Yes, Filmmakers Should Defend Their Work

Drew McWeeny asks whether or not it’s appropriate for filmmakers to strike back after a negative review of their film. In referring to Calvin Reeder and his film, The Rambler, McWeeny writes, “He should say what he has to say with his films, I should say what I have to say with my reviews, and everything else should be tabled as needless noise that detracts from us both.”

I don’t agree with McWeeny here – informed dialogue after a movie has been released and written about can benefit both the filmmaker, the public, and film critics. Just look at what happened with that Django Unchained incident, after all.

That being said, I don’t think Reeder is the standard bearer for what constitutes a civilized response. Based on his communications on his Facebook page and on the comments on the Hitfix post, he seems more interested in sniping and destroying McWeeny’s credibility than in actually engaging in a serious dialogue.

But to me, there is no question that a person who makes their living talking about their opinion on the works of others should be able to have their work commented on. How productive that commenting is, and in what venue it occurs are the unresolved questions.

Taiko Drum Motion Study

I had the pleasure of witnessing Kaze Daiko’s Youth Taiko drum performance at the Lunar New Year Festival at the International District in Seattle yesterday. I’ve seen a few Taiko drum groups in the past, but this group outclassed them all. The pieces they played were inventive and energetic, plus the members all looked skilled and happy to be there.

This video was shot on a Canon 5D Mark III using primarily a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens at 60 fps, which was then slowed down to 24 fps. I considered setting it to music/sound that I recorded live, but decided that using extremely rhythmic drums set to slow motion drums would have been a jarring and confusing experience. I also didn’t have enough coverage to make it a conventional “music video.” Thus, I decided to go in the completely opposite direction and set it to “Winter” from Vivaldi’s four seasons.

Still need to work on that color correction…

You can learn more about Kaze Daiko at their website

Observations on Launching a “Successful” Podcast Kickstarter

A few days ago, Joanna Robinson and I launched a Kickstarter for 10 episodes of our Game of Thrones podcast, “A Cast of Kings,” set to coincide nicely with season 3 of the show. We were both totally floored by the response, as we saw our $3200 funding goal reached within 48 hours. Before I go any further, let me just make sure to say: Thank you. To anyone who donated, to anyone who supported us spiritually in this, and to anyone who has just listened to the show. We are so grateful that you believe our endeavors are worth paying for.

This being my first successful Kickstarter, I thought it might be useful for me to share a couple of thoughts on the process.

I did not think we did a great job at creating an exemplar Kickstarter project – I am aware of the elements that go into a stereotypically successful Kickstarter project, and I am equally aware our project did not possess them. I actually got a lengthy e-mail from a concerned listener named Adam, offering ways to help improve the Kickstarter and set it up for success (I share some of his advice below). The reason the Kickstarter deployed as it did was because I was kind of interested to see how challenging it would be to mobilize our fanbase to donate for us. While some of my thoughts were proven true, others weren’t — again, more on this below. More than anything, this Kickstarter was an experiment.

Kickstarters should have videos – Kickstarter strongly recommends each project have a video, and statistically, projects with videos are more likely to be backed. Concerned listener Adam recommended “a short 3 minute video with you on camera talking about how much this means to you. People donate to people, not to projects. If you go on there and really let people know how much it means to you, then they will be far more inclined to donate.” I think the biggest reason for no video is because I would have felt weird making one without Joanna — we live many miles apart and I’ve never met her in person. But time was also a major consideration.

Rewards should be more incrementally spaced – It’s a pretty big jump from $10 to $150. I get that. But ultimately, I didn’t really feel like I could commit enough time to promise additional rewards. I realize that some projects have “stretch goals,” but I already think doing the podcast as currently planned will be a significant commitment. Beyond additional episodes, I wasn’t really sure what else I could offer. One suggestion that did strike me as a good one, which I now wish I’d included, was the promise of reading a listener e-mail on the air.

