Kisses from Anvil & Werner

I just had my students watch Grizzly Man because, for what I want to work on with them, it represents the collision of archival footage and poetry. (And I love the foxes.) And I've had them watch many great films.  But what prompted me to write this post was what I found in researching Werner Herzog:  He just taught a three day master class called Rogue Filmmaking two weeks ago, and eager for material I might share with my students I fell in love with what one of his students wrote about his class:

Attend if you love and feel an affinity for the following statements:
Forget successful, think compelling
Fascination drives film-making
Delving into the hearts of humans
Be ruthless with your material
Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with
You are not part of the culture of complaint
Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story
You are willing to earn money in a basic way
You are willing to determine the moral borderline of your film-making
Sense undoable projects
If you think that there are more important things in life than movies
If you read poetry and novels
If you know that there is only ONE taste...good taste.
If you NEVER WAVER
-Asimakis Pagidas (“Alfa P.”)


And despite it's roving subject and syntax, I wanted to share it because I think it captures the essence of filmmaking - of art making, of living.     Just these four are priceless: 
Be ruthless with your material
Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with
You are not part of the culture of complaint
Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story

Though I trust each reader to bring their own interpretation to these, I will grudgingly offer mine: 

Be ruthless with your material:  This is what an editor must do.  I have been with filmmakers who want to keep something in because of how they got it, or who they promised, but at the cost of the film.  No, that is not acceptable.  The film must stand on it's own.  Be ruthless with your material. 

Respect the natural authority of the people you collaborate with:  this is a good one.  If someone is good, let them be good.  It will make your film better, it will make you better.  

You are not part of the culture of complaint.  Reminds me of my Bar Method class.  When I started, I didn't get it, the teacher was making us do the most painful things, again and again - and no one was complaining.  Now I get it.  Again and again in my life, I get to leave behind the culture of complaint, and when I do, things seem really quiet for a while, then quiet is good - a good place to make work.   Finally: Your work is based on the soul, not the plot of the story:  Again and again, I learn it, I see it, I internalize it - plot is just a diversion away from the soul.  Stick to the transformation - the conflict between the want and the need, and you have a way into the soul.  Get into plot, who said what, where is the gun now, the other tape, the maguffin, and there is no soul.  But throw in a soul, in this case, an opera singer, and you've got my favorite French film of the 80's, Diva. 

In line with this, I was honored to go see the DGA documentary honorees on Friday. They included the directors of The Cove, The English Surgeon, Food Inc,. Beaches of Agnes, Garbage Dreams and Anvil! The Story of Anvil.   So during the moderated Q and A, the distinguished moderator asked Sacha Gervasi, the director of Anvil! how he handled his production plan, especially considering that he was a first time documentary film maker.  At first he answered by talking about his connection to the subject, his absolute LOVE of the guys in Anvil.  Then she asked again, "Yes, but this was the first time you'd ever directed a film, or a documentary,  what sort of provisions did you make for that?"  That's when Sacha looked out above our heads and said this, 
        
"You know, I was in agents offices, they were telling me I should write this or that, (He had just written "The Terminal" for Steven Spielberg) but I told them I wanted to make a documentary with my own money.  So I hired a good producer, got a good cinematographer, the best I could find, and we went to shoot for three years."  


He then went on to tell how Anvil! was shown at the Sundance Film festival in 2008 but didn't get distribution.  They just kept entering it into festivals, and kept sending the subject of the film to the festivals.  It was the following year, at a tiny film festival in Prague, where two MTV executives on vacation went to the basement of the pub where they were drinking to see the the film - and fall in love - that the film got distribution.    Sacha told this story, and I believe it so fits the sentiments of Herzog's student I wanted to share here. 


Oh, and the kisses:  So I went up to Sacha at the DGA reception later, thanked him, and told him I was an editor and that I liked his material very much, and that I would like to work with him.  We shared a few more words, or an understanding or a moment.  He took me seriously, and said thank you, and gave me a kiss on the cheek as if we knew each other.  


It was later reported to me by one of my university students that Sacha then said, "The best part about being in this business is the ladies...." 


So whether or not I get a call to edit "Anvil II, The Comeback" I want to dedicate this blog to the spirit of all of the filmmakers out there - whether they are struggling to make a film as they work a 9 to 5 job, as they face down fears of unemployment, if they come from being a poor German teenager, or are challenged by  the demands of a family, or choose documentary as they walk away from a Hollywood screenwriting career,     let us all leave behind the culture of complaint, and enter that magical poetic world of truth and love that documentary filmmaking is all about. 


