Changing My Approach to Filmmaking: Explore, Experiment, Reflect, Change, Retry, Results?

Man!!!

I'm excited!  I'm working on an idea for a future film project that I think is going to be freaking awesome!  Today, I finally rendered some preliminary results and was ecstatic after seeing the potential!  Unfortunately for you, I can't share any of the results yet, but I wanted to write about the experience.

Regarding the part of my life as a filmmaker- I don't even know if I'd call it my career yet- I feel like I haven't really been learning since I graduated from film school.  That's not entirely true, but my process or approach to filmmaking certainly changed then and has become rather stale.

In film school, everything I was seeing and doing was new.  I was learning.  I had the time to experiment with new ideas, try anything, fail, reflect, try something different.  There were no clients involved or money to be made.  Most importantly, the end result often didn't matter.  It was all about learning and taking time in the process.  And that made the process very rewarding at the personal level.

Since graduating, I learned a lot about the film industry and have made advancements in my writing and directorial work.  But in retrospect, my process to filmmaking now feels stagnant.  I realized, for the most part, I've been playing it safe.  For the majority of my work, I've been producing films for a client or for compensation with an end result in mind and a deadline to be met.  Although it can still be a creative process, it is not an artistic process.

I realize this is why I often think of myself as a creative, but not an artist.  I think, ideally, the artistic process should have few constraints in terms of time and results- granted, some constraints can be helpful as a creative challenge.

Many great artists have a "through-line" with their work: A certain direction, element, or theme that they are constantly exploring and building upon.  That is the important part: exploring.  Taking the time to try things, fail, reflect, improve, try a new direction.  You build upon results and don't settle at one result and hand it over to a client.  Most importantly, you are exploring and creating art primarily for yourself and no one else.

That is what I'm finally doing again: exploring.  I'm experimenting with my filmmaking technique.  I'm learning.  I know what I'm gonna try differently.  I'm taking my time.  I have ideas and directions for results, but there is no end point for the time being.  I'm doing it for myself and no one else.

And that makes it more of an artistic process that is incredibly exciting and rewarding.

I look forward to sharing!

Peace.

Change in Michigan Industry. No Change with Michigan Film Incentives.

My Michigan filmmaker friends at Deep Blue Pictures produced the above video. It's part of the new campaign: High Five for Film Incentives!

This campaign is necessary to share the positive impact and change that Michigan’s Film Incentives have created in this state. If you want keep this positive change in Michigan and allow it to develop, then please share your comments and stories on the High Five for Film Incentives website. More importantly, if you support the incentives, voice your concern to your state representatives.

The recent report from the Senate Fiscal Agency issued in September 2010 by economist David Zin drew the conclusion that the film incentives are not working, or not working enough.

Jim Burnstein recently defended the state’s film incentives against the issued report in his testimony to the Senate finance committee last Thursday, Nov. 4, 2010. Burnstein is a UofM film professor, Screenwriter and Vice Chairman of the Michigan Film Office Advisory Council. He’s been studying film tax incentives for several years following the states that have succeeded and the states that have failed from initiating incentives. He also played a major role in the passage of Michigan's incentives.

One of the key points Jim made during his testimony, which was highly attended, myself included, was that…

The purpose of the legislation was to make the people rich, not the government itself rich.

If you make any change to the film incentive bill, the state and the many Michigander’s who have invested into this industry will lose everything they started.

Leave the film incentives alone. Period.

He strongly advised that the state must wait at least 5 years before you can accurately assess the economic impact of the film incentives. Not to mention the report by Zin doesn’t account for the “overall value” the film incentives are making.

Burnstein describe this overall value with a few examples of positive change:

1. Image. The Senate Fiscal report doesn’t account for the positive change in Michigan’s image as a result of the free positive press and publicity that the state is receiving all over the world generated from the film incentives. This also benefits tourism, one of Michigan’s few industries. And you can’t put a price tag on the ability to revamp Detroit’s image, which has often been the laughing stock in world press for years. Take this video for example with nearly 3 million views.  I bet Cleveland will soon wish it was Detroit.

2. Reverse Change in Brain Drain. Burnstein cited an impressive list of innovators and CEOs who we’re educated in Michigan’s publicly funded institutions, only to leave the state after graduation and make their millions elsewhere. What kind of investment is that? Since the film incentives passed in 2008, Burnstein witnessed several of his students, myself included, stay in Michigan to seek opportunities with the film incentives.

Unfortunately, it seems Burnstein’s testimony may not have gotten through to Sen. Nancy Cassis, R-Novi, the Senate Finance Committee chair. I realized that a Senate Finance Committee hearing doesn’t necessarily mean they are listening. I was disgusted at how distracted Sen. Cassis was during Burnstein’s testimony. While Burnstein defended the film incentives, and described why the Senate’s report is misleading, Sen. Cassis turned her back to order lunch. Listening to the people is a part of the job responsibility for a state representative. Sen. Cassis’ poor listening skills surprised me. She rarely made eye contact throughout Burnstein’s testimony and it seemed the majority of her time was spent overlooking her prepared statement that she would close the hearing with.

