Uncategorized

INDIE THRILLERS: LIKES AND DISLIKES

FALLING ROCK - a thriller by sabi

INDIE THRILLERS: 3 Things you Likes about Thrillers and 3 Things you Dislike.

As we’re continuing to develop Falling Rock at Sabi Pictures, we’re looking to our fans and audiences for creative input and interaction, in hopes to better guide the creative team  as we embark together across multiple media platforms to tell this story.  

We’d love to begin by asking you to contribute to the following list (please add your own).  We are particularly interested in your Dislikes, so as to avoid them with Falling Rock – a Thriller.

For Example, my responses: 

3 Things You like about Thrillers.

 1. Thrillers can make me feel real FEAR in thinking the worst, while HOPING for the best.

2. Thrillers can deeply explore the darker side of the human condition.

3. Thrillers can stay with me long after the film is over through the experience of suspense.

 3 Things You don’t like about Thrillers.

 1.  Thrillers that exploit violence gratuitously, unrealistically, and sadistically – causing trauma and diminishing of our capacity to empathize with real suffering.

2.  Thrillers devoid of any real meaning, hope, or possibility of redemption.

3.  Thrillers that use effects, music and shock-editing to manipulate its audience into thrills rather than suspense, mystery, and a willing suspension of horror & disbelief.

 I would love to read your list!  

Please reach me here, or on Facebook or @drmental

Best,

Kevin

www.sabipictures.com

SXSW Panel - Voting has opened.

Please take a moment to vote for my panel at SXSW 2010:

LINK: http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/2426

    Nano-budget Interdependent Filmmaking: The New Sustainable Cinema

Category:

    Acting, Digital Filmmaking, Marketing / PR / Publicity, New Technology / Next Generation, Production 

Organizer:

    Kevin Shah, sabi pictures 

Questions:

       1. What does it mean for a film to be “Interdependently” made as opposed to “Independent”?

       2. What is interdependent casting, directing, producing, and editing?

       3. How does one foster creative collaborative relationships for the production?

       4. Why is it important to use improvisation and HD in low-budget films? (Quality of Performance)

       5. What marketing materials should I be working on DURING production to help during release?

       6. How can I empower my actors to help guide and shape the story?

       7. How can my marketing materials be intergrated into the web 3.0 model of things?

       8. What are some examples of success stories that used radical collaboration & marketing?

       9. How much does a high quality ‘nano-budget’ film cost, and what is a good profit-sharing agreement?

      10. What is the creative satisfaction like with the utilization of the above process?

Description:

    Technology and radical creative collaboration has empowered the interdependent filmmaker to make original, high-quality independent art films on a minimal budget. This panel will discuss how to manage and empower a creative team and a successful production on a shoe-string: creatively, practically, and spiritually. Also covered will be the ideal web 3.0 marketing materials one should create for the film’s release.

CHANGES IN THE COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF CINEMA

I wrote this in response to a recent tweet from Filmmaker Magazine editor Scott Macaulay, after our NEW BREED panel on ‘Creative Collaboration’ at DIY DAYS Philadelphia.  He wrote re: our panel on creative collaboration:  “I didn’t ask panelists to define it. Isn’t all filmmaking collab? What’s diff now?”  The following is to continue the dialogue: 

 CHANGES IN THE NATURE OF COLLABORATION IN FILMMAKING

 There are presently several ascending levels to degrees in which creative collaboration occurs in the making of a film.  On one end of the spectrum, collaboration could mean a Director communicates his/her vision and the Cinematographer adjusts to make the visuals resonate.  It could be a Director and Composer in a booth changing rhythms of music.  It could mean an Actor suggesting a line on-set. These old-school forms of collaboration are obvious to all – and this is one level of collaboration.   Great films, and incredible moments in cinema have been created this way, and until recently – it perhaps only this way.