Namaste, 


Stephanie. 

The Art of Improv and the Documentary Part I

Happy Solstice Dear Reader,

Some of you may know that I, Stephanie Hubbard, the "Documentary Insider", also actively study and perform comedy improv at one of the best schools in the country, iowest, formerly known as improv olympic.

This morning, I started thinking about the two art forms, Improv and Documentary and why I'm so involved with both.

And the most obvious thing is that they both rely fully on improvising: being able to create art on the fly, as it happens, being alert and involved, reacting in the moment - or rather the millisecond.

So, how might we apply principles of improv to documentary filmmaking?

1) Even though, in the art form of comedy improv, "Nobody knows what anyone will say," we do learn and agree on the form we will do. This typically involves structure. What is the structure? In the most successful long forms, (Here I will refer to "The Harold" a long form of improv developed at the Improv Olympic under the beloved Del Close, recognized as the father of improv by many) First, there is an OPENING, which will inspire, and in so doing actually encompass all that follows it. (A great opening in an documentary should both be at the beginning AND encompass all that is to follow.) Then there are three different SCENES. They are unrelated but inspired by the opening, and are typically two person scenes. The most important thing in these scenes is to establish RELATIONSHIP, who are these people to each other - from this comes all else. Then there is a GROUP GAME - typically inspired by the opening. Then we have second beats of each of the SCENES in the first beats - in these second beats you can have more people interacting with the characters established in the first beats. In improv we follow CHARACTER, not plot. These beats can be longer, developing aspects of the characters. Then we have one more GROUP GAME, then SCENES - or Third Beats, that have each of the story lines merge - it turns out that the woman in 2A is actually married to the mail man in 1C and so on. This is also the time that the characters TRANSFORM according to our point of view about the themes that have emerged from within the Harold.

Each scene is developed by the improvisors listening to each other and responding in the moment, but each improvisor is working according to the structure of the piece, moving towards transformation, and a conclusion.

Now how does this apply to Documentary? Well, just as we can really listen to our subjects and to the issues and themes arising from what it is we want to say in our documentary, we might benefit from having a structural road map we are following. And the road map we choose for a Documentary, might be strikingly similar - we have first act - that establishes our characters and their relationships. Our act two is longer, has more ins and outs, more characters perhaps, then we have our act three, or transformation act - also, we have a time when we know it will all come together to say more about the whole than we expected. This is because on some physiological level, the audience is satisfied by transformation and by elevating the conversation to more than they expected. And by doing this in your documentary, you will create a more powerful film.

Stay tuned, tomorrow - the importance of Not Judging, Being in the Moment, and Listening, all key elements of successful improv & successful documentary filmmaking.

To see the sort of improv shows I'm talking about, check out the schedule at www.iowest.com

List of Documentaries to View for Filmmakers

I chose some of these docs just because I LOVED them - and all of them I think should be seen by anyone planning to make a doc. Why? Listen, whether you are spending your time and money or someone else's, there is no cheaper way to spark your imagination than to learn and see what others have done. Also, it gives you a shared language to communicate with your collaborators - your dp, your editor, your graphics person. Watching these can also open up the way you can bring to light an issue - from "Manufacturing Consent" to "Titicut Follies" or "Roger and Me", it's a clear illustration that there are many ways to bring consciousness to an issue.

But what about plain old fun? "American Movie", "Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" and "Spellbound" take us inside parts of our culture we can be glad we know about because they are fun and wonderful. As for making art, "The Gleaners and I", "Rivers and Tides" and "Visions of Light" won't disappoint. For Characters, "Gray Gardens", and "Keep the River on Your Right" are great choices. But for sheer chutzpah in filmmaking - check out "Grizzly Man", "Tarnation", and the only narrative film on the list, "Le Jetee" (easily found on YouTube)

Then there are my standards - films I use in class all the time to talk about structure and different approaches to doc story telling, "Times of Harvey Milk", "Unknown White Male", and "When We Were Kings". Now I'm about to watch "King of Kong", and I have an inkling I might be adding one more..... Enjoy! Stephanie.

Oh, and of course "Man on a Wire".

