Expectations

You're going to battle with expectations. Audiences need to know what to expect when they sit down to watch something. Maybe you can't break too many rules at once.

That's how genre works, you need to fit into existing expectations in an interesting way.

Constraints can help creativity.

The Night Of

This is much more in line with what I'd like to do. I see a future for cinema away from 2hr films and 1hr episodic TV. 

Stories were structured as 90 min - 2 hours for audiences, that's the most they could take in one sitting. First for Greek plays, recently for theater owners. 

With digital there's a whole new opportunity to tell longer format stories. But TV series with 1hr episodes still isn't quite there. 

Mini-series is closer, but still set up with 1hr episodes. If you break that last rule, mini-series with episodes of varying length, you've gotten as close to a novel with chapters as possible. I'm curious if that would work in a visual medium. 

The Night Of does a lot of things right - stretching out a story to 8 hours, opening up many moments you'd have to cut for 2hr film. Letting those moments breathe, seeing people live life in those moments. And that's fantastic. 

But some moments aren't interesting and should be cut. Or they fall flat without dialogue. Sitting in the car with Naz while he watches the police find her body would be intense in a novel getting his internal thoughts, without those thoughts it's missing a lot. Largely silent. 

Linklater does a wonderful job of filling those moments with conversation and ideas. So you're not bored (unless you're not into him). 

Just like novels have many techniques for filling the spaces between action - I imagine creators will need to develop many techniques for filling those spaces in longer format mini-series. Conversation, action, flashback, montage.... techniques to be developed. 

That's what interests me, doing something that's never been done before. Longer conversations, that seem more human. Longer stories. Stories that don't fit in a 2hr film or 1hr TV episode. 

Longer format filmed stories

On 4th episode of The Night Manager and it's reignited my interest in mini-series. There's an energy building and it's nice to know we're heading into the final chapter where the story will climax and complete. I'm getting excited to see how it ends.

I think audiences are itching for longer, more involved stories.

• The Night Manager - 6 hours 
• True Detective - 8 hours
• Serial podcast - 12 episodes
• OJ Made in America - 8 hours
• The Jinx - 6 hours 
• Making of a Murderer - 10 hours 

Beatty was onto something with Reds = 3.2 hours. I'm sure there was a longer first cut, and if he wasn't constrained to theatrical release I'm sure that could have been a great 5-6 hour story. 

The 2-hour, 3 act story started with Aristotle (or before), but the main constraint there was that was the maximum amount of time an audience could sit for one story. 

With digital, I think that's changing. It's time for a more novelistic treatment of filmed stories. That's the future, and that's what excites me. The chance to do things that haven't been done before. 

Everyone thinks culture has the attention span of a gnat, but with the popularity of these series, and the familiarity everyone has with going online and doing deeper research, I think that's a short sighted view of audiences. I think if we give them something deep and complex, they'll respond. 

The Night Manager mini-series

This is much closer to what I'm thinking, I love the 6-hour complete story aspect. $30M budget is reasonable. 

But it's also split into six 1-hour episodes, which is like forcing a book to be written in 6 chapters of equal length. 

I'd still like to see a film-style mini-series split into chapters of indeterminate length. Possibly with chapter headings like Pulp Fiction. So you can watch each chapter at your own pace. I think forcing them into 1-hour boxes is too close to episodic television for my taste. It works, and it's a huge step in the right direction. But I'd like to go further with it. 

Moby Dick Reactions

Philosophical, metaphysical, poetic romance... powerful horrors... philosophy, poetry... far beyond the level of ordinary fiction...

Something to aim for in film.

Seems to me you need an equal measure of spectacle, entertainment, meaning, and visual poetry.

I've been wondering if it's a new time for movies. If people are sick of the traditional 3-act narrative with a 2hr time limit. In the early 2000's I was genuinely excited as house music started moving away from CD's, which always had a 1hr time limit. As house/EDM music moved to digital I thought the possibilities were endless for longer mixed, no longer constrained to an arbitrary 1hr time limit imposed by the physical media of a record player or CD disc. We had taken the 1hr format pretty far from the 1960's theme albums through the 2000's. And now it was a new time, with no physical limitations.

The 90min - 2hr time limit for movies has always been imposed by theater owners, maximizing the number of showings per day. As well as the length of time an audience member could reasonably sit at one time.

