I Sent a film to Cannes!

[Brian Rose]

Of course, I don't expect it to get picked as an official entry, but if the Brown Bunny can make the cut, ANY movie can. I figure, for thirty bucks, it's work the risk, and I can forever say I sent a feature film to Cannes. Fingers Crossed. Anyone out there shot or played a role in a film that made it to Cannes? Would love to hear your experience!

Best

Brian Rose

[Shawn Murphy]

Of course, I don't expect it to get picked as an official entry, but if the Brown Bunny can make the cut, ANY movie can. I figure, for thirty bucks, it's work the risk, and I can forever say I sent a feature film to Cannes. Fingers Crossed. Anyone out there shot or played a role in a film that made it to Cannes? Would love to hear your experience!

Best

Brian Rose

 

 

I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'.

 

 

Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage?

 

~Shawn

[Brian Rose]

I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'.

Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage?

 

~Shawn

 

I'm rather mixed on Vincent Gallo. I definitely don't think he should have shown the film at Cannes as it was at the time. Seemingly endless takes of nothing, followed by an explicit sex scene. I don't know, maybe the selection committee saw something in it, but I though it was just plain bad.

[Shawn Murphy]

I'm rather mixed on Vincent Gallo. I definitely don't think he should have shown the film at Cannes as it was at the time. Seemingly endless takes of nothing, followed by an explicit sex scene. I don't know, maybe the selection committee saw something in it, but I though it was just plain bad.

 

 

...do you have a link to some footage from your entry?

[Brian Rose]

Sorry, I forgot your other question. The answer is, I could, but I don't have a website, and I'm a little fuzzy on streaming to the web. The only copies I have of my movie are DVDs and the original on Premiere. If you could suggest a way I might get some of it out on the web...I'd be glad to oblige.

Best,

Brian Rose

[Shawn Murphy]

Sorry, I forgot your other question. The answer is, I could, but I don't have a website, and I'm a little fuzzy on streaming to the web. The only copies I have of my movie are DVDs and the original on Premiere. If you could suggest a way I might get some of it out on the web...I'd be glad to oblige.

Best,

Brian Rose

]

 

 

Do you have a trailer? If so there are number of places I can recommend for posting/hosting the file, but the entire movie without significant compression is far too large for streaming, what's the running time?

[Brian Rose]

Running time is approx. 85 minutes. I do have a trailer, and I shall work on getting a new version that I can upload. I would love to see some of those video sites you mentioned!

Best,

Brian Rose

[Sidney King]

Hi Brian-Best of luck with your feature submission to Cannes; just keep in mind they accept very, very, very few American features. Most of the ones they do accept are from the major directors (Lynch, Woody Allen, even the recent Star Wars films). But you're right, it's always worth a shot, and you make a great point about "Brown Bunny."

 

Good luck, and keep us informed.

[Guest C.L. Washington Jr.]

God Speed and God Bless......................hope this is the first of many to go to Cannes!!!!!

 

C.L.

[Shawn Murphy]

Running time is approx. 85 minutes. I do have a trailer, and I shall work on getting a new version that I can upload. I would love to see some of those video sites you mentioned!

Best,

Brian Rose

 

 

http://www.putfile.com/

 

http://video.google.com/

 

http://www.youtube.com/

 

http://www.zippyvideos.com/

 

http://www.internetvideomag.com/ProductRev...oHosting102.htm

[Shawn Murphy]

...and you make a great point about "Brown Bunny."

 

I don't mean to belabor this point, but I really want to encourage well articulated constructive criticism and commentary of films, cinematography, editing, etc., and as such I hope we all discourage generalizations like "I don't like this", "this film is bad", etc.

 

..most of the time what is deemed "good" or "bad" is subjective, and when someone critiques our work we might find it useful if they speak specifically about what they did or didn't like, and why.

 

So, are you saying that you also felt that there were "Seemingly endless takes of nothing", and this is why you believe the committee should have passed on the film?

