Film

Are These The 5 Reasons Why You’re Not Making A Personal Film?

1 Comment / List, Misc. /
David B. Levy is a man not averse to personal projects. This is his latest film, currently making the festival rounds.

Via

Making a personal film is no easy task. It just isn’t, for a whole host of reasons. It’s a complicated, arduous process that may or may not end up the way you expected it to. Lots of people never finish there’s, but are these the reasons why you’re not starting yours?

1. I don’t have the time

Ah, do you really not have the time, or do you think you don’t have the time. There is a big difference between the two you know. Unless you work 12 hour days or 7 days a week, you really aren’t in a position to say you don’t have enough time. Besides, it’s not about the amount of time you have but how effectively you use the time you’ve got.

When it comes to these kinds of things, the quickest and best solution is to set aside time on a regular basis, say a Sunday morning or an hour every night after dinner. Perhaps more important than setting the schedule is actually sticking to it. You might find it tough, but over time, regular actions, even small ones, can have big results.

2. I don’t have an idea.

Well, go and find one! There are plenty of ideas that could be put on film. Remember, this is a personal project, so essentially, it’s all about you! And the best part about a personal film is that you’re completely unrestricted. The only person telling you what to do is yourself! However, a note of caution, once you have decided on a subject, plan out how you intend to move forward, don’t get stuck in your own version of “development hell”.

3. I don’t have the money

For years, this was the sticky point. Making a short film does cost money. However, the amount that it’ll cost is totally dependent on how much you’re willing to put into it. You could make a film for a million dollars if you wanted to but budgets ain’t the whole story. At the end of the day, be realistic. Do set a budget, and stick to it, that’s just basic common sense.

If cash flow is a problem, the best solution is to trim expenses and/or set aside some funds on a regular basis. You’d be quite surprised just how quickly even $20 a week will add up.

Also remember that while the cost of technology has dropped significantly, you don’t necessarily need the latest Cintiq tablet or Flash software. There are plenty of free alternatives that may not be as feature-laden but will accomplish a lot of the same tasks.

4. I don’t know what to do with it when I’m finished

I’m not too sure about yourself, but films are generally meant to be seen, by lots of people! Throw it up on YouTube! That blog you started to track the production (because you figured it would be a smart idea)? Throw it up on that! Show it to some friends! Have them show it to their friends! Put it in your portfolio! Show it to your boss! Take it to one of ASIFA’s open screening nights!

The possibilities are endless when it comes to a personal film. Some people are happy just to let as many people watch it as possible, others like to get awards from festivals, some folks like to make money from their short films. Although be aware that charging for a personal short may preclude you gaining a reputation first.

5. I don’t see the point

A personal film is essentially a proof of sorts. It says to the world that you can be uniquely creative. It says to potential employers that you have a logical enough mind that you can conceive and create a project using just your own initiative (employers like to see that).  It also gives you plenty of unique experiences that you’re unlikely to have anywhere else.

To conclude, there’s very little holding you back from undertaking a personal film. The challenges can appear to be insurmountable but only if you let them be. Figure out a game plan and before you know it, you’ll be making one.

Are These The 5 Reasons Why You’re Not Making A Personal Film? Read More »

Violet Parr Does NOT Grow Up Within A Single Scene

2 Comments / Animation /

Caution: This post deals with mature themes (but in a mature way).

On Sunday, while searching for a suitable picture of Mr Potato Head for that day’s post (yes, really), I managed to stumble across the rather intriguing blog that is ANIMadams, which focuses exclusively on women and females in general and how they’re portrayed in animation (and a few related markets).

Sadly in hibernation since this past June (2011), the blog would take what many would consider to be a feminist view/approach and while I’m no masculine feminist (Jerry Springer can keep that title), I’ve come to appreciate what the three contributors have to say (to a certain extent).

Which leads to today’s post concerning The Incredibles, a film that remains firmly within my top 3 all time favourites. The post from ANIMadams deals with Violet in particular. Now Violet is certainly my favourite characters in that film for many reasons. Chief among them is that I see a lot of myself in her and how she struggles with her shyness.