Then there is, on the other end of the spectrum – something radically different and altogether new – what I would consider a higher level of collaboration in creating cinema.  To understand this new form of interdependent collaboration, you have to step back a moment and look at how far we’ve come technologically, and more specifically, how technology has shaped and empowered the next generation of young creative collaborators.

 A BREIF HISTORY OF KIDS WITH CAMERAS

 Sabi Pictures co-founder Zak Forsman and started making films with the first generation VHS camcorders at 12.  We worked together with kids in the neighborhood and our families  - taking ideas from everyone and each other – and created the movies mostly as we went along ‘in-camera’.   After us, came a micro-generation of self-taught filmmakers who had access to video cameras as a grade-school toy.  Now, they’re cutting features on their laptops complete with graphics and special effects.  Using the technology, they’ve learned from their mistakes and they’ve learned how to tell artistic stories.  They make movies organically and without a lot of money.  Their film school is watching independent and foreign films, hours of DVD bonus features, the occasional class – but primarily, the act of doing.  They are of any age. 

MULTI-HYPHENATES: THE NEW COLLABORATORS

 This intelligent, empowered new generation of young artist/filmmakers  are the new collaborators.  They understand intrinsically how to tell stories, and make movies organically – and how to make them engaging and real despite their budget limitations.  They collaborate interdependently rather than independently – they work with each other, not ‘for’.  Their power relationships are shifted in a way that fosters a creative spirit among all.  Any one member’s contribution to whole would be greatly affected if they were not a part of the project.  They are all empowered by the directors/producers – and quite often, they are all friends (or become friends).  This collaborative filmmaking team has learned together by doing – and doing everything together – and no one would dare suggest a particular task is ‘not my job.’ 

This generation of filmmakers (emerging everywhere) feels deeply entitled to more than whatever job they apply for.   They quit jobs that do not engage them – or lose interest in films that they cannot be fully invested in.  They are all, each and every one – a potential motion picture studio unto themselves – but they work together.  For the greater picture of the Arts vs. Commerce – this is a great victory for the Arts, for these emerging artists are not hampered by anything or anyone.  With the internet as an avenue for distribution, those with the clearest and most original voices – finally have a chance.

 These serious writer/director/producer/editor/shooters  understand that creative collaboration is actually working with other multi-hyphenate filmmakers to tell a story – and to share an ever-changing organic experience that is greater than any one person’s vision.  Despite their smaller crews, homegrown style, and simplified locations  - this next generation of creative collaborators work together in a radically new and exceptionally creative way.  By listening to each other, and allowing the possibility of improvisation to occur on set (be it dramatic or comedic) – the new collaborators of today foster a spirit of creativity and free expression from all involved with the project, from the D.P. to sound mixer to the stars.  There is a greater sense of shared pride on projects of this sort, and the results are often more engaging and honest.

CREATIVE INTERDEPENDENCE

 The only way I can describe this method of collaboration is to call it Interdependent Filmmaking. The way in which interdependent filmmakers work is to tell their film with each other – despite antiquated models of hierarchy on-set.  In fact the entire model of above the line and below the line breaks-down fundamentally when collaborating on this high level.   Everyone’s contributions are equally important and under the guidance and vision of a director (whose mission is to explore character, and tell the best story possible with input from the cast and crew) and a producer (whose mission it is to be flexible to change and to create a safe atmosphere where creativity is fostered) and their interdependent team.  Everyone has their roles, but everyone’s contributions are important and valued.  The relationship between the director and the actors are emboldened by these new production practices, and there is a process of mutual discovery during the experience of making the film.  

 These new highly collaborative artist/filmmakers are too smart for one role, and one role is far beneath them – they need to be a part of the crafting experience of the film, they have a tremendous amount to offer it tapped as a resource rather than just a helping hand.  These creative collaborators are empowered by their prior experience and knowledge (regardless of age), and by creating with/for each other.  They seek surprises on-set, they strive for honesty and deep emotion on screen, and ‘real’ performances. In fact, the new stories we see emerging were always written with the intention of being made (and revised to make things possible) .  The characters are conceived with—and fleshed out by—the actors that were always intended to play them.  Creativity is happening on-set while the production is on its feet - not just in the darkness of the writer’s room or editing bay.