 

I look forward to seeing the film and finding out for myself it it's a just case of stylistic aesthetics or perhaps I might find it altogether annoying or boring, but at what point can I honestly say it was so "bad" that it shouldn't have made it into a festival? (I ask sincerely)

Edited March 8, 2006 by Shawn Murphy

[Brian Rose]

I just found it to be incredibly unremarkable. My understanding is that the cut shown at Cannes was a rough cut, from which forty minutes (correct me if I'm wrong) were excised afterward. So, essentially, Cannes accepted a rough cut. I have to think that either they did not view the film, and accepted it on Vincent Gallo's name recognition alone, or that they must have seen something special about it. I guess what I meant by my comment on Brown Bunny was that if the Cannes organizers saw something special about that film that allowed them to overcome all the other problems it had and give it a shot, it certainly gives hope to other filmmakers who are just getting started.

[Shawn Murphy]

I just found it to be incredibly unremarkable. My understanding is that the cut shown at Cannes was a rough cut, from which forty minutes (correct me if I'm wrong) were excised afterward. So, essentially, Cannes accepted a rough cut. I have to think that either they did not view the film, and accepted it on Vincent Gallo's name recognition alone, or that they must have seen something special about it. I guess what I meant by my comment on Brown Bunny was that if the Cannes organizers saw something special about that film that allowed them to overcome all the other problems it had and give it a shot, it certainly gives hope to other filmmakers who are just getting started.

 

Thanks for the follow up, greatly appreciated info.

 

I guess whenever you have a group of people making these kinds of decisions (festival entries, Oscars, etc), there are always elements of politics and "other factors" that come into play. For example, I'm watching the featurette on the making of Brazil that deals specifically with all the troubles Gilliam had getting his cut released in the states, and as many know, he showed eventually showed his cut to the LA Film Critics who then gave Brazil top honors, while the NY critics basically panned it. Regardless, it's always nice to hear opinions expressed intelligently and descriptively.

 

Thanks again.

[Jeremy]

Have you seen the movie, or are you just going off of what you've read in the press? I haven't seen the original cut of Brown Bunny, but the one that was released on DVD is definitely worth watching. It is by no means a "hard core sex scene" as some reviewers have stated. What is actually taking place is anything but erotic.

 

The prestige of the festival is nothing for gauging what they will show. I've seen some of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life at Sundance.

 

Best of luck on entering your feature. The only way for people to see your movie is to get it out there, and to as many hands as you can! What's it about?

 

As a side note, here's what Ebert who famously called The Brown Bunny the worst movie in the history of Cannes has to say about it now:

 

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.d.../409020301/1023

[Brian Rose]

The Brown Bunny certainly poses a unique quandary about good versus bad films. You gotta admit, Ebert's series of exchanges with Gallo were pretty darn funny! In regards to my comments, I think I poorly phrased them. I was not impugning Gallos' film, so much as praising Cannes' open mindedness. Many were turned off by The Brown Bunny, yet Canne saw something special about it that made them give it a shot. I figure it gives us all hope. Regarding your question about my film, it is a story about eight strangers and casual acquaintances who together experience the attacks of September 11. As much as it is an examination of that day and the confusion of it, it is also a commentary on gen y. I believe that 9/11 was a watershed for my generation, and that's what this film deals with. It's pretty simplistic plot wise, but instead focuses on character development (I hope), and utilizes many film techniques I've played with. This is my first feature, and as such, is sort of one I decided to have fun with. I use multiple stocks and mediums (ala JFK and NBK), and shot the film as a silent, with intertitles and classical music as the soundtrack. Whether it is good or bad waits to be seen (It premieres on my campus in April) but I believe it will at least be something different. I hope it will be something new. I'm working on getting a trailer of it online, but if you'd like a copy, I'm sure we could work something out.

Best,

Brian R. Rose

[Guest santo]

I'm reading this thread and thinking to myself: "If these guys knew how the selection of features work in a major film festival, there wouldn't be any question about why Brown Bunny was in the festival."

 

No sarcasm or sour grapes involved, but at least half the films selected in a festival like Cannes don't even have a selection process. That Gallo guy had associations with all the right people and all the right "trendy indie cred" and it's as simple as that.

 

I went for lunch with a producer last year and then was invited impromptu for a viewing of a short film he was producing that was nearly done (a final polish and colour correction I was told) for some feedback. So we went over to the director's house and had a look. Simply amazingly bad. Incredible. I tried to be as polite as possible, though. Before I left the producer and the director discussed getting it in to the Toronto festival (the deadline had passed weeks ago) and the producer said he had talked to so and so and they can get it in. The producer had previous work appear at TIFF. So they did and it played.