“The Farmer’s Wife” (1998) Directed by David Sutherland

http://www.amazon.com/Farmers-Wife-Juanita-Buschkoetter/dp/B000CPHABK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260167997&sr=1-1

“Rivers and Tides” (2004) Directed by Thomas Riedelsheimer

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_6?url=search-alias%3Ddvd&field-keywords=rivers+and+tides&sprefix=Rivers

“Grizzly Man” (2005) Directed by Werner Herzog

http://www.amazon.com/Grizzly-Man-Franc-G-Fallico/dp/B000BMY2NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260211627&sr=1-1

“Salesman” (1968) Directed by Albert Maysles & Charlotte Zwerin

http://www.amazon.com/Salesman-Criterion-Collection-Paul-Brennan/dp/B00005KHJY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260168361&sr=1-1

“Murderball” (2005) Directed by Dana Adam Shapiro & Henry Alex Rubin

http://www.amazon.com/Salesman-Criterion-Collection-Paul-Brennan/dp/B00005KHJY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260168361&sr=1-1

“The Up Series” Seven Up, 7 Plus Seven, 21 Up, 28 Up, 35 Up, 42 Up, 49 Up

Director Micheal Apted

http://www.amazon.com/Up-Seven-Plus-21-28/dp/B000SAGGLO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169382&sr=8-1

“Keep the River on Your Right – A Modern Cannibal’s Tale” (2002) Directed by David Shapiro and Laurie Gwen Shapiro.

http://www.amazon.com/Keep-River-Your-Right-Cannibal/dp/B00006CXH4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169516&sr=1-1

Le Jetee Sans Soleil (Criterion Collection) (1963) Director Chris Marker

http://www.amazon.com/Jetee-Sans-Soleil-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000OPPADS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260169638&sr=1-1

Hoop Dreams (1994) Directed by Steve James

http://www.amazon.com/Hoop-Dreams-Criterion-Collection/dp/B0007WFYBG/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

A Question of Color (1993) Cathe Sandler

http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0073

Belfast, Maine (1999 ) Titicut Follies (1967) Directed by Frederick Wiseman

http://www.zipporah.com/

Roger and Me (1989) Directed by Micheal Moore

http://www.amazon.com/Roger-Me-James-Bond-IV/dp/B00009YXAS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171938&sr=8-1

Night and Fog (1955) Directed by Alain Resnais

http://www.amazon.com/Night-Enhanced-1955-Michel-Bouquet/dp/B001NFSP08/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172126&sr=1-2

Manufacturing Consent (1993) Directed by Peter Wintonick

http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Noam-Chomsky-Media/dp/B00005Y726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172191&sr=1-1

Gray Gardens (1976) Directed by Albert Maysles and Ellen Hovde

http://www.amazon.com/Gardens-Edith-Little-Bouvier-Beale/dp/B00005KHJX/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260172464&sr=1-4

The Gleaners and I (2002) Directed by Agnes Varda

http://www.amazon.com/Gleaners-I-Bodan-Litnanski/dp/B00005Y727/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170107&sr=1-2

Tarnation (2003) Directed by Jonathan Caouette

http://www.amazon.com/Tarnation-Greg-Ayres/dp/B0007Y8ABK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170168&sr=1-1

When We Were Kings (1997) Leon Gast

http://www.amazon.com/When-Were-Kings-Muhammad-Ali/dp/B00007ELEK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170255&sr=1-1

Thin Blue Line (1988) Directed by Errol Morris

http://www.amazon.com/Thin-Blue-Line-Randall-Adams/dp/B00094AS72/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170294&sr=1-2

Cheap Fast and Out of Control (1997) Errol Morris

http://www.amazon.com/Fast-Cheap-Control-Dave-Hoover/dp/B00003CX9Z/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170362&sr=1-7

American Movie (1999) Director Chris Smith

http://www.amazon.com/American-Movie-Mark-Borchardt/dp/0767846869/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260209865&sr=1-1

Iraq in Fragments (2005) Director James Longley

http://www.amazon.com/Iraq-Fragments-James-Longley/dp/B000R4SKEM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260209916&sr=1-1

The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill (2005) Director Judy Irving

http://www.amazon.com/Parrots-Telegraph-Special-Two-Disc-Collectors/dp/B001DXS4GA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

