A Two Camera Man

The last couple of features, I've become spoiled-- I've been using an A and B camera team on the movies.  For those who don't know how television and movies are shot, here's some standard practices.

For "film style" shoots, that usually refers to a single camera.  Everything is lit for that camera.  Sound prepares for that camera.  When you add a second camera to a film style shoot, it's usually more of the same.  Only you light for them both.  That's why when you bring in a second camera on a film style shoot, it's best to shoot in the same direction.  In other words, one's a medium shot and the others a close up.  If you shoot crossways-- for instance, two people talking to each other, one camera holds one person, the other camera the other-- this creates some big problems.  You have to light both-- and your lights for one might be in the way for the other shot.  Sound now has to get pristine recording-- which might require a second boom op.  All these things come in to play.

Generally, when shooting film style with two cameras, I shoot the same direction.  But there have been times I've had to shoot crossways.  On "The Imposter," we were shooting an exterior scene and the sun was setting.  If we didn't get them both right then, it would not match.  We had seconds to decide and we act to act fast.  Fortunately, it didn't require more than bounces on lighting and we close mic'd the actors (and later had to ADR anyway because it was on the side of a busy road).

For television, you have "film style" and "sitcom" style.  The show "Scrubs" has done a great job of showing both.  For a sitcom, they broke some major rules by deciding to shoot the show "film style."  So the lighting is more dramatic and they use one or two cameras.  Then for one show, they went "sitcom" and you can really see the difference.  A sitcom is lit flat with as many as five cameras.  The lighting has to be flat and even, or shadows will creep into one or more of the cameras.  When a sitcom is shot, they'll roll maybe twice through the show, with some pickups for flubs, then edit the five cameras together to get the finished result.  "Film style," you'll shoot one little shot until you have it perfect.

So in tv land, you might see as many as 12 pages a day shot.  For films it gets lower (the bigger budgets might average 2 or 3 pages).  For some tv shows, they still might shoot film style, but they move really fast.  Especially the dramas like "24," and "The Shield."  Think "movie" but at an incredible pace.  To accomplish this, the crews are a well oiled machine, and actors are dead on 95% of the time.  You just can't afford, neither time or money, to routinely get to take four or five.  Show runners will talk about how they were thrilled but concerned to land some famous movie director for an episode.  They are afraid a movie director doesn't know how to make a 12 page day when they're used to 3 page days. 

Anyway, I always had multiple cameras on stunt days.  But on "Striking Range," I started using a second camera.  By "The Imposter," I used a second camera almost the whole time.  The same for "Rising Stars."  It gives me more coverage and saves time.  I can make my days while getting plenty of coverage.

Labor Can Be Longer Than Nine Months

My non-movie-making friends often ask about a movie we're making-- wondering why it isn't out yet and in stores.  Over ten years, I've made five films... So there's the average pace from start to finish, for me, of two years per movie.  Sure I'd like to see that shrink.

In the studios, a director can do two or three movies a year tops.  A producer can do a bunch because he's multitasking and doesn't have to be exclusive for a long time on a movie.

Once we yell "wrap," people often wonder why they don't see the movie in the theaters a few months later.  Here's what happens in the indie world.  My fastest film to distribution from wrap, was about nine months-- "A Promise Kept."  We wrapped at the end of January and it was available through the distributor by October.

The next film "Striking Range," took significantly longer.  We wrapped in early June.  By the next June we were talking with Sony, and in late November, it was released.  So wrap to shelf was 18 months-- double the time of APK.

Right now, we're coming up on the year anniversary of the shoot for "Rising Stars."  We wrapped at the very end of August.  Looks like a late September release in a few select theaters, so wrap to screen time is right in the middle of the average-- 12 to 13 months.

Why so long?  Well first, the filmmakers have to perfect the edit, and this is what can take so long.  Watching it amongst the team... focus groups with others... constantly questioning every little cut in every little scene.  Getting to the locked edit can be three or four months on average-- a lot longer other times.  Then after Lock, it will take minimum of six weeks, but more likely three or four months for sound and music, lab and color to take place.  Then you have your "screener."

So then you schedule distributor screenings and this can take a month or two.  Distributors are thinking and talking amongst themselves-- acquisitions bring it to the team, marketing watches and weighs in, then the big dog decides yes or no.  If a yes, then an offer is made.  Then there's at least a couple of weeks of going back and forth on the offer.

The distributor will need a minimum of five months or so to properly prepare a release.  If you're starting with foreign sales, then it can be the following month (hence the quickness of APK).