Explain more about you and your talents – In an ideal Kickstarter we would have done more of this. But really, I was counting on a) the proof of concept of the past 10 episodes we did, and b) the fact that people would trust us to deliver a quality product, based on those episodes. Explaining more about yourself is necessary in a situation where you are marketing the Kickstarter to complete strangers. I did not think we fell into that category, although in the end, a lot of non-Cast-of-Kings listeners did end up donating.

Outline what the costs are – My single biggest regret is not doing a better job of articulating where the money is going. In this instance, there are a few fixed costs in terms of equipment (a replacement mic for Joanna), HBO subscriptions (which I don’t currently have), the domain name for the podcast, etc. Kickstarter and Amazon payments take a significant percentage of the total amount (about 8-10% between the two of them), plus Kickstarter funds are also taxable — how much is a little complicated and still unresolved, but it’s safe to say Uncle Sam will take a huge chunk. The biggest cost, though, is time and effort. Thus, the remainder of the funds will be divided up between Joanna and myself.

There seems to be a significant misconception online that podcasts take no time or effort whatsoever. They do take time. They do take effort. They don’t just appear on the interwebs like babies in a cabbage patch. Occasionally, some people who do certain podcasts may ask for money for the time and effort that goes into making a podcast. Why anyone would object to this is something that is beyond my ability to fathom.

My personal goal was not to extract as much money as possible from a single Kickstarter – This Kickstarter was really an experiment on my part, to see if people would be willing to pay for a single, limited run podcast. Many people asked things like, “Why not promise stretch goals? Why not offer more rewards? Why not offer more episodes for more money?” etc. But the goal was not to make as much money as possible. I’m far more interested in how sustainable this model is. How many podcast Kickstarters per year can be launched this way and successfully funded? How many times can you annoy people on Twitter to donate before they stop following you? What is the right balance? These are questions I’m really interested in because they go towards answering the ultimate question: can someone make a decent living off of doing podcasts?

In the days to come, I’ll be doing some more experimentation with Kickstarter and seeing if we can get to the bottom of this question.

The true dream of TRUE crowdfunding still eludes us, or at least, me – In my original podcast episode announcing the Kickstarter, I said that if everyone listening to the podcast donated $1, we’d have more than enough to fund the show. In my dream, everyone donating a tiny amount could create a huge impact. Things didn’t really work out that way. As you can see in the header image, the average donation was closer to $15. The vast majority of people donated $10, and there were a couple extravagant donations (including some backers that chose the $150 reward option).

I’ve heard many theories for why so few people made small donations. Peter Sciretta from /Film opined that the pain of filling out all the Kickstarter info is not worth a $1-2 donation. Matt Singer explained he thought that people didn’t think a $1-2 would truly help. The caveat here is that by reaching the goal in 2 days, we didn’t have a long enough timeline to extract too many statistically sound data about user behavior.

But if it is accurate, this does force me to to recalibrate my expectations for future Kickstarters. If the average donation is going to be $10-15, then the value that we are delivering needs to be in line with that, as does the expectation for how many people we can expect will donate.

Vegas, Baby. Vegas

In my never-ending quest to develop some killer slow motion video skills, I brought my brand new Canon 60D with me to Vegas and shot a bunch of material at 60 FPS, which I then assembled into the above video. The effect was achieved by slowing the video down to 24 FPS, a 60% reduction in speed that resulted in some pretty dramatic effects.

My strategy was simply to work on composition first and foremost. Would the shot look good as a photograph? If so, there’s a significant likelihood it would look good as a brief video clip as well. And I also had to hope that there was some sort of interesting movement happening to justify the video component of it.

One regret is that I only brought two lenses: the 50 mm f/1.4 and the Rokinon fisheye lens – because I was traveling, I didn’t want to carry too much weight in lenses. But I had forgotten how much of a crop factor the APS-C sensor introduces, and I constantly felt like my shots were either way too tight or way too wide. Maybe the 40mm f/2.8 pancake is the way to go?

Thanks to Vegas Tripping for featuring this video on their website!