“Still a Brother: Inside the Negro Middle Class” (1968) William Greaves

Spell Bound (2002) Director Jeffrey Blitz

http://www.amazon.com/Spellbound-Angela-Arenivar/dp/B0000WN13Q/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170423&sr=1-2

Jesus Camp (2006) Directed by Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Camp-Becky-Fischer/dp/B000KLQUV2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170821&sr=1-1

Stronger, Bigger, Faster (2008) Directed by Christopher Bell

http://www.amazon.com/Bigger-Stronger-Faster-Christopher-Bell/dp/B001B7CNW4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260170466&sr=1-1

Visions of Light (1993) Directed by Todd McCarthy and Stuart Samuels

http://www.amazon.com/Visions-Light-Cinematography-Néstor-Almendros/dp/630583685X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171854&sr=1-1

“Pressure” (1976) directed by Horace Ove, (Seems to be only in PAL)

http://www.amazon.com/Pressure-Baldwins-Nigger-NON-USA-FORMAT/dp/B001IF1PWI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260171751&sr=8-2

“Unknown White Male: A True Story” 2005

Director Rupert Murray Distributed by Imagine Entertainment

http://www.amazon.com/White-Male-True-Story/dp/B000GBEWIY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260115368&sr=1-1-spell

“Times of Harvey Milk” 1984

Director Rob Epstein Distributed by Cinecom International & New Yorker Films

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Harvey-Milk-1984/dp/B0001Y4LDW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1260116070&sr=1-1-spell

What does a person really need to know to make a movie?

I'm preparing to teach a documentary class for students for my alma mater here in Los Angeles, and have been faced with a tough question: What is more important in learning how to make a documentary - focussing on what you want to do, and making it internally coherent and workable/fundable or looking at what experienced artists working in the realm of documentary have done?

When I was at University, I never took a documentary class, but even in my narrative classes it didn't really seem that we did either. We would be sent out in teams with very little (none) technical training. The person who already knew how to run camera would end up running camera the person who already knew how to edit would edit etc. There seemed to be very little room for either experimentation or failure. I found that the atmosphere of university, knowing my work would be presented for all to see put me in the mind set of perfection.

Of course our society tends to take this thing, Film Directing, which is one of the last great arts that requires the sort of apprenticeship and time to develop that our society doesn't seem to allow - and kind of imbues it with a sort of, "Either you are or you aren't" thing.

Thus you have a bunch of 19 year olds, who are film directors by virtue of the fact they say they are, and a lot of other people, no longer students, trying to look perfect at the beginning of their career, who once maybe pronounced their director nature, but now realize that doesn't work, and are now really learning, and making mistakes on their own dime. After they dedicated person has experimented and failed, finally, they really learn the ropes and are able to make a really remarkable film.

I believe the number one thing I can teach to a person to make them a documentary filmmaker is to do what will spare them the years of heartbreak and oodles of money. And that thing is: To actually THINK about what you are going to do, and how you are going to do it. And then make it better, and better and better.

I feel like I say this a lot, but I keep being confronted by people making films, even directing films who haven't really thought too much about what they really want to say or how they want to say it. They are drawn into the technical aspects - the shooting, the chase for the right interview, the research, the money, the travel.

It almost seems like the largest challenge to being an excellent documentary filmmaker is that there is always a distraction that will make you feel productive. And while it may actually have a positive impact on your film - there is NO replacement for sitting still, and really writing about what you want to say and how you want to say it, and ideally, working through your structure in a way that leads to a satisfying transformation.

Sitting down and working through your subject matter is necessary to find the really big ideas that give the viewer that absolute satisfaction when they realize you've taken them on a much bigger journey than they expected, and finally, really imagining your tone and your style, finding the poetry of your shots and if you use it, the poetry of your voice over, your edits, and your texture. Then you are free to experiment, because you know where you are going. If you have hiccups or failures, it's not fatal, because you actually have structure, and a plan, so you can identify your issues right away.

Other wise the whole thing becomes a chase to the goal of not having wasted all your time and money on a film that you can't sell.

Watching other people's work can serve as windows into ways to do things, but doesn't substitute for doing your work yourself.

And of course it's that work that we do in the Documentary Insider Workshop.

I must have learned something back in grad school, because it served as the benchmark between my life as a sales person and my life earning a living making film, but it was after making films for over ten years, and closely observing people spending millions of dollars on their projects that I internalized what needs to happen to make a film so good, it hurts. And what I went through in the last twelve years, is exactly what I teach, and that is how to do the work of an artist. All of which we do in class.