Entitled “Let’s Talk About Sex-ualization” the post discusses how the writer views the transformation of Violet during the course of the film from an insecure teenager to an assertive super hero:

It’s not until Helen can be honest with herself and the family, being the superhero she loves to be, that she can properly model for her children. She has a heart-to-heart with her daughter after which Violet strikes a stronger pose than the audience has become acclimated to. It is after this that she begins to be much more active, coming out from behind the veil of her own hair.

It’s safe to say that yes, Violet is portrayed in a different light after this talk with her mother, she’s more assertive, she no longer hides away from real life and she can see clearly with both her eyes the challenges she faces. It’s partly why the film is so fantastic; it exhibits the power of individuals to change themselves for the better.

Then, we get to this line:

Violet is then inadvertently sexualized and objectified. While suggesting to her parents – taking charge like an adult would – a way for them to escape, Violet’s rear is placed directly in the foreground of the camera as her parents bicker in the background. Her entire rear and only her rear.

Here is the offending shot:

 

And here is the argument:

Let me emphasize: I do not believe this is intentional. But I do find it to be a very odd coincidence that once Violet has decided to step up and into adolescence, she is immediately sexualized, even for a few seconds.

No, it is intentional, just not in the way youbelieve. Brad Bird is one of the best animation directors out there at the moment and he’s the kind of guy who knows exactly the kind of shot he wants. This one in particular is meant to be seen from a low angle because the rocket has to be shown in the background. It is where the family are ultimately heading. Placing the Incredibles above the level of the viewer also suggests that they have regained/attained their status as superheroes, they’re not superior, but we do look up to them.

The nature of the scene dictates that Violet propose the solution to the family’s problem. Now you could say that having her voice her opinion could easily have been conducted off-screen, however that would result in some jerky direction of the kind that Brad Bird isn’t known for. Having Violet appear in the scene reminds the audience that she’s present before she makes a suggestion. Based on the alignment of the shot mentioned above, it would seem natural that we would not see her head but the lower part of her figure instead.

What the ANIMadams point alludes to is the rapid maturing that Violet’s character leads to her “sexualisation” in this scene. This I disagree with on the grounds that while she does a lot of growing-up in the course of the film, she isn’t sexualised in the slightest during any of it. She is interested in Tony Rydinger before and after the events of the film. The only difference is that she gains the courage to actually talk to him.

Having her butt on-screen for a few seconds does not constitute turning Violet into an object. If anything, the viewer’s attention is focused on Bob and Helen and is only vaguely aware of Violet’s intrusion until both parents turn around, at which point we immediately cut to Violet’s face. Besides, we’re more concerned at this point in the film with how the family is going to stop Syndrome anyway, right?

The ANIMadam’s post over-simplifies the rather complex developments that teenagers undergo in course of a number of years down into a single shot, and not even  a long one at that. While it’s completely fair to say that Violet does begin her path to womanhood during the film, it is completely unfair to say that she was thrust down that path without her consent by the director.

Do you have any thoughts comments? Feel free to leave them below. 🙂

Violet Parr Does NOT Grow Up Within A Single Scene Read More »

J. Katzenburg Places A Smart Bet on Netflix

3 Comments / Animation /


The latter half of 2011 hasn’t exactly been very kind to either DreamWorks or Netflix. The former saw it’s stock slide after poorer than expected first quarter results and the latter has been taking a hammering from just about everyone after they raised prices and then announced that they were splitting their streaming and DVD services across two separate companies.

Despite these setbacks, things keep moving along which leads us to yesterday’s announcement that DreamWorks has agreed to make it’s entire catalogue available on Netflix starting in 2013.

While there’s not much to say about the deal itself (you can read the entire press release or Variety’s take on it for the details), the very fact that it was made is significant for the simple reason that DreamWorks is the first major studio to sign directly with Netflix.

Until now, that major studios have treated Netflix almost like an annoyance that keeps reminding them that the media landscape is changing beyond their control. Collectively, they’ve tried to keep as much of their content off of Netflix as possible. Heck, they’ve even tried to keep DVDs off the service by instituting the pointless 28 day delay for new releases.