 EMPOWERED BY SCARCITY

 Using social networks and the internet as an inexpensive testing and meeting ground for ideas and publicity, this New Sustainable Cinema trend of smaller, more collaborative films is fully empowered by scarcity in funding rather than hampered by it.  This is an amazing thing and different than experiences of the past.  Our limitations are forcing us to tell better, more inventive, more impactful stories.  Producers arrange to shoot guerilla, with DSLR cameras.  Directors and Composers that have never met in person, score an entire film online.   Actors that really care about their craft, seek out collaborative directors that could push their creative boundaries based on seeing their work online.  These nano-budget films are not only being created collaboratively, they are marketed to communities online, with the cast and crew interacting with fans to get the film out there.  It’s from start to finish and entirely interdependent effort. 

 And what has been the result of this changing nature of collaboration?   Nothing short of a resurgence of beautifully executed, meaningful cinematic stories.  These films are emerging everywhere – and without any debate or controversy over who gets the ‘film by’ credit.

END RESULT: FILMS OF VALUE AND MEANING (PAST & FUTURE)

In a way, it’s a throwback to films that were made in an earlier time in the history of cinema where the filmmakers themselves determined which films were made (though present interdependent cinema is comprised of films radically smaller in budget, size and scope).  At the time, most everyone understood that a good film was good because it was at once entertaining, artistic and meaningful.  People went to the movies for different reasons entirely, and as an art form – it was still discovering its voice.   The films that are being polished in the editing bays of many young filmmakers all over the country continue that search.  These are filmmakers making projects that couldn’t have been possible without the help of everyone involved.  The motivating factor is to create a good story and tell it well – and by any means necessary.  And their ideal – is to put the final work in front of audiences and fans in the hopes they someday make another.  

SABI PICTURES “CREATIVE COLLABORATION” STRATEGIES

Sabi Logo

SABI PICTURES “CREATIVE COLLABORATION” STRATEGIES

1.  Dramatic Improvisation:  The nature of the director’s relationship with the actors involves collaboration when going ‘off-script’.  The sabi producer and director creates an atmosphere where ‘creative collaboration’ is encouraged, fostered, and executed in a productive way.  On our sets, we strive to make the cast feel “safe” to venture into deeply honest and emotional territory with the filmmakers.  Our features are designed to throw the script away while mid-way through production and to collaborate on-set and “in the moment” so as to encourage original characters, honest voices and truthful story ‘surprises’ that couldn’t have been otherwise planned.  This is only successful once a foundation of safe creative collaboration between actors and director and cast and crew has been fully established. 

2.  Collaborating with your Crew (Interdependent Filmmaking):  The sabi producer and director and the filmmakers that surround them are constant collaborators from pre-production through wrap.  The atmosphere that is created allows for everyone to work each other creatively and check their egos.  Each member of the creative team has their role(s) – but there is no hierarchy.  Producers preserve and protect the creative experience for the cast, the crew & the director during the actual making of the film.  From our interview process to our team-building exercises (such as our “Crew Table-Read”) – crew contributions and personal goals are evaluated to ensure the collaboration will be mutually beneficial.  Each member of the crew on our features is integral and crucial to the final creative product.

3.  Collaborating with other Filmmakers and our Audience/Focus Groups: We wanted to expand our collaborative efforts, so we embarked on “A Short Film About Letting Go” – with a group of emerging artists/directors/producers.  It is truly a case study on “collaborating on art” – in that there were so many hearts and minds working together to bring this film to fruition – and our role was “supportive” to the director/producer’s vision “to encourage” creative collaboration on set & in post-production. Additionally, we’ve collaborated with musicians and artists we’ve met on our own forums & elsewhere on the internet.  Most useful has been our “private screenings” - where our audience Q&A discussions, and our focus groups collaborate with us on “final notes” before picture lock.  We just completed our focus group on “Heart of Now.”