Now as we move to digital film, I've been wondering if it's time to do away with the arbitrary 2hr time limit and move to a mini-series format, looking for stories that can be told in 3-4-5-10 hours. Not endless episodic, but a story with a specific beginning and end, all which flows together.

Obviously this is something George Lucas did with Star Wars episodes 1-9. And something novelists have been doing for awhile - imagine if books had a 200-page limit for 100 years and then printing evolved and they no longer had that limit? Imagine the possibilities for new types of stories that couldn't previously be told... that's what excites me about digital film's future.

What can we do that hasn't been done before? What kinds of stories can be told now that couldn't be told before?

Longer stories - with a mix of spectacle, entertainment, meaning, and visual poetry. I think audiences would dig something new. The 2hr format with all it's requirements for structure, pace, etc.... I think it's showing it's age, and that's one reason I don't go to the theater anymore. Too much familiarity and expectations.

Reception[edit]

The reception of The Whale in Britain and of Moby-Dick in the United States differ in two ways, according to Parker. First, British literary criticism was more sophisticated and developed than in the still young republic, with British reviewing done by "professional literary men and women" who were "experienced critics and trenchant prose stylists", while American reviewing on the contrary mostly delegated to "newspaper staffers" or else by "amateur contributors more noted for religious piety than critical acumen."^[115] Second, the differences between the two editions caused "two distinct critical receptions."^[116]

British[edit]

Twenty-one reviews appeared in London, and later one in Dublin.^[117] The British reviewers mostly regarded The Whale as "a phenomenal literary work, a philosophical, metaphysical, and poetic romance".^[118] The Morning Advertiser for October 24 was in awe of Melville's learning, of his "dramatic ability for producing a prose poem", and of the whale adventures which were "powerful in their cumulated horrors."^[119] To its surprise, John Bull found "philosophy in whales" and "poetry in blubber", and concluded that few books that claimed to be either philosophical or literary works "contain as much true philosophy and as much genuine poetry as the tale of thePequod's whaling expedition", making it a work "far beyond the level of an ordinary work of fiction".^[120] The Morning Post found it "one of the cleverest, wittiest, and most amusing of modern books", and predicted that it was a book "which will do great things for the literary reputation of its author".^[121]

Melville himself never saw these reviews, and Parker calls it a "bitter irony" that the reception overseas was "all he could possibly have hoped for, short of a few conspicuous proclamations that the distance betwen him and Shakespeare was by no means immeasurable."^[122]

The review in the highly regarded London Athenaeum, which described it as

[A]n ill-compounded mixture of romance and matter-of-fact. The idea of a connected and collected story has obviously visited and abandoned its writer again and again in the course of composition. The style of his tale is in places disfigured by mad (rather than bad) English; and its catastrophe is hastily, weakly, and obscurely managed.

One problem was that since the English edition omitted the epilogue, British reviewers read a book with a first-person narrator who apparently did not survive to tell the tale.^[123] The reviewer in the Spectator objected that "nothing should be introduced into a novel which it is physically impossible for the writer to have known: thus, he must not describe the conversation of miners in a pit if they all perish."^[124] The Dublin University Magazine asked "how does it happen that the author is alive to tell the story?" and the Literary Gazette declared that how the writer, "who appears to have been drowned with the rest, communicated his notes for publication to Mr. Bentley is not explained".^[124]

American[edit]

Some sixty reviews appeared in America, the criterion for counting as a review being more than two lines of comment.^[125] The weekly magazine Literary World, which had printed Melville's "Mosses" essay the preceding year, ran an anonymous review in two installments, on 15 and 22 November. The reviewer described Moby-Dick as three books rolled into one: he was pleased with the book as far as it was a thorough account of the sperm whale, less so with it as far as the adventures of the Pequod crew were considered, perceiving the characters as unrealistic and expressing inappropriate opinions on religions, and condemned the essayistic rhapsodizing and moralizing with what he thought was little respect of what "must be to the world the most sacred associations of life violated and defaced."^[126]

In a letter to Evert Duyckinck—identified by scholars as the reviewer—of December 1, Hawthorne praised the book and criticized the review:

What a book Melville has written! It gives me an idea of much greater power than his preceding ones. It hardly seemed to me that the review of it, in the Literary World, did justice to its best points.^[127]

Limiting the downside

Richard Branson always talks about limiting the downside with new business ventures. How can indie film apply that better?

My last post about validating ideas beforehand is one technique. Testing the market, crowdfunding to gauge interest, short films to experiment with themes and characters.