DreamWorks is the first to realise that they can stand to benefit from simply having their content available for people to see. New releases from Disney will likely disappear from Netflix as the Starz deal expires in Marc, and if that’s still the status quo come 2013, DW will be in a market where it’s main competitor is not.

This is the kind of innovation DreamWorks needs to invest in if it is to continue to exist as an independent company, indeed, I called for it just a few months ago when Paramount broke off talks to continue their distribution deal.

The proliferation of Netflix on mobile and TV platforms also ensures that DW’s content is everywhere they are and reaches the largest audience possible. It doesn’t matter if the quality is not top-notch, the convenience factor of being instantly available will override that in a heartbeat.

A lot of industry folks will be watching these developments very closely because if it turns out to be mutually beneficial to both companies, you can expect a lot of similar deals to follow.

J. Katzenburg Places A Smart Bet on Netflix Read More »

So The Lion King Topped the Box Office Again

1 Comment / Animation, Disney, Film /

What does this prove? That a 17 year old movie is better than the current offerings? That it’s actually better in 3-D than we ever thought possible? Or is it that because it’s aimed at families, you know they’re selling more than two tickets at a time?

It’s hard to say. It would be nice to think that The Lion King succeeded because it is a really good movie that outshines whatever was offered this past weekend. However, the truth is probably not near as exciting.

First of all, at 17 years, The Lion King is bordering on nostalgia at this point. I was 10 when it came out and I’m 26 now (thanks to the ever-present international delay, the numbers don’t quite add up). So it is surely ripe for claiming a whole new generation of kids and re-capturing their parents.

Secondly, the box office really does mean squat in the grand scheme of things. Saying that such and such a film is top of the box office is really only saying that it sold more tickets than the others. It is not a reliable indicator of tastes or indeed quality as The Smurfs so perfectly illustrated.

Naturally this will be trumpeted by various marketing departments as a sign of the Lion King’s strength and quality as a film. Yes, this might be true, however it is alarming that we are not seeing a re-issue of other films from the same period. While they obviously do not meet the same lofty status of The Lion King, they were certainly just as popular at the time and have not dated as badly as other films the same age.

Couldn’t all the effort that was put into 3-D-izing The Lion King have been better used to clean up and re-issue some other films?

The point is that the Disney Renaissance films were all spectacular when they were released and they are still spectacular now. Making them 3-D is not going to increase their appeal. I’m willing to hazard a guess a that most people simply wanted to see it on the big screen again and nothing more.

 

So The Lion King Topped the Box Office Again Read More »

Character Sundays: Megara, Hercules’ Madam of Mystery

1 Comment / Animation, Character Sundays /

Something I haven’t realised in the year and a half I’ve been blogging daily is that I really do like looking at characters. I know for some, the animation is the most important part of a film, but for me, it’s the characters that can make or break everything. So, from now on, all Sunday posts will be character studies.

For me, the character of Megara is by far the most intriguing and ultimately the most interesting of all the characters in the film. It’s almost a shame she’s only a supporting character!

Today’s post is a partial re-post from June 2010 when I took a look at the characters of Disney’s Hercules.

Megara is our damsel in distress, although her distress is much more complex than at first sight. She is the romantic interest of Hercules although it takes a while for her to return the favour. Her relationship with Hades is revealed (too late in the film in my opinion) as one that she deeply regrets and results in her desire to help Hercules clashing spectacularly with her obligations to Hades. She is a character constantly in crisis and swings wildly between the Rock that is Hercules and the hard places that is Hades. She is a girl who was placed all her trust in two men (her former boyfriend and Hades) and ends up being betrayed bitterly by both. All of these aspects combine to make Meg the most interesting character in the film. Even though she is infinitely more flawed than the hero, it is she who we sympathize with the most.

As interesting a design as Hades is, it is the females in this film where the character design excels. Staring with Meg, who is an interesting mix of sharp edges and curves. Not being the typical Disney image of womanhood works in Meg’s favour. her clothes are plain, she is bereft of jewellery and her face is rather small.

That being said, the way Meg displays her emotions through her movements is unique in the film. She walks with a certain amount of contempt, perhaps because of the former rejection. There is no suggestion of promiscuousness, but rather that everyone except herself can see her beauty. Her eyes play a critical role in this as she often narrows them when talking to someone but opens them wide to show astonishment or happiness.