Vegas Through a Rokinon 8mm Fisheye

I recently traded in my Canon 5D Mark II (*sniff*) for a Canon 60D and a 5D Mark III (I wanted the 60D to do some cheap DSLR video on-the-go). One of the ancillary benefits of the 60D purchase was being able to finally use that 8mm Rokinon fisheye lens I had sitting in my closet. I had bought the Rokinon many months ago, not realizing that it was essentially useless on a full-frame camera. Stupid move, but one easily negated with the purchase of another camera!

I decided to take the Rokinon with me on a recent vacation to Vegas. How’d it fare in real-world use? In general, pretty well! Here are a few stray observations on this lens:

One of the big annoyances about this lens is the lack of aperture control from the camera itself. Instead, there’s an aperture ring you must physically turn. I’m used to this from using my finicky-but-awesome Fuji X100, but it was still a chore. Compounding this is that you get an aperture preview that is “always on” as you look through the lens.
Outdoors and in good lighting, the fisheye was amazing. Just setting the focus to somewhere between 3ft and infinity yields razor sharp pics. And of course, the look is quite unique.
In low light and using the 60D video function, I found the lens to produce images that were kind of a soupy mess. You can get a taste of that in one of the videos I made using the fisheye at night. Really not ideal, although the lack of sharpness here is probably a combination of a bunch of factors.
Because of the way the lens’s glass element is shaped, it’s a bit challenging to get the lens cap on and off. It will only fit in one orientation.
As is probably obvious, conventional photographic guidelines don’t really apply. It’s hard to adhere to the rule of thirds when your horizon is bending dramatically. After much experimentation, I found that photos I took that were mostly symmetrical ended up being the most striking and impressive. And of course, be as close to the subject as possible.

So would I recommend the fisheye lens? Depends. The fisheye produces a very specific type of image and you really have to get in close to create something visually striking (or alternatively, be really far away, as in a nature/landscape shot). I was definitely glad to have it in certain situations, but it is a lot harder to craft eye-catching images from it, since I believe the settings and situations you need to create those images occur more rarely when using this lens. Thus, if you are making one of your first, relatively-low-cost lens purchases, I’d definitely pick up the 50mm f/1.4 lens before you pick up anything else, as its versatility and sharpness are beyond compare. For the 8mm Rokinon, only niche hobbyists need apply.

test

Brief, Rambling Thoughts on Christopher Smith’s “Triangle”

Update: Another good explanation of this film can be found here.

[The following contains SPOILERS for Christopher Smith’s Triangle.]

Christopher Smith’s Triangle just hit DVD/Blu-Ray and Netflix Watch Instantly in the U.S. I first heard about the film on my own podcast, as my co-host Adam Quigley suggested it’d be a good watch for people who enjoy. Eight viewings later and I still can’t get this film out of my head.

A lot of that is due to Melissa George’s amazing performance. I’m also in love with the chilling score by Christian Henson and Dot Allison. Other things I really like about the movie:

The use of perspective – The cinematography by Robert Humphreys (dominated by handheld) is brilliant. We’re constantly questioning whether what we’re looking at is a first-person perspective from Jess’s point of view, or just an omniscient third-person perspective. It’s a subtle effect, but it is extremely unsettling.
The most shocking kill of the year – When Melissa George smashes her own face in…that was brutal.
The greatest headfake ever – The film starts out like a generic horror film, only 20 minutes in, all but one of the characters is killed in a brutal massacre. I did not see that coming.
The entire concept of leaving remnants of your former self behind – There’s a scene when Sally, having been stabbed by Mean Jess, stumbles onto the deck of the ship only to find dozens of dead bodies of HERSELF. The scene is shot brilliantly, and its only shortcoming is the fact that Sally doesn’t appear completely shocked and mind-blown at the dozens of corpses…OF HERSELF. LYING NEXT TO HER. DEAD. OF HERSELF.

Right after I saw the film, I called up Adam Quigley to discuss the film, and recorded our conversation. You can download it (Right-click and “Save As”).