Those ideas are about limiting the downside for my personal investment of time and money in projects. A way to get quick feedback, which is immensely important for a new artist of any stripe - filmmaker, comedian, musician, DJ, painter.

Spending a year writing a script and then only getting feedback from industry "professionals" isn't the right way to do it.  You need feedback from the audience. Because industry professionals, have a track record of missing out on so many wonderful artists.

Just google "famous rejection letters"
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=famous%20rejection%20letters&es_th=1

You don't want your only feedback coming from gatekeepers. Audience feedback. Preferably paying audience member behavior (not opinion).

Validating the idea

In the startup world, validating a new business idea before investing significant capital or time in a new product is hugely important. Either validating by performing the actions an app would perform manually, without hiring engineers to build a working prototype. Or by testing the marketplace with Facebook ads.

I don't see why this isn't more prevalent in film. In film, many times you invest a huge amount of capital and time in a film, all based on a hunch that you think it's a good idea. It's inefficient with huge potential downside.

Comedians frequently talk about not knowing whether or not a joke is going to be funny until they tell it on stage, in front of an audience. And they can spend years honing the joke, all based on a combination of feedback from the audience and their artistry.

I know musicians have been caught off guard, thinking a song wasn't that great, but it ended up being the most popular song on the album.

But when you talk about filmmakers adjusting their film based on feedback from the audience, people get squirrely. It's as if people expect a 2 hour story to come straight out of the filmmakers mind, fully and perfectly formed. It's unrealistic.

Comedians = jokes, worked out on stage
Musicians = songs, worked out on stage
Filmmakers = shorts, worked out online 

The only problem with this formula, is with comedians and musicians you've got a paying audience. And the behavior of a paying customer is much different than the opinion of someone getting something for free. They go over this in Eric Ries's, The Lean Startup. Paying customers for a new product are early adopters. And watching the behavior of early adopters, who are interested enough in your idea to spend their hard earned money is much different than getting the opinion of someone who has enough time on their hands to be part of a focus group. It's an entirely different set of people, in addition to watching behavior versus getting someone's opinion.

Maybe I should charge for the shorts, as a way to gauge interest and make sure I only get paying, early adopter behavior.

But I'm hesitant to charge for shorts. I'll probably end up testing both ways.

Sense of direction

As a first time artist, it can be tough finding a sense of direction. Having faith in goals you set for yourself, that they're the right goals. That you're moving in the right direction.

Most people I know make movies without finding out beforehand whether or not an audience will be interested in the movie. It's a guess at best. I'd like to change that. To avoid wasting money and time.

Neil Gaiman quote

“The moment that you feel, just possibly, you are walking down the street naked, exposing too much of your heart and your mind, and what exists on the inside, showing too much of yourself...That is the moment, you might be starting to get it right.”

Good quote to keep in mind today, as I start writing the opening scene.

Seth Godin

Quote from the Linchpin:

...people are waiting to be told what to do. Sure, many of us pretend that we’d love to have control and authority and to bring our humanity to work. But given half a chance, we give it up, in a heartbeat. 

It's a tough road going it alone, being self-employed, and trying to do authentic art while being vulnerable.

But it's better than the alternative, working an unsatisfying job 8 hours a day. Part of the difficulty is working as hard for yourself as you do for a company telling you what to do. It should be the reverse.

Real people on screen

That's something I admire about Linklater. When you see people on screen in his movies, they feel real. Honest, true, real, alive. I'm thinking mostly of Before Sunrise, because that's my favorite of his movies. But it encompasses all of them.

As I write my own movies, that's the direction I'm heading into. Although with the subject matter of an action/war movie.

That's an interesting mixture.

Creating something good

It's possible that focusing on creating something good is judgmental, and hinders the creative process.

Instead, focus on creating something authentic, something that connects to the core of your being.

Good will follow.

Trust in yourself

At some point you need to trust that you've learned enough, internalized enough, and that creativity will come if you sit down and do the work.

Trust that you won't make something crappy, or something that goes against the grain of your creative impulses. And you have to be ok with being vulnerable and letting the world see your art.

Trust that you'll know where to mold it to keep it fresh and exciting, and true to your heart.

Not taking a day off

One of my favorite books lately has been Seth Godin's Linchpin.

Consumers are not loyal to cheap commodities. They crave the unique, the remarkable, and the human.