 

Now, that does not mean all films going to major festivals through the official process are wasting their time. Not at all -- it could and does happen that they get in. But be aware that probably half of the films making it into the majors are those that are in the festival without a pre-selction process, put there by "insiders". So rationalizing that "well, Brown Bunny was poop and it got in" doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying that "Battle Field Earth was hopelessly bad, so my feature script which is better (and anything would be, probably) should find no problem getting made."

[Sean Azze]

I use multiple stocks and mediums (ala JFK and NBK), and shot the film as a silent, with intertitles and classical music as the soundtrack.

 

 

A silent film in 2006? That is ballsy. But hey, maybe that quality will pique interest and give you a shot at getting into Cannes.

 

You just never know with these festivals. I have a short film I sent out to roughly 30 film fests (here's a link to the trailer - Sacramento Film Fest) and it only got accepted by 7 (the largest one being the Queens International film fest). It always sort of perplexed me that it did so poorly because all of my peers and past professors really seemed to enjoy it. I saw it with an audience at the Williamstown film fest in Massachusetts, and people wouldn't stop coming up to me telling me how much they loved it. (a couple of people told me they felt it was the best one of the fest -unfortunately it was only an exhibition, so I couldn't bring a piece of hardware home if that was indeed true.)

 

So anyway, I guess there's no way of telling what your chances are. I will say that Cannes is quite a lofty goal though. Whereas Sundance, being the Mercedes of film fests, is typically the ideal place that young filmmakers try to get their stuff shown, your aiming for the Testarossa!

 

Best of luck.

Edited March 8, 2006 by sean126

[Brian Rose]

"A silent film in 2006? That is ballsy."

 

Tell me about it. Call me crazy, but I think silent films and the likes are the future of film. We're getting to the point where ANYTHING is possible on film, thanks to CGI (ugh). I think the next step is a return to the basics, a return to what Hitchcock called "pure cinema." Even if I'm wrong, at least I'll have some unique films to show for my cockamamy theory. Any yes, it might picque enough interests in circles to get the film out in public.

Best,

Brian Rose

[Max Jacoby]

2 years ago Wong Kar-Wai arrived the day before the screening with a print of '2046' which he just finished, so you can bet that Gilles Jacob must have seen only a rough verison (if at all) of the film while selecting it. If you look at the directors chosen for the 'Official Selection' you will notice that there are several regulars (Wong, Hanecke, von Trier, Wenders) who have pretty much an automatic selection, independently of the quality of their films. Younger and less known directors tend to get picked for the 'Quainzaine' et 'Semaine de la Critique'

[Brian Rose]

You raise an excellent point. But, newbies DO get in. There's always a chance, albeit miniscule. And I'll take anything I can get!

Best,

Brian Rose

[Sidney King]

I'm reading this thread and thinking to myself: "If these guys knew how the selection of features work in a major film festival, there wouldn't be any question about why Brown Bunny was in the festival."

 

I was actually pointing out that virtually all features selected at a festival like Cannes come from established directors, hence, the importance of connections, etc... Having spent the last year on the festival circuit with a feature, with many hours spent in discussion and on panels with festival directors, screeners, and filmmakers, I think I do have an idea of how the selection process works.

 

You really can't boil it down to a connections vs. quality debate, it's actually a combination of the two, along with the programming goals of the particular festival. Sometimes they're simply looking for a certain type of film to fill a specific gap in their programming (all the more reason to apply with something like a silent film).

 

Bottom line is, there are a shockingly high number of films made by established directors, producers, and big name talent that do NOT get selected to the top-tier festivals like Cannes. Many filmmakers shoot to premiere at Cannes or Toronto, and they get passed over. We're talking established directors working with an A-list cast, etc...programming considerations play an important role, and yes, quality still has a place.

 

It's true, Gallo has many connections/associations and indie cred,etc.. but so did a lot of filmmakers who got passed over in 2003. Given the unanimously horrible reception the film got, by both critics and audiences, I'm sure Cannes is regretting that programming choice, not saying, "Well, he was a friend of Monsieur X."

[Brian Rose]

I noticed you mentioned that you've worked the festival circuit. Might you be able to recommend some other festivals worth sending my film to? Because even though Cannes is more of a lark, I don't plan on sending it to every big festival (I'm a realist). But there must be some other, smaller festivals worth giving a shot. Any thoughts?

Best,

Brian Rose