I'm continuing to teach privately at my office in Los Angeles, and if you are interested in working with me remotely we can do that too. If you are making a documentary, start your artistic investigation now, in my workshop, and start cutting down on the years, and mistakes you will have to make to get to where you want to be.

Best,

Stephanie.

email me at huranghu@gmail.com if you'd like to sign up for the private workshop.

A Conversation with Documentarian Kirby Dick

The academy award nominated film maker gives his thoughts on:

How to choose subjects for your documentary

Whether or not to make a Fundraising Trailer

And the "secret" that he thinks is indispensible advice to all documentary filmmakers, especially new ones.

I first met Kirby when his first feature film was coming out, “Sick: the Life and Death of Bob Flanagen, Supermasochist”. I was honored to go to the premiere, and even to help a little with promotional items. (Nails. If you’ve seen the film you’ll know why)

A few years later, I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Film Festival screening of “Twist of Faith” his HBO film about a firemen, Tony, who had decided to come out about being sexually molested by his priest as a teenager.

Every time I meet Kirby, he is forthcoming and friendly. Even after being nominated for an academy award he continues to be a luminous light in the world of contemporary documentary.

Here’s what he had to say when I asked him how he chooses his characters for his documentaries:

Kirby: That is a very good question. Your subject is one of the top two or three most important elements of a documentary. First of all, it’s good if the potential subject likes the camera. It’s good if they play to the camera and if they like to be filmed.

Certainly I’ve had situations where someone seems fine, but once you start shooting, they become reluctant in front of the camera. So if you start with someone who is naturally an extrovert that really helps.

Of course it is important to choose a subject that relates to what you want to say. As a filmmaker, you want a character whose story is iconic – that has a story that captures all the permutations of the issue you are exploring.

It’s also very important to have someone who is sympathetic as a person – because audiences identify with main character very intensely. Though often you can calibrate this in the edit room. When I started looking at the footage of Tony Comes, the primary subject in “Twist of Faith”, I noticed that he cried a lot. He was very sensitive and he was going through a lot, even so, I was worried that he might be perceived as a cry baby. I addressed this in the film by cutting just before he started crying, so that we could feel the emotion but didn’t see the crying. So when in the film he actually did cry it was much more powerful. It’s almost always effective, if at some point during the film, your main character does break down, but their emotional arc needs to be calibrated otherwise – at least in this case – people might otherwise turn away from him.

Documentary Insider: I have a student who is considering several people within the world of her documentary. What is the best way for her to determine who would be best to make her main character?

KD: She should go shoot them all.

It’s a good idea to just shoot any one who could be a main character because you never know what story is going to develop into something that becomes the spine of the film. For example, you might have one potential subject more charismatic than the other, but the other one’s mother dies, or they break up with their partner. Ultimately these could be things that are going to make them a better character

So, this is how I would proceed: first of all just go shoot all these people. Shoot them in situations, for a day or a half day. You learn a lot from them by shooting them in a half day. You’ll impress them just by showing up with a camera, and it can even be your own little consumer camera. And they’ll start to tell you things on camera. And what ever they won’t tell you on camera they will tell you immediately afterwards, so you’ll learn things about them which will help inform which character to follow.

You might even end up using some of that footage in the film.

And then, of course you’ll be able to review the footage, and show it to others to get their input and help you make the decision.

If they are out of state, then you get on the phone talk with them, get a feel if they are eager. In the case of Tony, he really wanted to do the film. When I met him he asked me if I paid subjects. I told him no, and he said, “That’s good because I don’t want anyone to think I did this for financial reasons.” So I knew we had the right guy.

DI: What about approaching the “Villain” or antagonist of the story. Any suggestions?

KD: Don’t assume the antagonist won’t talk. Even though they might be suspicious or not want to do it, often they will want to talk if they can get their point of view in the film. I’ve even found that they often don’t mind being attacked because it builds their credibility with their own base.

One way to approach them is to let them know you want to tell two sides of the story. Surprisingly people seem more open if you are a student or recently graduated – always try – I’ve often been surprised at who says yes.

DI: What is the best way to approach a potential subject?

KD: What works best is to be sincere and very knowledgeable.

Be willing to deal with any reticence and be clear that they don’t have to answer any questions they don’t want to.