This quote is a constant source of inspiration for my screenwriting. That's exactly what we crave in films. Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Scorsese, PTA. Is there any doubt when you're watching one of their movies that it's authored by them?

Linchpin: click here

Picasso and money

I was also thinking about revenue streams and Picasso. He got most of his money from selling paintings, I wonder if there's a market for that in the future. Selling private films. Commission work. As filmmaking gets cheaper, I wonder if there are different ways to make money, other than theatrical or digital distribution.

He didn't reinvent the wheel with how you make money from painting, but I wonder if there are lessons to take home from that. It's a proto-idea, in it's infancy, or rather not even born yet, but still I wonder....

Picasso

I watched a BBC documentary on Picasso on Friday night. It got me thinking again about whether or not film is due for a revolution in structure and form.

Picasso started off as a classical painter, academic realism they call it. Then his work added a symbolist influence. Blue period. Rose period. And finally modern art transformed... cubism, crystal period, neoclassical, surrealism, and beyond.

Painting and novels were the primary art forms of the day (my guess), and it's obvious painting went through a revolution in the early 1900's, and from what Chuck said in his article, fiction is going through a similar crisis. And they could be much further along than film.

I know it's a common chorus, people have been proclaiming the death of the 3-act structure hero story since Aristotle. But maybe we could use some exploration like Picasso did with the bull, seeing what elements of traditional film structure you can remove while still maintaining the essence.

The problem is, I get bored with so many movies I see. I wonder if it's because I'm older and have seen enough to get all the tricks, or if it's because audiences are more savvy now. I'd like to believe it's because audiences are more savvy now (which Chuck stated in his article), because I'd love to see more exciting, experimental movies.

Picasso BBC doc: click here
Chuck Palahniuk article: click here

Big release

I've been wrestling with some of these ideas. Why does every movie need to be released and do massively well opening weekend? Some books do that, sure. The big sellers. And other books take years and word-of-mouth to be a hit. For those books, generally they haven't wasted money on a huge release, because they know what kind of book they have. But every movie, regardless, feels like it needs to be treated the same. 

Why can't you have good, quality, smaller movies, and allow them to build over time? Eventually making their money back. 

I'm hoping that as the digital market expands, you'll see room for different types of releases. 

It's the same problem Soderbergh noted with Liberace. I think his numbers were, the $5M budget movie needed to make $120M just to break even. Which is absurd. With $30-40M going to marketing, and $30-40M going to theater owners as part of their distribution split. 

Obviously what I'm talking about would be non-theatrical releases. With growth hacker / lean startup marketing techniques. 

Shipping daily

It feels good, shipping product daily. It's advice I'm taking from Seth Godin, every day fighting the resistance to hide and work on an idea until it's perfect. Getting in the habit of putting thoughts and ideas out there, even though they may not be 100%.

His ideas on the lizard brain from Linchpin are sticking with me, long after reading the book. I'll find myself trying to remember his specific ideas when I'm fighting fear throughout the day. I enjoyed Steven Pressfield's book on resistance, but having Seth tie resistance to biology is bringing the ideas home in a deeper, longer lasting way.

Seth Godin: click here
Linchpin: click here
The War of Art: click here

Not fearless, but courageous

As a filmmaker, you should focus on what you're most excited to shoot. Not what looks cool or what other people would like. But what you're most excited about seeing on screen.

And a corollary to that is you need to appear to be fearless about putting that your excitement on screen. Your opinion. Your thoughts. Your likes. Your interests. Your passion.

But it's not truly being fearless. It's being courageous. Nobody is fearless. You have to recognize the fear and move past it. Take action in the face of fear. Doing it anyway.

Change in perception

Sometimes changing your perception is all you need. A slight change in how you view an event, a circumstance, something you did, something someone did to you.... It can make all the difference in the world.

Favorite article of the day: http://www.stevenpressfield.com/2015/08/find-what-you-love-and-let-it-kill-you-2/

per·cep·tion

pərˈsepSH(ə)n/

noun

1. the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

   "the normal limits to human perception"

   • the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.

     "the perception of pain"

     synonyms:

     recognition, awareness, consciousness, appreciation, realization,knowledge, grasp, understanding, comprehension, apprehension; formalcognizance "our perception of our own limitations"

   • a way of regarding, understanding, or interpreting something; a mental impression.

     "Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public"

     synonyms:

     impression, idea, conception, notion, thought, belief, judgment,estimation "popular perceptions of old age"