Now for studio films, it's different-- they're in an assembly line.  They don't have to try and get the movie picked up.  But locking can take a lot longer and various suits try to justify their studio position by weighing in on the edit.  Movie making by committee.  Ewwww.

Shooting My Mouth Off

I get asked a lot when I travel about guns because, you know, I'm from the great state of Texas. So yes, some of my movies have used guns. We had small ones (.38 special in the hands of a detective in A Promise Kept) and we've had big ones (an M82 Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle on top of a parking garage next to the state capital-- the reverberations from firing a blank lasted for 17 seconds).

We had fast guns-- fully automatic, class III weapons, like the Mac 11, and several M4/AR15 types. All sorts of AK's. And something our weapons master Doug Williams called the "Widomaker." Scarlett McAlister, in Striking Range is sporting that one.

So sit back and enjoy a short little video of the weapons used in Striking Range with Lou Diamond Phillips, Yancy Butler, Glenn Moreshower, and Scarlett. Just remember, the working title was "bloodlines" and later changed to Striking Range.

Cam Tech Specs For My Movies

For all the filmmaking geeks out there, here's what we used to make my films:

The Keyman -- Shot on 35mm film using the boat anchor Arri BL4 camera. Heavy, but effective. Remember, as opposed to the electronic world where three years ago is obsolete, the film camera's basic design hasn't changed in like 80 years. We rented our camera, grip and lighting from MPS Studios in Dallas.

As far as special equipment, we used a fisher 10 dolly (the most common in the film industry). I used a crane for the cometary scenes tat open and close the movie. To that point, in my corporate/commercial career, I had used a lot of remote cranes-- it was interesting to use the big cranes that can accommodate the operator and assistant camera on the head of the crane.

A Promise Kept/The Gunman -- For this movie, again we rented from MPS, but we were shooting in Austin. And again, shooting 35mm. Our main camera was the Arri 535 and boy was it nice. Here's a picture of me holding it out of a very small helicopter, shooting the aerial that makes the last shot of the movie. The crew put *two* safety lines on the camera, and *one* on me. Nice camera. On stunts, we sometimes had a B Camera, and it was the BL4. And for the big courthouse, exploding gut scene of Steve Krieger, we had a C Camera, and it was "the pencil sharpener", the Arri 3C.

Here is the 535 pointed towards the lovely Mimi Rogers, who was absolutely wonderful to work with. We had a nice G/L package from MPS in the form of a three-ton package with lots of HMI's. For special equipment, we had the dolly, and for three days, we used a steadicam.

Striking Range -- Back to Dallas, and again 35mm and renting from MPS, we went back to the BL4, but we ran it on a Steadicam almost the whole time. And Big George Neidsen got quite a workout. For some off speed shots, we rented the Arri 435, a MOS camera (seen here with Lou Diamond Phillips). We had both overcranked and undercranked effect shots. We circled a building at 2 frames a second (seen in the movie's opening) while coming out of that at times to slo-motion. I love that effect (which now is easy in Final Cut Pro to emulate.)

Before shooting began, I ran numbers on 35mm versus HD. It was going to cost more for film, but at that point (2005), HD still had a perceived lower value, especially among the foreign buyers. So I chose to stay with 35mm.

The Imposter -- I had shot two cameras for "Inspector Mom" on Lifetime and had really grown accustomed to shooting an A and B camera. Now, HD had come a long way. It was time to try it. I considered the Varicam, but with our budget, I don't think I could have swung the Pro35 adapter for using prime lenses-- which is critical in my opinion. So I talked with Ron Gonzalez, my Director of Photography and put it quite simple: One varicam, no bells or whistles or prime lenses, or two HVX200's with redrock adapters and primes? We both wanted the depth of field of the prime lenses. So that's what we did. And I ran an A and B camera almost the entire time and don't know that I'd do it any different in the future. Ron now has a Red, so I'll have to find a cheap second Red for the next movie.

My favorite camera out of what I used? Well, certainly, the one with the most bells and whistles is the Arri 535. The viewfinder had the Arri glow feature which was novel at the time. It was lighter than the BL4 which counts for something on a 12 hour day. But, even after preaching film over HD for many years, I loved shooting HD. The pictures were better than I thought and the work flow was MUCH easier. And I could shoot and shoot and shoot... With film, there's this pressure as soon as the motor cranks up on the camera. Every foot that flows through the gate is $$$. That pressure was gone for HD.

Film Distribution in a nutshell

It's hard enough to get a movie made, what about getting it distributed? This little post will be directed to low budget indie filmmakers, for the secular marketplace. So what can you do to get your film distributed?