Since this conversation, I’ve had a lot more time to think and read about the film, and feel differently about it now. As “The Dude” once said, “New information has come to light, man.” One thing that /Filmcast listener Jim pointed out to me was the following:

I only caught a brief portion of Adam and Dave’s informal discussion about the movie ‘Triangle’ and I just wanted to see what your thought about the metaphysical aspects of the film. In short, I came into the discussion at about the point where Dave was saying something to the effect of how he preferred if the movie was more of a literal time traveling narrative while Adam was ok with the concept that the movie had more of a supernatural reasoning about the time manipulation. I, personally, found the supernatural clues in the movie more compelling and the notion that the main character’s journey in the movie was punishment or a purgatory.

The main thing I liked was that in the explanation of why Sisyphus was condemned to roll a rock up a hill was that ‘he made a promise to Death that he didn’t keep’. At the end of the movie *SPOILERS* after the car crash when the main character is shone walking around in a fugue state, a cab driver picks up the main character and she asks him to take her to the harbor starting the individual time loop over again. When she gets there, the driver says ‘he’ll keep the meter running’ and asks the question,’you will come back won’t you?” to which the main responses,’yes I promise’. I’ve always taken this to mean that the cabbie was Death (or Charon, the ferryman of the Dead) and that the main character has promised that she’ll be back. Since she breaks this promise by going on the boat, she’s forced to re-live a set of time loops until eventually she lives up to her promise to come back to the cab and the afterlife instead of agreeing to go on the boat and life the time loop filled half life she current inhabits.

This is a brilliant explanation that adds so much to the film for me. I’m only angry because I feel I’m a complete moron for having missed it earlier! Of course! Jess breaks the promise to the ferryman and that’s what completely screws her over. It puts the entire film in a whole new context.

In addition the Wikipedia entry on the film lays out the following explanation:

**
There are two distinct phases to the total cycle denoted by A and B. Events happening in these phases are similar but not identical. By having an A and B phase the audience is fooled into thinking that Jess is altering the cycle when in fact she is simply playing her proper role in the alternate phase. In each phase there are three versions of Jess denoted by 1, 2 and 3. The phase alternates between A and B each time all the minor characters are killed and the tertiary Jess character is thrown overboard. The surviving two Jess characters advance from primary to secondary and secondary to tertiary, respectively and a new primary Jess character boards the ship.
A phase: (Film focuses on A1-Jess)
Once the group is on the Aeolus they read about the story of Sisyphus at which point A2-Jess drops her keys and the keys are found by the group. The entire group enters the ballroom of the ship where A1-Jess catches a glimpse of A2-Jess. Victor runs after A2-Jess and ends up outside where he is confronted by A2-Jess. A2-Jess accidentally fatally injures Victor. A3-Jess has her character shift and becomes the masked killer.
Gregg and Jess walk away from Sally and Downey and discover the note written in Downey’s blood to go to the theatre. A1-Jess walks away from Gregg and heads for the ballroom.
Sally and Downy are told to go to the theatre by A3-Jess. On their way they see blood trails from where A3-Jess dragged Greg’s body out of the theatre. A1-Jess kills Victor in the ballroom after he attacks her. We are tricked into thinking A1-Jess then runs to the theatre but in fact A2-Jess shows up in the theatre. This is because after escaping the theatre unharmed this Jess obtains a knife. This knife is used by tertiary Jess in the next cycle to attack Sally and Downy in the bedroom.
A3-Jess kills Gregg, Sally and Downey in the theatre while A2-Jess flees the theatre and gets the knife. A2-Jess, with the knife, is on the top deck of the ship and is heard running by A1-Jess who is immediately attacked by A3-Jess. A2-Jess has no further role in the A cycle. A1-Jess eventually wins the struggle and throws A3-Jess overboard. The cycle is complete. A1-Jess becomes B2-Jess. A2-Jess becomes B3-Jess.
B phase: (Film focuses on B2-Jess)
B2-Jess resets the skipping record and then sees the new group about to board the Aeolus. In the hallway she drops her keys for the new primary group to hear and runs into the bedroom to see the note to go to the theatre written in Downey’s blood. Downey was killed in the theatre in the preceding A phase so this note was made using Downey’s blood from the B phase that preceded this B phase.
B2-Jess fatally injures Victor on the deck then goes below deck, scribbles another note “If they board kill them all”, takes a shotgun and loses her locket down the grate. This scene shows the audience that Jess cannot alter the total cycle and is in fact playing her proper role in the B phase of the total cycle.
B2-Jess prevents B1-Jess from killing Victor in the ballroom. B2-Jess then saves Downey and Sally from being killed in the theatre where Gregg is killed. B3-Jess is grazed in the head by B2-Jess.
B2-Jess gives Downey the shotgun and goes to look for Victor. She returns to the ballroom where his body has been thrown overboard.
B3-Jess tricks Sally and Downey into following her into a bedroom where she attacks them using the knife she obtained as A2-Jess. Sally escapes with a fatal wound to her chest while Downey is killed.
B2-Jess searches for Sally who makes the distressed call to the next primary group. She finds Sally amongst a pile of dead Sallies and gives her the brown jacket.
B3-Jess finds B1-Jess and is thrown overboard after a struggle. When Sally dies the cycle resets. B1-Jess becomes A2-Jess. B2-Jess becomes A3-Jess.
A phase: (Film focuses on A3-Jess)
A3-Jess has a character shift when she realizes that she must kill everyone in order to save them. She goes below deck and writes “Go to the theatre” in Downey’s blood before dragging his body out of the bedroom and throwing him overboard. Next A3-Jess drags Gregg out of the theatre. Victor’s body has already been disposed of.
A3-Jess tells Sally and Downey to go to the theatre then leaves to get another shotgun and become the masked killer.
When Gregg offends A1-Jess she leaves him alone and A3-Jess confronts him in a balcony above the theatre where Sally and Downey are waiting. A3-Jess kills Gregg, Sally and Downey in the theatre. A2-Jess flees the theatre and gets the knife which she will use as B3-Jess.
A2-Jess is on the top deck of the ship with the knife and is heard running by A1-Jess who is immediately attacked by A3-Jess. A2-Jess has no further role in the A cycle. A1-Jess drops down one level and grabs an axe. A1-Jess attempts to distract A3-Jess by throwing an object. A3-Jess remembers having done this when she played the part of A1-Jess and cuts her off. A3-Jess ultimately loses the struggle and is thrown overboard where she washes up on shore.
Jess goes home and we find out that the real Jess is abusive towards her son. The real Jess is killed by Sisyphus-Jess. In an attempt to escape the loop she puts the body in her car, takes her son and flees. She hits a seagull and throws its body onto a pile of dead seagulls. She gets back into her car and is involved in a head on collision with a truck. She escapes ‘unharmed’ and is greeted by a taxi driver. Sisyphus-Jess is in fact already dead and the entire film has taken place inside her constructed punishment.
It is likely that the loop started when real Jess, distracted because she was abusing her son, died in the head on collision along with her son. After dying, real Jess becomes Sisyphus-Jess. The cab driver, playing the role of Hermes, escorts her to the harbor where she will join the next primary group about to board Aeolus.
**
I’ve gone through this explanation (SLOWLY) a few times and I’m not entirely sure that the notations are consistent. But it at least seems as though there’s one plausible explanation in which this film could make sense. What do you think?

New Year’s Eve 2012

I was blessed to have a bunch of friends over to my apartment on New Year’s Eve. Seeing a significant portion of my friends in Seattle, all together in one room — it really made this place start to feel like home.

My friend, upon seeing the video, said it looked like life was going pretty well. I agreed, but said I didn’t know how long all the excitement would last.

“Make sure to enjoy it while it continues. Don’t worry about making it last,” he replied.

I cut together this brief video to show you my view of the fireworks. This was shot on a Canon 5D Mark II using a 50mm f/1.4 lens.