Brian Dzyak

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/uk-film-investment-hits-record-73964

Our CONservatives are trying hard to turn EVERY government "service" over to for-profit private Corporations. So, while they whine about sending a letter almost anywhere for $.44 cents, they for some reason would prefer to pay FedEx $15.00 for the exact same thing. I don't get it. <_<

"If you have 16 feet of film, make a 16 foot movie." - George Lucas

[excerpt from "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood"] As far as school goes, I always recommend some type of higher education but NOT necessarily making "film" a major. Especially if you do not intend to be a Director, the curriculum in most "filmschools" won't necessarily be worth the time nor the cost. BUT, you SHOULD get a degree in almost anything else, like Business or History or anything else that interests you. The "film stuff" you can learn when you are out of school and interning or volunteering. If possible, DO take film courses, perhaps as a minor, but don't make it an exclusive subject to study. For a COMPLETE description of all the jobs on a typical movie set, I recommend reading the book excerpted above. For more resources that could help you, please visit http://www.realfilmcareer.com/forum/ where you'll find a large variety of books and websites listed.

I don't judge. But the kids LOVE it! :) But look at it this way, it's the dumb mass-appeal stuff that enables the more niche PRODUCT to be made at all. A Corporation that is in the movie-making business WILL look to make profit at all costs, so if it feels sufficiently comfortable with the mass-appeal catalogue, they seem to be willing to take risks on the other "artsy" stuff. Joe-six-pack and his brood of trouble-makers who watch dumb comedies and action flicks help pay for movies like "The King's Speech" whether they know it or not.

The screening I saw was being seen by roughly 20 people. Granted, I wasn't there opening weekend, but still, it's indicative of the popularity of that kind of movie. This isn't to say that this kind of movie shouldn't be made... it should. But for an INDUSTRY to function, it has to have a variety of flavors to placate the palates of a hungry audience starved for entertainment. :)

Thanks! Just sayin', if you want to compete with "Hollywood," then it's all about "vertical" marketing. A movie CAN'T just be "a movie" anymore. Maybe we can credit/blame George Lucas for this, but a movie IS just a product to sell, afterall. And getting the most out of it means that it will attract more investment dollars. "Art movies" are nice and all... they ARE, really!... but if that's ALL someone makes, then it isn't likely that they can compete with someone who makes 3D epic Popcorn movies that appeal to teens, Joe-Sixpacks, and the girlfriends they drag to the theater. Like an Mutual Fund, diversity is the key to long-term financial stability and hopefully profit. So, for every "art movie" that gets made, a viable industry has to also have a steady flow of teary-eyed chick flicks, some kiddie cartoons, and a lot of BLOW EM UP action flicks for the teenage boys and the older men who still behave like teenage boys.

"THE KING'S SPEECH 2: THE REVENGE," in 3D, directed by Michael Bay, Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and Joel Silver, starring Johnny Depp, Will Smith, Angelina Jolie, and Richard Griffiths. Featuring music by U2, The Killers, Justin Bieber, Usher, and John Williams. And every McDonald's Happy Meal will include one of five collectible wind up toys to trade and share with your friends. And look for money-saving coupons on the backs of CHEERIO'S boxes that'll get you and four friends into WeinsteinWorld Theme Park where you can ride the all new "The King's Speech" rollercoaster and feel just like you're in the movie! And put yourself INTO the The King's Speech on the all-new game for Wii and X-Box360 (microphone accessory not included).

I wondered the exact same thing during the movie, actually anticipating that that would happen. But it never did. Hmm. I also wondered about the purpose of the odd framing choices. I'm still not sure what was meant to be achieved. :unsure:

The rest of the article talks about some of those questions. The "problem" began, according to the article, basically with the differences in domestic market share. The USA simply had more people to sell too which made it easier to make a profit solely from the domestic market, whereas the UK domestic audience didn't have as many customers, making it more difficult to recoup costs.... which of course necessitates having to have a foreign market to sell to. Of course movies cost A LOT more now, the big tent-pole ones anyway, which means that those studio movies coming from the US can't pay for themselves with only the US domestic market. Toss in Corporate mergers and such which took "filmmakers" out of the decision making roles and replaced them with Corporate bean counters who only care about quarterly returns and we all have a recipe for disaster. That's partly why the idea of a world-wide film union is such a good idea. With the globalization genie out of the bottle, things like the UK film industry don't really stand a real chance so instead of fighting it, they need to sort of join it somehow. The trick is how to produce movies and have the profits stay in the UK (or elsewhere). I wonder about "The King's Speech" which has a flurry of various production companies listed, most of which are not USA based, but The Weinstein Company IS listed prominently in the credits so it makes one think that it will suck most of those profits into the US. It's a tough question. Until smaller markets/nations begin to somehow begin making ultra-large tent-pole movies like TRANSFORMERS and the like with A-listers and such that have world-wide Joe-sixpack appeal, I don't know how they could hope to really compete on a regular basis with the popcorn mentality of "Hollywood" which manages to rake it in consistently.