DI: Do you try to let potential subject know all the hardships of being a subject up front – or do you let them discover that for themselves?

KD: Well, ease into it. Of course don’t lie, but the fact is most subjects have no idea what they are getting into –but typically, as an extrovert they enjoy it.

It’s very exciting to be the subject of the documentary, being followed around. Suddenly everything they do is of interest. Being the subject of a documentary is a very special experience. Sometimes when it’s over, there can be a feeling of “Where’s my crew?”

Sometimes, when you encounter a problem with your subject, like exhaustion, it’s on you the filmmaker to help them pull through for the film, to let them know, “We only want to make this film as good as possible.” Or “We want to get this film into Sundance.” (laughs) that works a lot.

Of course, have the release signed before you start shooting. not after. Other wise, it can be very awkward.

DI: Do you have any other suggestions?

KD: Yes. Start shooting before you have money. Don’t wait for grants and funding – go out with a friend - get a camera and radio mikes and just start.

There are a lot of reasons for this:

1) You get footage to raise money.

2) You learn if you actually want to make this film.

3) You get the story started earlier so you get a longer arc and the film has more drama. That’s helpful even if you only get to shoot your subject once every three months, because a lot of very important things can happen to them during that time.

And 4) After you’ve shot, do some initial editing of the material. This will inform you how to approach future shoots and you’ll be better prepared.

Okay, and one other BIG thing:

Go through a screening process in the editing stage. So many people just do not do this, and it’s so helpful: When you get your film to a second or third rough cut you should start to have screenings. Invite people over, give them snacks. Then they watch the film, and afterwards tell them you'd like them to respond to any and every element of the film. Begin by letting people speak. If they turn to you and ask your intention, defer that by asking if others in the group share the commentator’s opinion. You don’t want people’s response to your intention – you want their response to what they’ve seen.

After about 45 minutes, I start asking questions I’ve prepared in advance –whether they like the music, if they like certain minor characters. Do they understand a specific comment made by someone in the film – and as I go through this list it opens up further discussion.

We did this 14 times with “Twist of Faith” and I just did it 8 times with “Outrage”.

You can use as few as 2 people but it’s better to use 5 or more – bu generally no more than 15. And I have different people for each screening.

By doing this I can find out if a major character is working. If everyone in a room says they really don’t like a particular character I would probably try to remove that character for the next screening and see how the film played. It’s possible to save yourself 10’s of thousands of dollars on editing time, and make a better film this way. The less experienced you are the more important it is to do it. I do it on every film.

Also, start editing very early in the process, while you’re shooting - you’ll see how well you are covering the subject matter in your shooting. I always start cutting while I’m shooting.

DI: I see a lot of people making trailers to raise money. What’s your opinion on this?

KD: In general unless you know how to make a trailer – you should probably just start cutting the film.

I usually discourage people from making fund raising trailers. Particularly if they are inexperienced filmmakers they won’t get money based on trailer.

So that’s my last suggestion: Just start cutting your film. Start shooting it, and cutting it. And don’t be discouraged. Making documentaries is hard. Don’t give up easily.

DI: Thanks so much Kirby for your time and wonderful wisdom.

KD: No problem, my pleasure.

Distribution and Your Part of the Long Tail

As we make our films, we can start to feel our audience (at least we should) but then when we finish, suddenly we are subject to an audience of one – the distributor who thinks they can take our film and sell it. Of course now (depending on our model), we'll ideally want a theatrical release, but we (I suspect) imagine that if we don’t get that – AT LEAST there will be some long tail for us – some long term niche that we will fit in and hopefully get some recompense/audience for all the hard work we put in. Right?

To do this, we have a vague idea that we can make a deal with iTunes or Netflix. Right?

But if you've depended on this, (up until a few months ago) you'd be up for a disappointment: Distributors take your rights, and a percentage of your revenue for years. So the distributors will take between 15% and 50% on top of iTunes 30%. And depending on your deal, that could be for the length of your long tail. Hard Tail’s Journey into Night – right?

Well a guy named Adam Chapnick heard this persistent complaint from filmmakers that he was working with in his marketing and distribution consultancy (called DocWorkers http://www.docworkers.com/) and he decided to do something about it.