4. Creative Collaboration in Casting – our casting process is actually our first actor-director collaborative rehearsal.  We make sure we have a casting process that elevates the actor/artist rather than diminishing them.  Our “Casting” involves “character discussions / meetings” with the producer/director in addition to “creative auditions”.  To encourage collaboration, we often use ‘sides’ from scenes that are not in the script (but useful for character exploration), and our “Call-backs” are always entirely dramatic improvisation (complete with “silent takes” and video-taped discussions between director & actor).  We always “revise” the script for the final cast one last time before shooting.   

5.  Future Collaborative Experiments: “Eloquent Graffiti” and “A Happy Medium” – Eloquent Graffiti: working intimately on crafting the characters and their journeys with 4 actors over the course of time & A Happy Medium: the intention of working with non-actors and real veterans returning from the war in creating the characters/story together through collaboration.

Technology is changing new media – where is this going?

Let’s get this started at the top…

Here’s a recent development (there’s been a lot lately - has everyone noticed?)

Google vs … Microsoft?

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer

Unable to topple Google Inc. on its own, Microsoft Corp. is trying to force crippled rival Yahoo Inc. into a shotgun marriage, with a wager worth nearly $42 billion that the two companies together will have a better chance of tackling the Internet search leader.
Microsoft’s audacious attempt to buy Yahoo, spelled out in an unsolicited offer announced Friday, shows just how much Google threatens the world’s largest software maker’s grip on how people interact with computers.

For Yahoo, the bid represents another painful reminder of how missed opportunities and mismanagement combined to open the door for Google to supplant it as the Internet’s main gateway, decimating its stock price in the process.

Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft is trying to avoid a similar fate at Google’s hands as more people access services and computer programs online instead of relying on packaged software applications.
Although Microsoft remains the world’s most valuable technology company, its position will become more precarious unless it can cultivate a more loyal Internet audience and generate more online ad revenue to subsidize the free services taken for granted on the Internet.

Microsoft is acutely aware of the upheaval that can be caused by a pivotal shift in technology, having been the biggest beneficiary during the 1980s and 1990s of a transition from mainframe computers to personal computers that knocked IBM Corp. off its pedestal.

“Microsoft has to do this deal. It’s a battle that Microsoft needs to win,” said AMR Research analyst Jonathan Yarmis.

But there’s no guarantee that Yahoo will be willing to sell to Microsoft — or that the deal will win the necessary approvals from antitrust regulators in the United States and Europe if Yahoo capitulates.
Sunnyvale-based Yahoo had little to say Friday beyond a terse statement assuring its shareholders that its board will “carefully and promptly” study the bid.

In a conference call Friday, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer indicated he won’t take no for an answer after Yahoo rebuffed takeover overtures a year ago.

“This is a decision we have — and I have — thought long and hard about,” Ballmer said. “We are confident it’s the right path for Microsoft and Yahoo.”

Yahoo will likely face intense pressure to accept, given its steadily sliding profits and a murky 2008 outlook that caused its stock price to drop to a four-year low earlier this week.

Microsoft’s $31-per-share offer — originally valued at $44.6 billion — represented a 62 percent premium to Yahoo’s closing price late Thursday, although it’s below Yahoo’s 52-week high of $34.08 reached less than four months ago. On Friday, the total value of the cash-and-stock deal fell to $41.7 billion, or $28.95 per share, because Microsoft’s shares declined on the news.

Yahoo shares soared to a split-adjusted high of $118.75 in 2000 before the dot-com bust. That peak coincidentally also was just before Yahoo gave Google its first big break by hiring it to run its search engine.

Search engines are crucial tools because they have become a central hub in hugely profitable ad networks.