Read entire article at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3eea920c-1f55-11e0-8c1c-00144feab49a.html

Reels can be dangerous things. Think of it this way.... a Director (or Producer) who sits down to evaluate DPs is going to be looking for someone who he/she thinks can A) photograph the movie that he (the Director) wants B ) be someone who he/she can work with 15 hours a day for several months on end C) work within the logistical parameters of the project (money and schedule) "A" can be the dangerous part if the Director isn't, well, the "best" Director. What I mean is that a less-experienced Director may sit down to look at reels looking for someone who has something on his reel that looks like the movie the Director wants to make. So, let's hypothetically say that the new Director is in pre-production on a movie that is primarily nights, and he looks at "your" reel that has NO night work on it, he/she may assume that you are incapable of shooting nights because you don't have examples of it on your reel. The same goes for anything else. Don't have a car chase on your reel? Clearly you can't do that. No fight sequences or romantic scenes or visual effects on your reel? Then you must not be able to do those things even if you can. Now, having said that, a Director will want someone with experience if the movie DOES have a lot of VFX or stunts or something else that may define the new project, so if he doesn't see a lot of that on your reel but sees a lot of it on someone else's, then he/she is likely to go with the "better bet." But the potential problem with a reel is that it may be misinterpreted to reflect what you have done and not what you are capable of doing.

I touch on a lot of procedure in the book "What I Really Want to Do: On Set in Hollywood" so you may find a lot of your questions answered there. I'd also recommend the following books which should give you everything you're looking to know: Camera Assistant, The: A Complete Professional Handbook (Hardcover) by Douglas Hart (Author) Product Details Hardcover: 421 pages Publisher: Focal Press (December 27, 1995) Language: English ISBN-10: 0240800427 ISBN-13: 978-0240800424 The Camera Assistant's Manual, Fourth Edition (Paperback) by David E. Elkins s.o.c. (Author) Product Details Paperback: 512 pages Publisher: Focal Press; 4 edition ( January 28, 2005 ) Language: English ISBN-10: 0240805585 ISBN-13: 978-0240805580 Script Supervising and Film Continuity, Third Edition (Paperback) by Pat P Miller (Author) Product Details Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: Focal Press; 3 edition (December 1998) Language: English ISBN-10: 0240802942 ISBN-13: 978-0240802947 Continuity Supervisor, Fourth Edition (Media Manuals) (Media Manuals) (Paperback) by Avril Rowlands (Author) Product Details Paperback: 193 pages Publisher: Focal Press; 4 edition (July 2000) Language: English ISBN-10: 0240516133 ISBN-13: 978-0240516134 Practical Art of Motion Picture Sound, Second Edition (Paperback) by David Lewis Yewdall (Author) Product Details Paperback: 424 pages Publisher: Focal Press; Paperback and CD-ROM edition ( February 28, 2003 ) Language: English ISBN-10: 0240805259 ISBN-13: 978-0240805252 Film Scheduling: Or, How Long Will It Take to Shoot Your Movie? (Paperback) by Ralph S. Singleton (Author) Product Details Paperback: 244 pages Publisher: Lone Eagle; 2 Sub edition (April 1, 1997) Language: English ISBN-10: 0943728398 ISBN-13: 978-0943728391 What I Really Want to Do On Set in Hollywood: A Guide to Real Jobs in the Film Industry (Paperback) by Brian Dzyak (Author) Product Details Paperback: 384 pages Publisher: Lone Eagle (May 27, 2008) Language: English ISBN-10: 0823099539 ISBN-13: 978-0823099535 http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com/contact.htm

I didn't want to wake you. ;)

