending poverty.

I journal for a few weeks, grab up every avant garde movie at my local arty DVD rental store and start sketching out my idea. Perhaps I tell the story of a man who is homeless due to mental illness; a simple story of the struggle to survive for one day in world that is abstract, disorienting and dangerous, told through the lens of his dementia. Or instead I craft a short montage of juxtaposed images and sounds, things I know from my daily life as an affluent person: cabs, office buildings, restaurants with the equivalents I might encounter if I lived in poverty: walking in dark and forboding alleys, panhandling amongst disgusted citizens, digging recyclable cans and bottles or food out of garbage cans.

I shoot my piece over a few weeks or even months, carefully selecting the images that encapsulate my developed notes. I spend months or even a year editing. During that time I tell my volunteering friends what I am working on, and ask for technical help from my grassroots web community. I am constantly fostering an audience from those who are already inherently interested in my message, who are searching for media that addresses their concerns.

After many months of working out of my element I complete my movie and post it online or organize local screenings with organizations favorable to my cause. My friends and web communities embrace it, my coworkers and family members humor me and then dismiss it and friends of friends or random people who stumble upon it are challenged by its message. In the end, I would consider such a result a success. I have invested nothing more than my time to a cause I believe in, and maybe just maybe, I am able to get my message across.

I may not give up my day job and have dreams of being David Lynch, but in the end I have accomplished my mission and created a unique work that adds value to its genre and medium. With such favorable economics, the barrier to entry for such a scenario and the risk involved is incredible low, but the potential reward is limited only by my message and my vision.

Even though I think that art cinema is a form that more often than not attracts pretentious and shallow work, I am glad that the scenario described above is at least economically feasible as modern broadcast and mainstream media continues its lowest common denominator driven production models. There are thousands of important messages or uniquely artistic voices that can be served by the advantageous contexts that we are currently apart of. This excites even the skeptic in me.
]]> http://mitchmclachlan.com/2008/08/the-economics-of-modern-art-cinema/feed/ 0 http://mitchmclachlan.com/2008/08/the-foundation-for-auteur-theory/ http://mitchmclachlan.com/2008/08/the-foundation-for-auteur-theory/#comments Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:06:00 +0000 Mitch http://mitchmclachlan.com/2008/08/the-foundation-for-auteur-theory/ I am deeply entrenched in The Cinema Book, 2nd Ed. edited by Pam Cook and Mieke Bernink (third edition now out, no idea what the difference might be, other than less used copies available for film students). I am walking through the book in my study of Auteur Theory. Thus far, I have covered a brief section on the Nouvelle Vague (French New Wave), a brief illustration of the studio system/golden age of Hollywood and today I began an entire section (~80 small print 8.5″x11″ pages) on authorship in film studies. The brief introduction has given me the following insight into la politique des auteurs, crafted by Andre Bazin and colleagues.

1. Trigger: Astruc pens a famous essay (La Camera-Stylo (still looking for a good external reference, but it means Camera-Pen…)) calling for a new cinematic language that would allow for individual artistic expression.
2. Production Economics: For news gathering/propaganda purposes, Americans develop smaller, more manageable cameras; this enables small teams to possess the tools of film production previously reserved for large, well-financed or government backed enterprises.
3. Voice: A subset of film critics also happened to be members of a politically marginalized and silenced movement. They were looking for a voice.
4. Access to New Art and Information: Previously banned films from America were finally open to French audiences and critics (these include the works of Alfred Hitchcock and films like The Maltese Falcon).
5. Authorship: Authors of the Cahiers du Cinéma discussed the difference between directors who could merely competently tell a story using regurgitated cinematic conventions, and those who could do the same, but also present deeper themes and more coherent artistic visions.

These are the contextual footers for the development of the politique des auteurs. However, these contexts are not unique. Let’s explore these topics within the context of digital media in the present-day West:

1. Trigger: Today we probably lack a cohesive trigger like Astruc’s article. Perhaps some such trigger is now available, likely roughly developed by small teams of guerrilla filmmaking networks, and either I am unaware of it or its relevance will only be available after some longer period of time. Perhaps it is Robert Rodriguez’s Rebel Without a Crew. I will continue to search for such a manifesto.
2. Production Economics: I would argue that the development of digital video workflows of the last decade are a far greater enabler than the 20 lb 16mm camera. Certainly current economics put full production and post tools in more hands today than the earlier developments ever could have. These systems can even shrink production teams to the size of one (animation and most of YouTube’s non-copyrighted content, for example).
3. Voice: This, in combination with #1 above, is a dicey subject. I would argue that the enablement of internet publishing has created an atmosphere that allows any marginalized group an outlet for their ideas and frustrations. However, the niche dynamics of the internet may actually nullify this aspect. Groups of like-minded individuals can form small, tight communities very easily, communicate freely amongst themselves, and yet still be completely invisible to those who are unfamiliar with their plight or the community building and aggregating aspects of the internet. Also, political censorship of the internet can endanger this as well.
4. Access to New Art and Information: Netflix, Amazon, Google (Pandora, Rhapsody, Technoroti, …). Long Tail economics and information filters such as the services mentioned create incredibly low barriers of entry into any type of content in nearly any medium. I am constantly adding works that reflect my eclectic interests in really old movies to my Netflix queue. Google and Wikipedia make my research quick and painless. Goodreads allows me to find books about philosophy, religion, science and filmmaking and then collect those books in a queue that I can pick off as my current context changes, all the while allowing me to focus my interests more tightly and further removed from the mainstream. I concede though, that if I were a Chinese blogger, Google might be a far less useful tool.
5. Authorship: Without a more specific and driving treatise, the jury is out on this.

What can we learn by comparing these two lists? What jumps out at me is the fact that all of the really difficult contextual elements, the socio-economics ones, are currently favorable for a digital revolution, which has been often promised, to actually occur in filmmaking. What seems to be missing is the theoretical framework that guides individuals to harness these economic conditions. However, I would like to stress that such critical legwork may actually already be done (and likely has been done be an increasing number of media studies Ph.D. candidates.) Perhaps it is only the infamy of such a work that is currently missing. Certainly hundreds of new media artists have been testing the waters and developing new ideas and systems perpetually since bandwidth became affordable, gaining the practical skills needed.

Now, where do we find our treatise?

Auteur Theory, for instance, rose out of a specific set of socio-economic conditions in a very specific place and time (post-WWII France.) One could just as easily study the early incarnations of the theory in the context of those conditions, filmmakers and theorists (in this case, the same people) who developed it. It is often said that a historical work is more a reflection of the author and author’s society than the subject, because there is no such thing as an unbiased account. Within these contexts, Auteur Theory may be the most important development in the industry of filmmaking, at least for a small group of people within a small subset of time. Here enters the most basic conflict in criticism in general, thanks to modern criticism: Even if Auteur Theory is relevant or even important in such a narrow place and time, film itself is a commodity, a reflection of capitalistic forces. Auteur theory cannot grant artful status upon this commodity any more than classical economics can bestow artful status upon any other assembly line product. The conflict is this: no matter how elegant or interesting studying these other contexts of production and product may be, the just don’t mean anything; it is useless.

Trust me, there is no better way to turn off college kids on a subject than to force them to spend many precious, sleep-deprived hours reading incredibly dry material on tightly focused topics, and then to spend ten minutes in lecture telling them that, in the end those hundred pages of text are worthless. Modern criticism has morphed into a study of audiences, not works or artists. Art can only be defined through its interaction with an audience, regardless of the creator, the production method or even the work itself. Audience is king.

This is nothing new. We now shift the labeling of artistic status from one determining context (production or aurthorship) to another (audience interaction). This modern critical framework is essentially the same equation as other older models: the same result, the same operations, just different variables. The real problem is the fact that modern criticism is so good at marginalizing the other methods. It allows a model, such as Auteur theory to be as elegant and interesting as it wants, but at the end of the day, my context means that yours is entirely meaningless in the conversation of film as art.

Even modern criticism has its own detractors and even nullifiers. In fact, some of the most basic elements of every new school are the elements that cancel out the other leading contemporary or historically important thoughts. This perpetual conflict within criticism numbs the field to everyone but the most ardent disciples of one binary school or another. Unless you are extremely vested in one theory or another (like the authors of the Cahier du Cinema) you are very likely to see all of film criticism as a pointless exercise of ego-stroking.

However, there is another angle we can take. If we return to studying the context of these theories, we can make these theories more relevant and therefore more useful for our modern applications. The contexts of digital production, the state of Hollywood and our current recession economy are not a unique combination. What makes Auteur Theory so attractive to me, is the fact that the French politique des Auteurs, the groundwork for Auteur Theory, was developed as a responds to the conditions of that time and place, and was subsequently a trigger for real change in that world. I believe what has really prevented the “digital revolution” of filmmaking is that the potential foot soilders in this uprising are ignoring the contexts that we live in. Once we turn a critical eye to these contexts, we may be able to follow in the footsteps of Truffaut and Goddard, and make a real impact on the modern economics of filmmaking.