Advertisers around the world are expected to double their spending on the Internet during the next three years as more people get their news and entertainment on the Web instead of television, radio, newspapers and magazines. The trend is expected to create an $80 billion online ad market in 2010, up from an estimated $40 billion last year.

After realizing how much money Google was making from search, Yahoo introduced its own technology in 2004, but by then it was too little, too late.

Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li expects Yahoo to resist, predicting the company “will do everything possible to stay independent,” even if it means swallowing its pride and rehiring Google to run its search engine and sell ads on its site.

Other analysts still think Yahoo might try to line up a white knight rather than fall into Microsoft’s clutches. Analysts mentioned several other potential suitors, including News Corp. and InterActiveCorp.

Dinosaur Securities analyst David Garrity even thinks it’s possible that China’s search leader, Baidu.com Inc., or Chinese e-commerce conglomerate Alibaba.com Inc. might bid for Yahoo. Alibaba.com is 40 percent owned by Yahoo.

In what most analysts regard as a long shot, there was even some chatter that longtime Microsoft rival Apple Inc. and its CEO, Steve Jobs, might come to Yahoo’s rescue.

If push comes to shove, most analysts believe Microsoft will raise its cash-and-stock bid.
Investors appear confident an agreement eventually will be reached. Yahoo shares climbed $9.20, or nearly 48 percent, to $28.38 while Microsoft shares fell $2.15, or 6.6 percent, to $30.45 — a sign that Wall Street is skeptical about whether the acquisition makes sense.

“It’s a classic case of a buyer overbidding to blow any potential competitors out of the water,” said James Owers, a Georgia State University professor of corporate finance.

Shortly after Microsoft disclosed its intentions, the U.S. Justice Department said it is “interested” in reviewing antitrust issues. European Union officials declined to comment, but analysts said Microsoft probably will face more challenges getting a Yahoo acquisition approved in Europe than the United States.

Microsoft made its offer a few hours after Yahoo’s chairman, Terry Semel, stepped down, removing a potential stumbling block. Semel had rejected Microsoft’s takeover overtures a year ago while he was still Yahoo’s chief executive, according to a letter released Friday.

Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang replaced Semel as CEO nearly eight months ago while another Yahoo director, Roy Bostock, is now chairman.

Yang, a billionaire who is one of Yahoo’s largest shareholders, isn’t believed to have warm and fuzzy feelings about Microsoft. He has openly expressed his admiration for Jobs and last year even invited the Apple CEO to Yahoo’s headquarters for a pep talk with employees.

Microsoft believes its technological expertise will be a good fit with Yahoo’s knack for providing content and services that keep people coming back to its site. Combined, the two companies would reach a U.S. online audience of 142 million compared with 124 million for Google, according to Nielsen Online.

But Yahoo and Microsoft are so far behind Google in the lucrative search market that they still will have a lot of ground to make up even if they joined forces.

Google already controls 62 percent of the worldwide search market, and has been widening its lead, according to the latest data from comScore Media Metrix. By combining, Microsoft and Yahoo would have a 16 percent share of the worldwide search market, the Web traffic tracking company said.
Google shares fell $48.40, or 8.6 percent, to close at $515.90 Friday, but the downturn appeared to be driven more by a disappointing fourth-quarter earnings report than by Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo.
Besides helping to boost its online ad revenue, Microsoft believes it could mine more profit from Yahoo by jettisoning workers and eliminating overlapping operations.

Microsoft said it sees at least $1 billion in cost savings if it buys Yahoo. Microsoft executives deflected questions about how many jobs might be lost, but the company emphasized retention packages will be offered to Yahoo engineers and other key employees, including some executives.
The fate of Yahoo’s brand also is unclear if Microsoft takes over. Both Ballmer and Kevin Johnson, president of Microsoft’s platforms and services division, hailed Yahoo’s strong brand value but did not commit to keeping the name alive.

AP Business Writer Jennifer Malloy in New York and AP Business Writer Jessica Mintz in Seattle contributed to this story.