Those in attendance at the hearing may have found Sen. Cassis closing statement to be contradictory. After Burnstein cited several of the ripple effects of the film industry and how it affects several industries (construction, hospitality, transportation, security, and more), Sen. Cassis said that the film industry in Michigan is a “boutique” industry that only affects a privileged few. She said the film incentives play favorites, what if we passed incentives to support graphic design instead? I don’t think Sen. Cassis knows that graphic designers may be hired in the art department on film sets.

She also said that supporters of the film incentives are unrealistically hopeful and they only provide anecdotes of support and not facts. She provided her own anecdote saying that when she was young, she had a once in a lifetime opportunity to intern in Washington D.C. Instead of taking that opportunity, she said she married and move to Michigan to work in the auto industry. She tried to express optimism that you can give up on dreams and still find opportunities. This seemed to be the advice she gave to all of the young people in the room.

The problem with her position now is that the auto industry is no longer an opportunity. It is dead- well, in some respect I think so. Although working in film is a dream that is being realized by many people in the state of Michigan, young and old, it is also one of the few positive state movements towards diversifying it’s economy and moving away from an auto only economy.

LOOK: I’m not a politician, I’m not an economist, I’m not a scientist, and I’m not an expert on anything. But I too, like Sen. Cassis am interested in “facts.” But the facts I’m interested are not facts of numbers or facts of budgets, I’m in interested in FACTS OF CHANGE.

Change is a necessity for survival. Fact. It’s Darwinism and survival of the fittest. Your surrounding environment is always changing and you must adapt to survive.

When I look at Michigan, I see a state that was innovative more than a hundred years ago to build the largest auto industry. Then I see a state that threw away nearly all it’s economic diversity to capitalize on this auto industry. It worked great for a long time and it seems that a lot of people expected great wages forever. When I see the auto industry, I see lack of foresight. To think that you could produce the same car forever, a car that runs on fuel created from extinct dinosaurs and other matter, it is unrealistic to think that economy may be sustainable (But, they're slowly changing). It’s the same with real estate. There’s a limited amount of land and you cannot keep building and selling houses forever- at least in the same capacity it was going...

I’m sorry for those who are unemployed and suffer from this economy… but I’ll restate a fact of change, a fact of life: It’s survival of the fittest and you must adapt. The environment, the economy, the people around you, etc will always be changing whether you notice it or not. You must change too if you want any chance of survival.

The Michigan Film Incentives seem to be the state’s only attempt towards positive change and adapting its economy. Or at least it's the largest attempt that is positively affecting several industries (hotel/hospitality, restaurants, tourism, construction, and more...)  I’m certainly open to other solutions but right now, no other politicians, including Sen. Cassis, can offer an alternative in which Michigan can adapt. Instead, they suggest changing the film incentives, one of the state's few good implements. 

Please voice your concern to your state representatives, along with Sen. Cassis, and soon the new change of governor Rick Snyder.

To read Jim Burnstein’s testimony find the .PDF at the bottom right side of the screen on the Michigan Film Office's website.

Also, here’s a recent article in the Free Press of Burnstein’s testimony.

Change in Film: Purpose, Value, and Waste

[WARNING: The following may only interest filmmakers or critical thinkers.  Basically, I consumed a ridiculous number of awful films that made me seriously consider the production of my own films and others.  This is a long rant that is partly analytical, theoretical, critical, philosophical, and self-reflecting.]

This past week marked the end of my pre-screening process for the Ann Arbor Film Festival. Over the last two months, I have watched 320 films, narrative and documentary, that were submitted for consideration in the 48th AAFF which will take place March 23-28, 2010 at The Historic Michigan Theater. Of those 320 films, I recommended approximately 40 to the next round of screening with only five or six films that I really liked- thank you to those few filmmakers.

This long exhaustive process has changed some of my ideas about filmmaking and the types of films I want to make.

First off, I don’t think the majority of filmmakers ever intend to make a bad film. But let’s face it: bad films happen. It’s really hard to make a good film and it takes almost a miracle to make a great film.

Regardless if it awesome or god awful, a majority of films take a lot of time, money, and energy.

So before funds are raised and the camera starts rolling, filmmakers should ask themselves, “Why am I making this film?” It seems self-explanatory but I’m not so sure after watching hundreds of films made within the last year.

After some contemplative thought, I have devised a few main categories that describe the purpose of the filmmaker to participate in film production along with the purpose of the viewer or audience to participate in film consumption. [For this discussion, the filmmaker is the primary person responsible for the creation of the film. The categories can be extended to additional filmmakers and crew members necessary for film production but it is not the primary interest of the discussion.]