Meg holds herself in a way that suits her status as a betrayed person. Her arms are often folded and she tends to keep them to herself, with the exception of the garden scene and accompanying song where she lets herself feel much freer as she experiences the closest thing to happiness for the first time in a long time. Ultimately, Meg is the plain Jane girl that manages to capture the heart of the hero through a winning combination of both beauty and her character. Her design is a similar winning combination that emphasis that beauty is more than skin deep.

Character Sundays: Megara, Hercules’ Madam of Mystery Read More »

The One and Only Reason We Don’t See More Diverse Animated Films

3 Comments / Animation /

 The Secret of Kells most definitely counts as diverse animation.

On Sunday, Nora Lumiere posted a very passionate call to arms with a wonderful post that expounded the very many areas that we have yet to see in theatrical animated form. Far from a wistful wishlist, it’s a well thought out look at the various genres and styles that are rare or unheard of in animated form.

Hinting on the success of Tangled’s “painterly” style, Nora rattle off style after style that could easily be used on a theatrical scale today thanks to modern technology.

The only caveat with her post is that she is speaking for theatrical animation. We already see plenty of diversity in shorts for the simple reason that they are inherently more independent examples that are created at the whims of the animator themselves. Nora touches upon one reason why we don’t see more diverse animated films (emphasis mine):

It’s time to dare to push the animation envelope and break out of the children’s toy box.  Forget about box-office profits for a minute, hire some innovative scientists and adventurous animators to research new artistic software.

Ah, therein lies the dilemma. As much as we like to think of theatrical animation as an artistic market where the dreams of the artist make it to the silver screen, that is the view that is presented to the great unwashed masses. who truly believe that Hollywood is a “dream factory”.

Not to say that Nora’s post does not acknowledge this, it does, however the fact remains that no matter how right she is, unless there is enough (notice I said enough, not any) money in it, the main studios won’t touch it.

The Big 6 will only ever play within a safe set of boundaries when it come to films because they are incredibly risk averse, and justifiably so. If you were coughing up in the region of $500-600 million (including promotion/marketing) you’d be making princess movies all the time too.

That’s the current problem with the way things are set up at the moment. Independent, inspiring and mould-breaking movies are well within arms reach. Sita Sings the Blues was done by one person, ONE! Why on earth don’t we see many more films like that? The simple answer in this case is that Nina Paley busted her butt and her bank account to get the film made and released. There aren’t too many people who are willing to make that kind of commitment, let alone do it regularly.

Since cost/risk is arguably the main problem when it comes to genre-defying films, there is a logical argument that subsidies could be a potential solution. This is true, certainly in the case of The Secret of Kells, which benefited from a few grants from the European Union and tax credits from the Irish government.

Such subsidies are the sad reality of the style of films that Nora calls for. They are too risky for mainstream, commercial studios, but they clearly have more than enough potential to succeed based on their many merits.

That is the reason why we don’t see more diverse animated films. The unholy mix of risk and cost which combine to make most films that are outside the mainstream too much of a hot potato. Hopefully in the future, as traditional distribution shenanigans break down, we will see more daring films that push the envelope.

The One and Only Reason We Don’t See More Diverse Animated Films Read More »

John B. Knutson Presents A Series of Posts You Should Probably Pay Attention To

Animation /

Over at the Random Acts of Geekery blog, John B. Knutson has just begun a series of posts that are definitely worth your while following even if you are familiar with the subject matter.

The challenge he has set himself? Well it’s quite simple really, he going to track down and blog about every single film mentioned in Leonard Maltin’s seminal tome,‘Of Mice and Magic’.

He’s started with J. Stewart Blackton and early Windsor MacCay so now’s your chance to get in on the ground floor.

John B. Knutson Presents A Series of Posts You Should Probably Pay Attention To Read More »

Using Neuromarketing for Animation: Good or Bad?

Animation /

 Via: Fast Company

The other night, we watched the Morgan Spurlock documentary POM Wonderful Presents The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. It was an entertaining enough look at how products get into films and how studios use them to help pay for and promote them.