It's good that you're starting early asking these questions... BEFORE you commit to a filmschool or some other route. Thumbs up! B) How "hard" it is depends on a lot of things... like who you know, what you can do already, who knows YOU, the overall economy, WHERE production is taking place, how MUCH production is taking place, your personality.... Also, WHAT you SPECIFICALLY want to do can have a lot to do with it. I see below that you are interested in camera, so I'll address the specifics of that later. But in general, apart from things you can't control (like the economy, where production happens, etc.), there are things you CAN do in order to improve your own chances. Number one is what you're doing here: find out REAL information from working professionals who have been through it and are making a living in the industry. You'll find that almost everyone is willing to help newcomers when they illustrate a real interest and enthusiasm and desire. There is a lot of "noise" out there (as you've found out) that you'll have to filter out to find the most useful information. There are a lot of books, schools, DVDs, etc. that are merely selling the dream (Hollywood 101!) that somehow manage to teach an aspiring "filmmaker" how to make a movie within 250 pages! <_< I've got some recommendations (reading list) that I'll share at the end that will help you understand the business better so that you are able to make wise choices as you work to build opportunities. A BIG part of the "get into the business" thing is that it can take time as you build relationships and establish yourself. This might mean having to work for little to no money at first, for a while...which means that in order to be able to do that means not HAVING TO work for money. Keep your financial overhead LOW so that you are free to take ANY opportunity that arise even if it means earning no income for a few weeks. If you have too much debt of too many bills, you'll find that you have to take a job outside of the business which is not where you want to be. And your personality and work ethic count for a lot. Production days are long and an entire project can last weeks and months. Those who would hire you have to know that at the very least, they won't have personality conflicts with you. Especially when you're just starting out, even if you are working for no money, people will remember your attitude during those long days, during those tedious night shoots, when things aren't going well. Be pleasant and nice no matter what is going on. This is very important. Everything you've heard is true. If you are working on a movie today, it very well could be your last day. But, having said that, once you've been working in the business for a while and are getting regular or semi-regular calls, you don't have to have daily anxiety about getting work. But, as I said above, keeping your overhead low when you aren't confident yet about getting consistent work will be to your advantage for a lot of practical tangible reasons and for the emotional ones. No, you want to stay available as opportunities arise. Which goes back to setting your financial situation up so that you don't have to work...as much as possible, anyway. But your description of the "how to get a job" is pretty accurate. How long can this process take? There's no telling really. It could be a few weeks, if you just happen to meet the right people at the right place at the right time. Or it could take months or years as you keep at it until you meet the right people who can take you into steady-ish employment. A lot of getting steady work relies on the group of people you happen to fall in with. Some circles of people seem to work all the time. Other circles are more sporadic. Anyone who works less than that usually doesn't last and bails from the industry. Titles are a tricky thing and you'll get lots of differing opinions regarding who "deserves" which title. I'll do my best to stay as objective as possible even though I have my own opinions about it. :) A Director of Photography is a title generally given to a "cameraman" who works on feature/narrative films, television shows, commercials, or music videos. The DP is DIRECTING a crew of people and isn't necessarily working as a Camera OPERATOR (holding the camera). Not always, but usually a DP has to DIRECT the photography for multiple cameras and the lighting "look" for a variety of scenes, locations, sets, environments. This title can and does include FILM projects as well as those that are acquired electronically (videotape, harddrives) Videographer is a cameraman who primarily acquires images electronically, not using film. This isn't to say that this person CAN'T or doesn't have the ability to shoot film, it just means that he doesn't usually do it for a living. The work a Videographer does is USUALLY not narrative, but can encompass a wide range of areas, like sporting events, marketing (interviews), reality TV, talk shows, entertainment tabloid shows, documentaries, news gathering. Cinematographer is mostly associated with cameramen who shoot film, but not necessarily narrative work. Sort of more documentary one-camera style (like a Videographer) but using film. No, NO filmschool or any school is necessarily important to build a career as a Cameraman. NOBODY is going to ask you for your diploma or ask where you went to school. You'll get hired based on what you are capable of, so, if you wish to be hired as a DP, then you have to prove to others that you can do it. That means having a reel that shows your work AND a variety of work that shows that you are capable of doing different things. To that end, school CAN be beneficial in that it can give you access to equipment and a "safe" formal environment in which to learn. Many people go to filmschool to become Directors, so opportunities to shoot student films may be more for an aspiring Cameraman. You can also meet like-minded people who may or may not help you build a career once you graduate. As with everything, there are no guarantees so don't go to a filmschool thinking that it will give you a career. Also, higher education in general can help you in more ways than seem obvious. In particular for a Cameraman, studying subjects OTHER THAN filmmaking can be VERY beneficial. Studying art and art history will give you a perspective to framing and lighting that you won't necessarily get by just watching other movies. Studying history will give you perspective on what various time periods should "feel" like so that when you light a movie, your work will be more "authentic." Studying communications (interpersonal) will help you COMMUNICATE better...and this may be one of the most important things you can learn. A great deal of what you do in the "movie business" is communicating with others... ideas, requests... and interpreting what others are trying to say to you. If you can't communicate your ideas well, then things won't happen. Based on your post here, you likely won't have much problem in this area, but learning various communication techniques can help as you cross paths with a variety of personalities. I HIGHLY recommend that you take a look at the following list of resources that WILL answer a lot of the questions you have and many that you might not have even thought to ask: What I Really Want to Do On Set in Hollywood: A Guide to Real Jobs in the Film Industry [Paperback] Brian Dzyak (Author) http://www.amazon.com/What-Really-Want-Set-Hollywood/dp/0823099539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294799861&sr=8-1 - yes, this is a book that I wrote. I wrote it SPECIFICALLY for people like you primarily because I WAS someone like you. When I was just beginning to think about all of this in High School way back when, we didn't have the internet and there were no books out there to answer the questions I had. I had been in the business for a few years and there still was nothing and I was getting questions just like yours from people like you. I looked around and there was STILL no resource out there to help people like us. So I sat down and began writing. I PROMISE that the book will help you understand the arena you want to get into. So, even if you just read it at the bookstore, I recommend chapters one through five and then the ENTIRE Camera Department section AND the chapters on the Grip and Electric Departments. As an aspiring DP, you should read the entire thing as you WILL work with just about EVERYONE in one way another at some point, so understanding what they do will help YOU do YOUR job that much better. The Film Producer: An Industry Veteran Reveals What It Takes to Be a Producer in Today's Hollywood [Paperback] Paul N. Lazarus (Author) http://www.amazon.com/Film-Producer-Industry-Veteran-Hollywood/dp/0312069693/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1294800204&sr=1-2 - What? A book on Producing? Why would you want that? This will give you a finer understanding of what it takes to get a movie project STARTED and what it takes to get it done from the Producer's point of view. As your career depends on getting jobs, knowing more about why some movies get made while other don't... as well as why they are made in some locations and not in others... will help you to MAKE opportunities for yourself instead of just waiting for them to come to you. www.wordplayer.com - This is primarily a website for Screenwriters, but like the book above, it will help you to understand what it takes to get projects off the ground. AND understanding the elements of STORY is vital as YOU (the DP) are helping to tell a story with pictures... framing, lighting, camera movement... You don't have to know how to write a script, but you do need to know the elements of story and Wordplayer is an excellent place to learn. I also will point you at www.realfilmcareer.com. The front page has current industry news that will help you to keep up with where the work is and why it's there. The forums section is FULL of additional resources that may help you build and maintain a career. Good luck! Keep up the enthusiasm and we'll all be working for you one day. :)

