keith calder

Curious: what is it about the close-up shot of Joaquin Phoenix in "The Master" that makes you love it so much?

Wed, 30 May 2012 10:53:39 -0700

“A close-up on screen can say all a song can.”
- Stephen Sondheim

The close-up in the trailer for THE MASTER of Joaquin Phoenix during his interview carries the weight of all the power of cinema. The opening half of the trailer is mostly wide or glancing closer shots of his character on a beach as we hear Joaquin’s voice over. But the head-on close-ups of Joaquin in the second half carry the weight and power. They are what let you see the man, the facade the man wears, and the inner workings of his mind.

I believe the close-up is the most powerful cinematic tool for character, emotion, and drama; and I would argue that Paul Thomas Anderson shoots the best close-ups of any director working today. He knows how to compose them, how to light them, when to use them, and how to get the performances that warrant that type of close-up. He knows how to cast actors whose faces and performances will warrant giant close-ups. He doesn’t waste his close-ups when they aren’t needed, but when they are needed he knows to let them stay on screen for just the right amount of time.

Notice in the trailer that the only tight almost-head-on close-up in the trailer are the lengthy shots of Joaquin in the second half. He doesn’t cheapen this close-up by cutting to a matching close-up of the other person in the scene. You only see the interviewer relatively wide and with Joaquin still in the frame. The close-up of Joaquin is almost head on, incredibly tight, and beautifully lit with an interesting eye-light. Compositionally we are left with only one salient piece of information: Joaquin Phoenix. The foreground and background are totally out of focus, and in a color palette that serves to enhance the focus on Joaquin’s character. The camera in the close-up is loose and follows Joaquin’s performance, but the rest of the shots in the trailer are relatively static allowing only for the blocking to play out in a locked frame. The close-up is not just used to deliver dialog. We see Joaquin think. We see him react. We see him live, and we are drawn to him.

You can learn a lot about the power and craft of cinema just by watching Paul Thomas Anderson’s close-ups.

The teaser trailer for THE MASTER.

2012 Movie #76 - Senna (2010) I finally got around to watching...

Sun, 27 May 2012 10:58:31 -0700

2012 Movie #76 - Senna (2010)

I finally got around to watching the documentary SENNA. It’s an incredible story incredibly well told. I highly recommend checking it out.

"Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people."

Sat, 26 May 2012 10:52:01 -0700

“Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people.”

- William Butler Yeats

2012 Movies #67-75 - Cannes 2012 #67 - 13 Eerie #68 -...

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:47:04 -0700

2012 Movies #67-75 - Cannes 2012

I just got back from the Festival de Cannes (Cannes Film Festival) and Marché du Film (Film Market). Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see a lot of films in the festival this year, as most of my time was spent in meetings. Of the films I did see, I enjoyed GATTU the most. GATTU is an Indian coming of age film about a poor street orphan and his quest to become the champion kite flyer of his neighborhood. That description doesn’t really do justice to the charm of the film, which I recommend checking out if you have the chance.

I also want to draw attention to GERM. It’s a lot of fun in a “so bad it’s good” way. By the end of the film the whole audience of jaded industry executives were laughing at every ridiculous moment.

vhxtv: We’re very proud to announce that VHX is powering the...

Fri, 25 May 2012 10:13:37 -0700

vhxtv:

We’re very proud to announce that VHX is powering the worldwide release of Indie Game: The Movie on June 12.

Indie Game has come a long way since their ambitious Kickstarter project. Two years later, they’re armed with an amazing film, a basket of accolades, and an eagerness to redefine what indie distribution truly means. We could not dream of a better fit for VHX for Artists.

You can pre-order it now and you’ll get high quality streaming and DRM-free downloads. If you want to find out more, you should watch the trailer!

Filmmakers, film execs, and film lovers: pay close attention. This is where the film, video, and television business is going. It will start with the crowd-funded and self-funded films by artists on the bleeding edge of technology, appealing to the early adopters. The musicians and comedians will embrace it, as they’ve always been the closest to their fans. It will creep into traditional independent film, as the pipeline for a well-supported self-release proves to be more lucrative and stable than gambling on traditional distribution. And finally the studios and networks will be dragged into the future kicking and screaming, left with no alternative as the market shifts under their feet.