Most Important Variable for success in getting distribution: Recognizable name. Nothing comes even close to this variable. The overall goal is to get individuals to buy/watch the movie. You can spend tons of money, but a recognizable name shortcuts that.

Second Variable - Genre. If you've got a drama, good luck. These are extremely hard to sell. The movie industry just had a record year in the face of a depression. Why? Because of escapism. That's why action/suspense/horror etc keep getting made and keep earning revenue. Comedy? Well, just don't count on foreign sales. Just remember, Drama is the hardest genre to get distribution.

Third Variable - Production Value. If I were weighting these, I'd have Name as 70%, Genre as 20% and PV as 10%. This is the quality of the lighting, writing, directing, acting, editing, etc.

The *intangible* variables are generally hooks and gimmicks, timing, special factors. Like selling your body for experiments to earn money to make the movie. Or loading up all the credit cards you can find. But these were stories that could get buzz out on the movie. Now that they've been done, it's not new. I don't recommend it.

Can a movie succeed in getting distribution without names? Sure. But for every one, there are thousands and thousands that don't. So before you mention Napolean Dynamite, understand that it is the exception rather than the rule.

Now if you make your film for a niche market, the rules do change. It still helps to have recognizable names in that niche, but PV doesn't really matter. Story becomes the biggest variable. For example, in the faith-based niche market, Flywheel succeeded without any PV, names and so forth because the story rang a chord with the niche audience.

So if you're wanting to make a movie and get it distributed, find a name actor. It's not impossible. If you've already got a no-name drama in the can, good luck. You'll need it. Hope you get in to Sundance.

Title Issues

Sometimes I think I'm good with titles. Then I look at the track record. Movie #1: The Keyman. Not a great title, but works. I remember on the set, Adam Baldwin, Tom Wright and I brainstorming other title ideas. But nothing better. Then I renamed it later to just make it feel new to get it out to a new distributor, "Finding Redemption." To avoid confusion, I then made it "The Keyman: Finding Redemption."

Movie #2. PURE MOTIVE. Now there's a decent Friday Night Rental title. I came up with this one because my mentor, Dr. Mike Riggins, had talked about how there is very rarely one pure, solitary motive for doing anything. So I wrote the script Pure Motive and started working on casting. Had a meeting with a BIG TIME casting director (she's casted some of the biggest movies of all time), and she said for low budget indie, she didn't want to do a plot driven thriller. Hmmm... The script isn't really a plot driven thriller.
So I remember driving with Jill up to Colorado and we came up with "A Promise Kept." Much more character driven sounding for getting actors, then for the distributors who want a Friday Night Rental title, we can go back to Pure Motive. Problem was, later distributor #1 didn't pass PM title idea along to distributor #2, so for US video only, APK is "The Gunman" which is wrong on several levels. Oh well. So the movie company was setup as Pure Motive LP, the movie shot as "A Promise Kept" and it's on DVD as "The Gunman."

Movie #3
So I thought I would try wrapping a deep theme into the popular horror genre (for which I know nothing and don't like them, but they're selling). I researched and had a whole blood disease called "Porphyria" that is genetic string going. Called the script "Bloodlines." Then took most of the horror out and made it a low budget action movie more than anything else. Sony renamed it "Striking Range." That's better than Bloodlines anyway. So I had all the distributors go with that title.

Movie #4
I wanted to do a movie about a fallen Christian rock star. And I wanted to do a comedy about a church staff that would employ some of the same elements (flights of fantasy) that "Scrubs" uses. Then I thought I could combine them. I started writing the script and my working title was the Christian Scrubs idea. Then more and more of the comedy and Scrubs-like stuff got cut out. As I neared the end of the first draft, my title was "Son of Thunder." Which incidentally was the *worst* title idea ever Producer Jeff Rodgers quickly told me. But the characters name was Johnny. His bandmate was James. James and John. Sons of thund... oh nevermind.
So the whole movie was about the concept of the word "Believe." How about that as a title? So second and third draft was "Believe." And the movie company was setup during this time (Believe Movie LP). But I didn't like the title. To 60's-ish.
Then as we talked to Kevin about starring, I listened to more of his music and The Imposter was a great song and perfect for the movie. I talked to Kevin and he said he didn't mind. So now the script was "The Imposter."

And we've kept it there. Although I did have a pretty well known Christian filmmaker say that I should really consider changing the title because it gives too much away. Newsflash-- the VO at the BEGINNING, Johnny tells one and all, "*I* was the Imposter." So I think we're okay there.