Despite Bollywood's AMOUNT of movies made, they don't seem to be very popular: According to the Financial Times: http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/01/10/bollywood-to-hollywood-outsource-production/

I think... (that's the disclaimer) I think that you should not be an assistant for anyone. The best thing to do in your situation is to keep working. Look for those small projects with new Directors that might have a chance at some kind of notoriety or financial success. Moving up to bigger and better projects can have more to do with how you set yourself up politically and less to do with your skills (though of course that helps). Of course there's no way to know beforehand which projects will be "successful," so you'll be evaluating Directors and projects the same way they evaluate you. Just keep at it. Keep your financial overhead low so that you aren't forced into taking jobs (in or out of the industry) just to pay the bills. It's not impossible but it does take perseverance and enthusiasm and sustained passion.

I've just started using Netflix and have streamed a few things. It's okay. Irritating on occasion when the feed needs to reload, but for anything "serious," I like to get the DVD. Silly comedies or documentaries are fine to stream. :)

http://www.savethebritishfilmindustry.com/2011/01/if-we-want-250-000-film-industry-jobs-in-the-uk-it-is-time-peter-bone-david-laws-john-hemming-and-david-davis-were-brought-into-the-cabinet/

The difference is that while we may not pay as high of taxes, that is made up by what we have to pay for-profit companies for. For instance, my family's health insurance, through my wife's work health plan, costs in the neighborhood of $1,600.00 a month. That is NOT a typo. And no, we have not been able to get our own insurance policy as the last two times we tried, we were denied because the insurance companies denied us due to "pre-existing conditions." Mind you, those were completely manufactured but there has been no way to challenge insurance companies. Until now, of course with the new health-insurance reforms that were signed into law...the one's that Republicans want so desperately to repeal. The current law prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions (as they decide them, that is), but they are still allowed to jack rates up for "higher risk" customers. So, we pay one way or the other. If we HAD a single-payer system (government insurance, basically), then maybe our taxes would go up some, but with everyone paying into it, the collective costs would go DOWN across the board for everyone. So instead of having to spend $1,600 a month for health insurance, maybe we'd pay an extra few hundred in taxes every year which is still a net savings ... which would enable people like me in the Middle Class to spend more on other things which would stimulate the economy on a regular basis. But Republicans hate this idea mainly because if I am saving money, it means that somebody is losing profit somewhere. And those potential losers have so much money that they've successfully bought off our elected officials to keep medical care out of the hands of the government. Profit is all that matters to these people, not the overall economy or common-sense.