So, he self funded a company called Distribber www.distribber.com

Here is the idea: you submit your film and your trailer to Distribber – it has to be 70 minutes or over for now, though Adam is working on getting shorter films included too. If he thinks it’s viable, he’ll submit it to iTunes. If your film gets accepted by iTunes – Distribber takes a flat fee, (currently $1295) and for a $79 yearly fee pays you 100% of your revenue from iTunes. If iTunes doesn’t accept your film, no sweat, no fees no nothing.

Most films on the service sell for the $9.99 rate set by iTunes. That means from the beginning you get your whole $6.99 after iTunes 30%. Distribber gives you back your long tail. (that means in 186 sales, you make back the initial fee)

I thought this all sounded very intriguing – so I set up an interview with Adam to find out a bit more. Here’s what he had to say:

Hey there Adam.
Hey Stephanie.

Stephanie: So, what are you looking for in the selection process?

Adam: We have a sense of what iTunes wants – and they have a sense of what they want. We give them as much information as possible so that they can say yes or no. We give them a link to each film’s trailer. Also, there is a field in the submission form where the filmmaker can list their film’s selling points. The filmmaker will say things like “we won Sundance and won five other festivals” or tell us, that it is about certain relevant subject matter – or that it it aired on PBS – anything that helps us pitch the project.

S: Are you submitting these into a black hole then?

A: Oh, no, we have relationships with the folks at iTunes - and on top of that, I really want to be available to all the filmmakers, they all have my number, and call me if they have any questions. My number is (323)304-5039 and my email is adam@distribber.com.

S: So let’s say I have a film that gets in – now what?

A:Well, we have to check that all your rights and licenses are in order, and that’s pretty well covered because we require that films come in with E&O insurance.

S: So how is it going?

A: Well our offer is very attractive. Filmmakers love it – the more money you make the better deal that it is. My whole goal is to make this something that is not murky.

We are making it clear and simple, and I am willing to talk to everyone all the time.

Filmmakers tend to be very wary, and weary, of distribution deals, and one of the hesitations I hear most often is based on the fact that filmmakers really don’t believe our deal, but it’s real, and it’s working great for the first 13 films, which are just coming online to sell right now.

S: Wow – that’s great, but what do you say to the filmmaker of a worthy film that gets turned down by iTunes?

A: Well we are actually doing a lot to address that.

1. we are working to initiate an appeal process with iTunes. And
2. I am working to set up deals with NetFlix, Hulu, all of them so that Distribber can be a flat rate a la carte service, super easy to sign up for all the different companies in one place each for a flat rate.

S: So sounds like you're in this for the long haul.

A: (laughing) Oh, of course. Every one is so wary of the process of distribution, I see this as a long term trust building exercise, and I am up for it. In the short term, we are working to get the approval process to happen more quickly.

S: Can you tell me any of your titles?

A: Oh, sure – our first two were “Runners High” and “New York Doll” – both well received great documentaries with good audiences. We’ve attracted a lot of films that fit their profile, but we are also getting smaller films and placing them too. It’s been really exciting.

S: Well thank you so much Adam, it’s been a pleasure hearing about your business based on the Long Tail.

A: Well Thank you Stephanie, thanks for doing this.

S: You’re welcome.

Notes for Beginners

I was just in another forum where I was asked to give advice for beginning documentarians.

For some of you this will be a review - but hopefully helpful non the less.

As a veteran, award winning editor, I've seen too many independent (read - self financed and beginning) filmmakers shoot and shoot and shoot and not give much thought to their story beyond the initial idea.

In response, I've started a workshop and we really hash out a lot in there that has really been helpful to my students.

We think about WHAT do I really want to say or explore with my film -

We ask HOW do I want to say it -

Because sure, you can interview 25 people about junk food, or you can follow yourself around while you eat only junk food for a month.

The HOW is often the most elegant part of creating a really good doc.

Also we pay attention to the ongoing conflict between what the main character Wants and Needs - and how this evolves into a satisfying transformation.

We also identify the different aspects and wider themes that come up in our story - because really - my favorite documentaries are always Trojan Horses for bigger issues and questions than I realized I was going to get into when I started watching - that is the true gift you give your viewers - so why not start thinking about it before you're done shooting so you can have that material when you start editing?

My students have all gotten a lot out of going through this process - both in how their final films will end up, but also in terms of saving $ by shooting what speaks to what they want to say and how they want to say it.

Stephanie Hubbard www.stephaniehubbard.com