But this is it. This is where we start. Crowd-funded on Kickstarter; self-released on iTunes, Steam, and VHX. Our Edison is Steve Jobs, our Chaplin is Louis CK, our multiplex is VHX, and our Warner Brothers is Kickstarter. I hope you can be our Hitchcock, our Curtiz, our Méliès, or our Griffith.

Movies are still young. It’s just the system that’s getting old.

oldhollywood: Above: The partial set from Citizen Kane consists...

Thu, 24 May 2012 10:43:15 -0700

oldhollywood:

Above: The partial set from Citizen Kane consists of a foreground doorway and the butler (Paul Stewart), while Kane (Orson Welles) stands on a distant soundstage floor.

Below: The final, deep-focus image was completed with a matte painting by Chesley Bonestell. The live-action elements of the doorway in the foreground and Kane in the background were optically composited with a painted hallway, columns, and floor. The distant reflection of Kane on the floor was painted as well.

(via)

"Dialogue is not uncinematic. So many movies of the 30s and 40s we adore are constant streams of..."

Wed, 23 May 2012 10:40:21 -0700

“Dialogue is not uncinematic. So many movies of the 30s and 40s we adore are constant streams of dialogue. Of course we remember James Cagney squashing a grapefruit into Mae Clarke’s face. But does that evoke more affectionate memory than “Here’s lookin’ at you, kid”?”

- Sidney Lumet

"Everybody always talks about my vision in this film. The truth is, everybody has a vision of it,..."

Tue, 22 May 2012 10:59:04 -0700

“Everybody always talks about my vision in this film. The truth is, everybody has a vision of it, everybody who’s working on it. A great movie evolves when everybody has the same vision in their heads.”

- Alan Parker

How much should I pay for film rights to a book?

Mon, 21 May 2012 11:01:05 -0700

I’m a big fan of the website Quora (specifically a place for asking and answering questions, and generally a fantastic resource for information). I’ve been answering questions there this year, and I’ve decided to start cross-promoting some of my popular answers here on my personal blog.

QUORA QUESTION - How much should I pay for film rights to a book?

The book is faction - an imaginative elaboration around a little-known historical event. What would a typical range be, and how is it paid (ie - say 10% deposit plus the rest when the film is made, or…?)

MY ANSWER

The traditional approach is to “option” the film rights in the intellectual property. The general definition of an option is that you are paying to have the exclusive option of purchasing the film rights at a future predetermined date for a specified price.

For example, you might pay $100 today to have the option to buy the film rights in 18-months for $200,000.

Here are some other wrinkles that occur in many option agreements.

1) Often the option price is “against” the purchase price, meaning that in our example above you would pay $100 to option the book and then $200,000 minus $100 to exercise the option and buy the film rights.

2) Many option agreements also include a right to automatically extend an option for a second or third period. For example, you might have a clause saying you can extend the option for a First Extension Period of 18 months by paying a First Extension Fee of $1000. And perhaps the First Extension Fee is not “against” the purchase price. This means that if you used up the Initial Option Period and extended for the First Extension Period, you would have the rights for 3-years. This idea of 3-years of accumulated rights is commonly seen, as many studios are unwilling to enter into development agreements on a project where the rights expire in fewer than 3-years. Option periods are usually extended automatically for “force majeure,” which generally means events that are outside the control of the parties but have an impact on the agreement. A common example would be a major labor strike within Hollywood, such as the WGA strike of a few years ago.

3) The purchase price doesn’t have to be a fixed amount. It could be defined as a percentage of the Budget (and then you would have to define what the “budget” means and what types of costs are excluded from the “budget” for the purposes of this calculation). These percentages can vary, but it’s common to see ranges from 1-5% The option generally has to be exercised at the earlier of the expiration of the Option Period or the commencement of Principal Photography.