I'd have to go dig up the actual breakdown, but that rate was only applicable after the first $3 million in income. All income BEFORE $3 million was taxed at far lower rates. I'm not sure (at this time, I'll try to find out) why they chose that number, but the reasoning probably was two-fold. One, was reasonable people all knew that nobody really NEEDS that much money to live with and allowing so much to go without getting taxed at 92% still left plenty of money for luxury items, particularly in the Eisenhower days. The other, likely more important, reason is that realistic people understand the inherent danger that such concentrated wealth can have on an economy and a democracy. Allowing just a few people (in the USA, it is currently about 2% of the population controlling around 3/4 or more of the wealth) to hoard so much money means that that currency is NOT circulating in the economy as it needs to be AND such a situation opens up the dangerous door of a government being bought by those VERY rich people. That is precisely what has happened since the Reagan tax cuts all but gutted our functional economy and democracy. Income disparity is at an all time high and our government has been taken over by Corporate lobbyists and it all started when the Reagan Administration stopped taxing the wealthy properly. What was it that wealthy German said not too long ago? When asked if he minded being taxed so much, he responded, "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." If only we had a world full of people like that, the world would be a much much better place for everyone, not just the uberrich. :(

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. On one side, we have the very poor and those living below the poverty line, so they are exempt, I believe. On the other side, our Republican Party represents the wealthy and Corporations, so more often than not, those people are taxed at lower rates than the people they employee in addition to the other deductions allowed (plus money they hide or shelter in one way or another). That leaves the burden on the Middle Class who A) doesn't have a lot of income and B ) can't make a lot of deductions or hide their money. Yet, the USA has enormous financial overhead, most of it our defense bill and debt. Of course, we COULD get out of debt and operate in the black if we went back to pre-Reagan tax rates, but as you've pointed out, our CONservative administrations for the past thirty years would rather watch this nation burn to the ground before they allowed the wealthy and Corporations get taxed properly. One of the problems with a VAT and the like is that it is essentially only taxing consumption and we already have a sales tax for that. The issue there is that the wealthiest 2% which controls something like 75% of the wealth spends less of its income on consumption. In other words, most of that cash is tied up in banks or hoarded in other ways so that it is NOT circulating in the economy. Middle Class and poor people tend to spend the majority of their income because they have to. So, if we dumped the income tax and only used a consumption tax, the rich would still be allowed to hoard the majority of the capital but would just have to jump through less hoops to accomplish it. What we really need is a WEALTH TAX, not income nor consumption. Like it or not, for an economy to function properly, money cannot be permitted to be locked away out of circulation. So, money HAS TO BE distributed/redistributed in measured way constantly or else we wind up with the kind of mess like the first Republican Great Depression and this current Republican Recession. The simple fact that nobody wants to talk about is that we just can't allow so few people control the majority of the wealth or else we wind up with problems as we're experiencing right now. Everybody knows it, even the CONservatives, but everyone is afraid to talk about it because thirty years of propaganda promoting Milton Friedman's Unfettered Free Market Capitalism ideology has everyone either too stupid to understand reality or too rich to tell the truth out loud. So, a VAT in the USA? Maybe someday, but it won't do much to solve the underlying fundamental problem. :(

Why would anyone want to do that? Typically, people have some type of awareness regarding which part of "filmmaking" interests them most. So why spend/waste money on a workshop that "sells the dream" and professes to teach a person "EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW AND YOU WILL BE SUCCESSFUL" when the reality is vastly different?

But that's what the Reagan Revolution brought the world. Even now (yesterday in fact), American Republican Darryl Issa sent letters to Corporations asking them to send lists of the regulations that they feel impedes their ability to make a profit. Duh! All of them?! It's important that everyone remember to point out that this is a wholly CONservative conceit, putting profit for a few over all else. It has been the deregulatory environment brought on by CONservatives which caused disasters like ENRON, the BP Oil spill, and the recent Wall Street meltdown.