These categories are interchangeable in many cases and most filmmakers, films, and viewers have multiple purposes although there may be a primary purpose.  For example, the purpose of a film like Farenheit 9/11 may have been political, but it also made a ridiculous amount of money.  Who knows whether or not that was Michael Moore's purpose too or just an accidental end?


PURPOSES OF FILMMAKERS AND FILM PRODUCTION

1. Money. The purpose is to make money. The content of the film does not matter. The film can be Citizen Kane or really dirty pornography- as long as it makes money.

2. Entertainment. The purpose is to entertain an audience. The filmmaker may also experience pleasure and amusement in doing so and may experience similar pleasure in the making of the film itself. So there is entertaining the audience, and entertaining oneself. Entertainment can be commercial, artistic or both.

3. Art. The purpose is to explore film as an art form and push its boundaries.

4. Social. The purpose is to explore social issues. It may be the intention to raise audience awareness on the issues at hand. The content of the film can vary from private and personal to global matters. Social factors may also participate in film production and not just the film itself.

5. Political. The purpose is to explore, expose, or propagate political issues. It may be the intention to influence the political views of the audience.

6. Education and Experience. The purpose is to educate an audience. Also, the filmmaker will mostly likely gain knowledge and experience from the production of the film itself.


PURPOSES OF THE VIEWER, AUDIENCE AND FILM CONSUMPTION

1. Entertainment. The purpose is to entertain oneself. The kind of pleasure varies greatly from the type of film, the type of viewer, and the type of consumption. Pleasure may not even be dependent on the film itself, only the type of consumption. For example, teenagers may go to a movie theater to get away from their parents and make-out with their significant others. What is on the screen is insignificant.

2. Art. The purpose is to view film as an art form, see its boundaries being pushed, and enlighten one’s experience and understanding of film and art.

3. Social. The purpose is to gain insight, knowledge and/or understanding of the social issues the film addresses.

4. Political. The purpose is to gain insight, knowledge, and/or understanding of the political issues the film addresses.

5. Educational. The purpose is to gain general knowledge and insight of a particular interest.


VALUE

Each purpose for film production merits a particular value. Value describes the worth, importance, or usefulness of producing a film. Although value is somewhat subjective, most would agree that certain purposes have higher value than others. For example: a documentary may merit social value for raising awareness of a global concern. A simple comedy may merit value in its ability to entertain. Although the latter has an important function in society, one would not argue the greater value of the former.


FILMMAKER EXECUTION AND AUDIENCE RECEPTION

The purpose of filmmakers and film production should be distinguished from the purpose of the film itself. The purpose of the film itself is related to both the filmmaker and audience. If the filmmaker’s efforts are well executed, their purpose may continue with the film itself. For example, if a filmmaker’s primary purpose is to make an entertaining film, and the production of the film is well executed, then the film may be entertaining. There is then the possibility that the film, with its purpose to entertain, may entertain a viewer whose purpose for consuming the film is to be entertained. However, if the production of the film is not well executed, the film may not be entertaining and may not entertain the viewer. If the primary purpose for producing a film is not met by the film itself, it may have little to no value for existence or for an audience.


NARRATIVE AND DOCUMENTARY

Based on quantity and not quality, it seems the primary purpose of most narrative film production is to entertain while the primary purpose of most documentary film is social, political, or educational.

A poorly executed narrative film that does not entertain yields little to no value for its primary purpose of production. However, a poorly executed documentary film that does not adequately engage its topic still seems to yield some value. Perhaps its because the original purpose could be considered of higher value and the act of partaking in a documentary film production raises awareness, however small, to its topic or cause.


VALUE VS. COST

A film’s value should be weighed against its cost. It takes a lot of time, energy, and resources to make a film. If the end product has little to no value, then the film and its production is waste and the filmmaker could be considered wasteful for that matter. Filmmakers with a primary purpose to make money understand this concept quite well: if the cost to produce a film is greater than its revenue, it has lost or wasted money and was not worth the effort.


CONCLUSION

I enjoy nearly all types of films for a variety of reasons. I see value in each purpose of film production and consumption. I do not necessarily think particular genres of films have more value than others. I think creativity determines that. Unfortunately, a majority of narrative films are unoriginal and a waste of time and resources. The only time a cliché melodrama makes me cry is during the end credits, knowing that a lot of money, people and energy were used to create a lot of waste.

I’ve begun to think that I, myself, may have a greater purpose by pursuing documentary filmmaking whereas I once thought I would become a director of narrative features. The lifestyle of a documentary filmmaker seems more engaging, active, and appealing right now.  Especially if there are some travel perks...

Who knows what I'll ultimately do or become.  I’ve labeled this last section “Conclusion” but I have yet to get to the bottom of anything...

If you bothered to read all of this, thank you!  I would appreciate any feedback.  If you think this blog post sucks, let me know.  I apologize and will try better next time.  At least the production of blogs post uses little resources and only wastes my time and yours.  If I had produced a film about this instead, I would have wasted several people's time, money, and resources and that would have been devastating.