I saw this very funny clip on YouTube where an obviously disgruntled  sound person posted a conversation he had with a producer.  Which if you have been around independent film making at all will sound very familiar.

I wanted to comment briefly and then show this video.   Independent film making is by its nature a poor mans industry.  If you think you’re going to make the next Clerks or Napoleon Dynamite, guess what?  You’re not.   So us poor film makers still want to make films.  And to make films we have to have others work on them.   There are people just like you who take their craft very seriously and like to be able to eat and put a roof over their heads for devoting their lives to their craft.   But on the other hand you have no money and want to make the best piece of work possible.

I have been there and currently am there as I type this.  The short film I am working on is going to have to be a mixer of paid and non paid people.  A lot of it is going to be calling in favors from all the people I have helped in the past and raising as much money as I can to pay a decent wage for something that would cost me 100 times more in LA.

There is no easy way to figure this out.  It is honestly the worst part of film making.   But here are three guidelines that will help you and your crew when it comes to money.

1.  Stop with deferments or % of net profit.

Everyone that has been around the indie block knows this is another excuse for not paying you and they will never see a dime.  In the history of independent cinema maybe 5 films have paid off the back end or someone has received a deferred payment.

2. Be honest!

If you need free help state it up front and be clear about it.  Don’t try to act like a copy of the film and feeding the person counts as payment.  You can help yourself by making it as stress free for everyone as possible and if the person wants experience in a certain area, then you better damn well go out of your way to give them the experience they seek.

3. Food and a Movie.

YOU MUST UNDER PENALTY OF FILM MAKERS DEATH, FEED EVERYONE AND MAKE SURE THEY RETRIEVE THEIR COPY ON DVD.   It’s actually amazing how often this happens.  So even your “payment” of a DVD and food doesn’t pan through.  If someone is going to give you their time and work the very very very least you owe them is to feed them and give them a copy of what they worked on.

Please watch and laugh, I’m sure we all have heard this before.

What do you think is worse? Smoking pot or murder? The recent romantic comedy It’s Complicated received an “R” rating from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) because it featured two characters smoking pot without consequence. Yet, a “PG-13″ rating is given to other films with heavy violence, like Terminator: Salvation. Read about it here and tell us your opinion below.

Here’s a list of the ratings and what they mean. And here’s who rates the movies.

I am a little bit late on the scene as regards Jeffrey’s and Brian’s exchange about 3D but owing to a busy schedule I just managed to catch Avatar a few days ago.

I have to say I find merit in what Brian says about the 3D in Avatar saving it from a story that left much to be desired but for the most part I have to come down on the side of Jeffrey in that I believe 3D will always be more of a gimick than an artistic device. And honestly, is it really an endorsement for a filmmaking technique to say that it distracted you from a woefully lacking story, certainly this is no endorsement of the film itself.

I will say that the 3D affect was more sucessful with the animated parts of the film than the live action and as I spent the majority of the film whiping the glasses on and off when I found something I liked or did not like regarding the success of the use of 3D I can say that the animated parts seemed to have been animated as 3D more than made 3D by the glasses.

Avatar itself fell victim to the cheesy gimmicky use of 3D that I remember back in the days of red and green glasses when I wanted an old Vincent Price classic (I think it might have been The House of Wax).

This gimmicky use that I refer to is when something comes out in your face and appears to almost hit you in the nose. The reason I find this effect so annoying is that it defeats what I see as the reason for 3D, to look more realistic.

The most successful use of the 3D in the film, I found was when there was ash falling after the big explosion and taking down of the HomeTree. The reason for this is that it looked so beatiful, like the real snow I remember seeing year after year when I lived in Michigan in the ’90′s.

It connected me to something I remember and associated a pleasant emotion with. And as a director, this is the aspect of filmmaking that I feel is the core of filmmaking itself.

In contrast, I have never had a blurry gun whipped past the end of my nose.

And that blurry aspect brings me to my next point. Depth of field and 3D. It seemed to me that there were times when the 3D effects technically failed with objects looking fuzzy and blurry in a way that offends the senses and looks less realistic than 2D film rather than more realistic.

I took note of when this occured, it was not hard because each time it happened I fell sick to my stomach, and I finally realised that it was a shallow depth of field that caused this offensive artifact.

It was especially nauseating, and I do mean this literally, not figuratively, when something was blurred in the foreground owing to shallow depth of field. Blurred objects in the background still looked unsuccessful but caused less of a physical response.

This may also be why the animated parts were more successful because they were more ‘physically’ 2D, using optical illusion to create a 3D effect, and as stated above, relied less on the 3D effect itself.

I think that 3D, if used only in the ways that it was successful in Avatar could be amazing for film if used in small does, it is not right for every film by far. But I think in combination with shallow depth of field it should be avoided until the technology improves.

Unfortunatley from the looks of the trailer I saw for the upcoming release of a new remake of the 1978 monster film, Pirannah, 3D is destined to banish itself to gimmicktry.

Shame.

In the end, what makes a film good is the story, and use of 3D whether successfuly used or not, will never make up for a recycled story.

While the idea of using sustainable practices during production (and pre and post) may seem straightforward enough, taking on this approach yourself requires a lot of background information and knowledge of the how-to’s and the best local resources.  Ideally, producers will employ an expert that already has knowledge of the best practices and resources and will be able to most effectively implement these strategies.  However, if you’re going to tackle making an eco-friendly film yourself, it’s best to start reading up.

To make the research process a little less daunting, I’ve compiled a list of resources from general guides on sustainable filmmaking, to state specific information.  Find this list, and read more about my thoughts on the subject, here:

Austin EcoNetwork-Green Film Guides

As a follow up to my Green Film Intro, I recently posted about the film Away We Go.  There is a bonus feature on the DVD that discusses the green initiatives that were implemented during production and gives a great overall perspective of what it means to film green.  In addition to the behind-the-scenes featurette, a comprehensive study was conducted over the course of production to assess ways in which productions can reduce their carbon emissions and other negative environmental impacts. This study and the resulting adjustments made on the set of Away We Go are a significant step forward for those working to green the film industry.

I highly recommend those that haven’t yet seen the bonus feature to do so – I also recommend you check out my post on the topic here to get the full story (with links to the study and additional resources):

Austin EcoNetwork: A Green Film Exposed

Filmmakers have a lot to worry about:  raising funds, figuring out the logistics of production and post, actually getting people to see their film… And now they’re also supposed to think about saving the environment along the way?

With the growing awareness of global warming and the need to protect Earth’s resources, there’s pressure on all industries to clean up their act.  It’s this awareness, along with the recognition that filmmakers already have enough on their plate that has spawned the green movement within the film industry.  This is a relatively new area that goes behind the scenes and analyzes the environmental impact of the filmmaking process.

Filming green means adjusting current practices to reduce consumption, waste and greenhouse gas emissions, and therefore lower production’s carbon footprint.  The green film movement seeks to develop resources and guidelines to help make these changes possible.  With the right resources in place, filming green won’t add to a filmmaker’s worries, but will in fact lighten the load.

In blogs to come I’ll give more in depth information on everything relating to green filmmaking (how-to’s, resources, philosophical thoughts… you name it).  If you can’t wait for more details, you can read my longer introduction here:

http://austineconetwork.com/content/green-film-introduction