26 Screenplays

One of the whole idea about Creative Commons or other alternatives to traditional copyright is that people assume they don’t make money.

Because they don’t.

Not directly, that is.

To make money, there needs to be a alternative source of income that is reinforced by the internet.

Take for example Sita Sings the Blues and Rip: A Remix Manifesto. Both of these films are available from their creators for free on the internet.

Both of these websites have stores that offer T-shirts, DVDs, and other accompanying products. The films also allow people to contact the directors for public appearances or speaking engagements. Through merchandise and speaking fees, the filmmakers are able to generate some income off of the films.

It is important to note that neither of these directors are pursuing the traditional Hollywood filmmaker career. They are blazing their own artistic trails. For them, money was not the goal of the project. The idea was to entertain or to convey a message, not primarily to make money. As a creator, it is up to you to decide why you are making your film. Is it for experience, fame, or money?

Why would a filmmaker want to buy a book of screenplays that other filmmakers can use? Isn’t the whole point of making a film to have an original thought?

Yes, but each director has his or her own unique style and approach to the material. No two films are going to be the same, even if they have the same script. Two examples of this artistic experimentation leap to mind – Hal Hartley’s Flirt (which consists of three wildly different short films made with the same script), and Gus van Sant’s Psycho (which does nothing except demonstrate why people should study Alfred Hitchcock).

A director focus on tone and pacing, not necessarily creating a performance or visual experience, but instead shaping and guiding it. To do this, a director needs to interact with the material on a fundamental level. Because we are all fundamentally different -  our passions, strengths, and weaknesses differ wildly – the art we create will be different, even if we have the same building blocks.

This goes back to the 26 Screenplays book. If a class of twenty film students took a single script from the book and made twenty films, they would all be different. We enjoy watching different actors play the same roles in Shakespeare. Compare Lawrence Olivier’s Hamlet to Mel Gibson’s Hamlet; no one gets upset because someone has already interpreted a performance of Hamlet. Instead we approach the new interpretation with a curiosity. Let’s see what this person can do with this material. It should be the same with directors and film making.

In terms of web video and short films, a mastery of cinematic language seems to be more important than telling a coherent story. The following two internet videos demonstrate how the cinematic language of spy/action films can be co-opted for different uses. In the first example, the action film cinematic language hooks the viewer into thinking about art and design. In the second example, the same cinematic language raises awareness of a product. Same cinematic language, wildly different interpretations.

Blu Dot Real Good Experiment from Real Good Chair on Vimeo.

Office 2010: The Movie

The essence of filmmaking is work. A great performance, an iconic image, a thrilling montage all take work.

Which is why a blog about the work behind filmmaking is so special.

There are lots of websites devoted to reviewing films, rating them and telling you what is good and what is bad. There are not very many websites about how to make a good film cheaply and efficiently.

The 1000 Dollar Film Blog is a great way to learn quick and dirty tips about sound design, directing low budget actors, and how to get a good director of photography.

It is astounding how much sound, practical advice is available on the internet for free. This is one of the better blogs out there, so take advantage of it.

The Radiolab podcast featured this video.

I have no idea what makes videos go viral. Usually the ones that dominate the internet have something interesting about them, but they do not necessarily show the craftsmanship of filmmaking the way this one does.

This film is a beautiful example of the cinematic language. The images do not have an inherent narrative to them. Only by the juxtaposition of the images through editing does something larger emerge. There is a question at the beginning, “What is a moment?” a failed attempt to answer it with words, and then an attempt to capture the power of a moment with images.

There is a rhythm and a pacing to this film. The screen strobes through a series of images and then lulls the mind into a meditative state by lingering on certain images. Few of these images are in and of themselves remarkable, but when they are stung together, they form a greater context that celebrates the ordinary moment and becomes both wonderful and heartbreaking all at once.

I wish more videos like this go viral.