4) If the purchase price is a percentage of the budget, it might have a “floor” and a “ceiling.” The “floor” protects that if the budget goes below a certain amount, the rights holder at least gets a “floor” minimum payment. The “ceiling” protects the buyer in case the budget becomes huge, it puts a cap on the amount of money that the rights-holder will receive up front. So perhaps we structure our example as being a $100 option for 18-months against 2.5% of the budget with a floor of $50,000 and a ceiling of $500,000. This means that if the film’s budget is less than $2m then the rights holder will receive $50,000; if the film’s budget is higher than $20m then the rights holder will receive $500,000; if the budget is between $2m and $20m then the rights holder will receive 2.5% of the budget.

5) The option agreement usually outlines what the rights holder’s backend participation will be in the project. This might be a Net proceeds participation, which would mean you need a Net proceed definition (in filmmaking, “profit” is a contractual term that is negotiated, and is not a true accounting term). It might be a series of additional payments made based on fixed benchmarks, such as achieving a certain Domestic Box Office gross or selling a certain number of DVDs.

6) The option agreement also usually outlines what happens to any derivative productions such as TV shows, sequels, remakes, and so on. These might be passive payments to the rights holder.

7) The option agreement has to specify which rights are being optioned, and which rights are being retained by the original rights holder. For example, what happens with merchandising? What happens with musical theater rights?

8) The option agreement also generally outlines the on-screen and advertising credit that the original rights holders will receive on the film. This is usually some version of a “based on” credit in the main titles of the film.

As you can tell, this is not a completely straightforward situation. You are dealing in intellectual property, and there are a lot of legal pitfalls that arise. If you don’t structure the agreement properly, there’s a chance that you aren’t actually getting the rights you need to make and release a feature film. For this reason, I highly recommend working with a legitimate attorney with experience in the film business. They will help you structure an option agreement that adequately protects you.

But to your original question… There isn’t really a set answer. You might pay $1 for an 18-month option, and promise 5% of the budget of the film if the film is ever made. Or you might just pay $10,000 now and purchase the film rights entirely. Or something else entirely. It’s about whatever the middle-ground is between what you are willing to pay and what the rights holder is willing to accept for you to control the film rights to that source material.

A plan for aspiring filmmakers.

Fri, 18 May 2012 10:59:05 -0700

[This is based on a message board post I made in 2008 when an aspiring filmmaker asked a question about whether he should make a microbudget film.]

If I were starting from scratch today and I wanted to be a filmmaker… With no knowledge, no contacts, no experience, no credits, etc… This is what I would do…

1) I would write screenplays for “real” movies. Scripts that I think should be big budget Hollywood films.

2) I would make a variety of short video content with an easy hook on a regular schedule. Perhaps once a month. If they really catch on, I would do more of the same style with a hope to build an audience.

3) I would try to make at least one microbudget feature a year. I would try to do as much of the technical production as I could until I had easy access to better crew. I would endeavor to get these films into the best festivals possible, and self-distribute online unless I received an offer from a reputable independent distributor.

All three of these methods can lead to success, but they also all inform each other. As you get better at any one of the three, it will improve the quality of the other two. It would also lead to you becoming a more interesting person than most aspiring filmmakers. You would hopefully start to build a fanbase, and it would separate you as someone who does rather than someone who talks about doing.

Here are several films that either were made on a microbudget or that I think could have been made on a microbudget without massive sacrifices. Please note that I do NOT include delivery costs when considering the budget for a microbudget film. If you’re delivering a film it’s because you made a sale, and the sale should be able to cover the delivery expenses. On the other hand, I would always include delivery costs in a non-microbudget film. One of the tricks to a good microbudget film is getting one or two things that should be expensive for cheap, and then building a film around that.

Also the primary trick with microbudget filmmaking is to not pay for anything. You try to pay for nothing, and your budget is basically whatever you can’t get for free, and you can’t do yourself.

jaymug: The Saddest Batman Promotional Display Ever - by...