Interestingly enough, there was no explicit mention of animation. Not to say that it doesn’t go on of course. Pretty much every animated film contains promotion to some extent. Yes, the film itself is a form of ‘promotion’, it being the vehicle that drives all the ancillary sales of merchandise and DVDs. Need proof, look no further than the final Harry Potter film. It contains no advertising whatsoever apart from on, the Harry Potter itself.

However, one aspect of the films that I found most intriguing/disturbing, is the whole idea of neuromarketing. In the film, Spurlock is basically shoved into an MRI and shown images of products. During the analysis afterwards, he is shown how his brain reacted when shown an advert for Coca-Cola: it released hormones that indicated he wanted the Coke.

As scary as that may sound, its been known about for years. What is not so well known, is that movie studios use it to perfect their product before releasing it. In the course of the documentary, we see Spurlock having a look at the schedule for the day of the neuroanalysis firm he visited. The film right before his: Toy Story 3.

Now you might say to yourself “But Charles, Toy Story 3 had an emotional story to begin with!” Well, yes, it does. However keep in mind that even stories can be analysed to make sure they extract the right emotions from the audience. Fast Company discussed the practice back in February when they took a look at the rise of “neurocinema” and how it is likely to affect future films.

Animation is not immune as this quote regarding Rango from Steve Sands, head of neuroanalysis firm Sands Research demonstrates:

Often animation can be more engaging for the brain than real actors. Look at the strong response to Avatar,

And check out the image below that shows brain activity while watching the trailer for Rango.

 Via: Fast Company

The downside to all of this? Well for one, now you know that the opening montage in UP was nothing more than a tightly crafted, artificial play on your emotions. There was no need for skill in the writer’s room because the data told them exactly what they needed to do in order for you to well up. Michael Barrier hits it right on the head when he calls it “emotional manipulation” because that’s exactly what it is. The images flashing before you were specifically and intentionally made to engage your emotions. You just can’t help it!

Now, you could argue that that is the case with any such scene in any movie. Films are supposed to engage emotions after all, that’s why you watch them. However, Mike nails it again when he compares UP to Dumbo (emphasis mine):

The difference between, say, the opening sequence in Up and Dumbo’s reunion with his mother can be summed up in one word, the old Disney shibboleth “sincerity”.

Why rely on your own or your team’s judgement when you can just do a neuroanalysis and have the data tell you exactly what you need to do. That’s not filmmaking, it’s sheer laziness and insincere because the emotions are not meant, they’re demanded. Major studios would rather have it that way though, because if you’re going to cough up $300 million on film, it had better perform as expected, and the data never lies*.

Will this result in better films? Meh. However I would much rather see a film that allowed me to control my own emotions rather than having them dictated to me. It’s practically cheating with your film and nobody likes a cheat.

*Garbage In Garbage Out applies but it’s safe to say that the marketing firm knows what it’s doing.

Using Neuromarketing for Animation: Good or Bad? Read More »

If The Poster is Overwrought, What Chance Does the Film Have?

Animation, Film /

 Via: Movie Fanatic

It doesn’t so much say adventure as it screams “THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG BIG MOVIE THAT YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY SEE BECAUSE IT’S SET ALL AROUND THE WORLD AND WE’VE USED PHOTOSHOP FOR THIS POSTER TO PROVE HOW AWESOME IT IS”

Apologies for the screaming.

While I’m aware that this is more of a teaser poster than anything else, it does seem to be beating its breast a bit. This doesn’t concern me so much as why it’s doing so this early in the game. Most teaser posters are much more sublime and only really hint at what the audience can expect. This goes full bore and leaves relatively little to the imagination.

It’s slightly disconcerting to know that the studio feels the need to put this much information on a poster that should show a lot less (yes, the earlier ones did show a lot less, I’m aware of that). It’s a sure sign that a film is overwrought/overproduced if ever there was one.

The creepy looking characters don’t help matters either.

For putting you through that, here’s the teaser poster for Luc Besson’s upcoming feature A Monster in Paris. Much nicer don’t you think?

Via: Shockya.com

If The Poster is Overwrought, What Chance Does the Film Have? Read More »