Thu, 17 May 2012 15:15:41 -0700

jaymug:

The Saddest Batman Promotional Display Ever - by Mountain Dew for The Dark Knight Rises.

I like to think that Christopher Nolan had to personally approve this in-store display.

"If two men on a job agree all the time, then one is useless. If they disagree all the time, then..."

Thu, 17 May 2012 11:01:01 -0700

“If two men on a job agree all the time, then one is useless. If they disagree all the time, then both are useless.”

- Daryl F. Zanuck

oldhollywood: Above, the bell ringing scene in Black Narcissus...

Wed, 16 May 2012 10:56:00 -0700

oldhollywood:

Above, the bell ringing scene in Black Narcissus (1947, dir. Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger) as shot on the studio lot; below, the final scene with the addition of Walter Percer Day’s glass matte painting of the Himalayas.

(via)

Movies That Didn't Make My Top 10 List

Tue, 15 May 2012 10:52:35 -0700

Last week I published the list of My Personal “Top” 10 Films Of All Time. Over the last week my mind has occasionally wandered over the big list of my favorite movies that didn’t make the final cut. So for the curious, here is my list of honorable mentions in alphabetical order.

ABOUT A BOY
ALIENS
ALL THAT JAZZ
AMADEUS
ANNIE HALL
BACK TO THE FUTURE
THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS
A BETTER TOMORROW
BOTTLE ROCKET
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
THE CONFORMIST
THE CONVERSATION
COOL HAND LUKE
DIE HARD
DIRTY DANCING
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND
FACE/OFF
THE GODFATHER PART 2
GROUNDHOG DAY
A HARD DAY’S NIGHT
HERO
HOOP DREAMS
INCEPTION
INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
INFERNAL AFFAIRS
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
JERRY MAGUIRE
JURASSIC PARK
KILL BILL: VOLUME 1
THE KILLER
MANHATTAN
MARY POPPINS
THE MATRIX
MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL
MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO
NETWORK
OLIVER!
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
PULP FICTION
RAN
RATATOUILLE
RINGU
THE ROAD WARRIOR
ROBOCOP
ROMANCING THE STONE
RUSHMORE
SCREAM
SE7EN
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
THE SIXTH SENSE
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN
STRAW DOGS
STRICTLY BALLROOM
SULLIVAN’S TRAVELS
SUNSET BLVD.
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
THE THING
TO BE OR NOT TO BE
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
TO LIVE
UNFORGIVEN
WHEN HARRY MET SALLY

"There are no rules in filmmaking. Only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness."

Mon, 14 May 2012 10:42:20 -0700

“There are no rules in filmmaking. Only sins. And the cardinal sin is dullness.”

- Frank Capra

Why do NBC comedies have such low ratings?

Sun, 13 May 2012 12:00:18 -0700

QUORA QUESTION - Why do NBC comedies have such low ratings?

Community, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock… These are amazing shows. Yet similar shows such as Modern Family and The Big Bang Theory, as well as inferior comedies such as Two and a Half Men, have no trouble pulling in much larger audiences. What gives?

MY ANSWER

This answer is not going to contain many facts. It’s basically entirely opinion and conjecture. That said, I firmly believe that this is what’s happening…

I believe that we are at a fundamental cultural divide point; the divide being a porous border across generations. On one side we have the traditional mega-hit mono-culture seekers, and on the other side we have the large-niche seeking audience. Please note, I think that neither of these cultures inherently have more value than the other. Great content and terrible content can exist within each of these.

The mono-culture is represented by network television, tentpole movies, USA Today, and the local top 40 radio station. The value is a shared culture so people can feel one with their community. The community in this case being their friends, family, and neighbors. Because their interests may vary, the mono-culture consists of things that broadly appeal to a wide group of people, but rarely with much passion.

The niche-seeking audience is represented by cable television, specialty blogs, podcasts, YouTube, and so on. The value is a shared culture with their community, but their community tends to be distributed. It’s not necessarily about sharing with their geographically local associates, but they feel part of a global community of like-minded people. Because the content is very niche focused, it tends to have passionate support from people within the niche and little interest to people outside the niche.

The NBC comedies sit in a weird position. They appeal to the niche-seeking audience, but they air in the mono-culture system. The result is that their ratings are lower than those of true mono-culture shows such as Two And A Half Men or House. They are being judged by the ratings goals of mono-culture shows because they live inside the business model of mono-culture shows. This is why Community on NBC can be considered commercially unsuccessful but Louis on FX can be considered successful. Louis is a niche audience show with niche distribution and a niche business model.

I think that over time and as generations get older, the niche driven culture will continue to grow in size and the mono-culture will continue to shrink in size. Perhaps NBC is just ahead of its time.

"All ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources."

Sun, 13 May 2012 11:01:27 -0700

“All ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources.”

- Mark Twain on the myth of originality in a letter to his friend Helen Keller, who had been accused of plagiarism. (via explore-blog)

I'd be interested in hearing, if you had to choose, what a top ten horror film countdown would look like for you (already knowing "The Fly" would be number one, obviously).

Sun, 13 May 2012 08:39:00 -0700

Despite having produced a few horror films, I wouldn’t really consider myself an expert on the history of the genre. I basically didn’t start watching horror films until my late teens, due to not being allowed to watch R-rated films as a child and teenager. That said, here’s my top 10 horror film list…

THE FLY (1986)
RINGU (1998)
THE THING (1982)
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)
THE EXORCIST (1973)
PAN’S LABYRINTH (2006)
SCREAM (1996)
THE SIXTH SENSE (1999)
ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968)
BRAINDEAD / DEAD ALIVE (1992)

2012 Movie #66 - War of the Arrows (2011) I’ve been...

Sun, 13 May 2012 07:13:01 -0700

2012 Movie #66 - War of the Arrows (2011)

I’ve been watching a lot of Korean films this year, as I’m hoping to shoot at least one film in South Korea over the next year or two. I was pleasantly surprised by WAR OF THE ARROWS, which I rented last night on iTunes. This was a big hit in Korea when it was released last year, and I can see why. In a way it feels like a companion piece to Mel Gibson’s hugely underrated APOCALYPTO. Most of the second half of the film consists of a Korean archer being chased as he tries to return to Korea from China.

I’ve been a sucker for archery stories since I was a child weaned on Disney’s ROBIN HOOD, and WAR OF THE ARROWS definitely has some of my favorite cinematic archery action.

2012 Movie #65 - Titanic (1997) [2012 3D re-release] I saw...

Sat, 12 May 2012 11:01:24 -0700

2012 Movie #65 - Titanic (1997) [2012 3D re-release]

I saw TITANIC twice in theaters when it was released in 1997. The first time I saw it, I was completely blown away by the film. It was one of the most intensely emotional theatrical experiences of my life. I went back a couple days later because I wanted to re-experience the wonder, but I left the theater with a much reduced opinion due to what I thought was painfully on-the-nose dialog.

I never revisited TITANIC in the subsequent years, until this week when I watched the 3D re-release at the BFI IMAX in London. The third viewing didn’t carry the initial huge emotional weight of the first viewing, but I was bothered by none of the “problems” from my second viewing. I spent the whole film shocked by the total mastery that Cameron was exhibiting. This film is a miracle.

One of my favorite things about James Cameron’s work is how emotionally clear his direction is. I think this is what bothered me on my second viewing in 1997, because I didn’t yet have an appreciation for clarity in storytelling. Things feel on-the-nose in Cameron’s films because they are so emotionally clear. Every audio and visual element is working to directly express the story and the storyteller’s intention. It’s a remarkable skill, and something that is incredibly rare to find in conjunction with a visceral style. I’m in awe of James Cameron, and I feel like my appreciation of his skill just grows and grows as I rewatch his films and as I gain a deeper understanding of filmmaking.

What I’ll Take Away: Real filmmaking mastery comes from telling a good story well.