Sean Azze

How does a manager differ from an agent?

Did he tell you any interesting Kubrick experiences in particular that you could relay to us? :D Being your first Super-35 feature, wouldn't you consider that somewhat unexplored territory - like sort of an adventure in that sense? I just figure shooting everything anamorphically would become monotonous after awhile. Thanks for your time, Mr. Mullen.

Mr. Frisch, Throughout your post the figure you mention is 10%. I'm an aspiring music video director (not a Dp) who is in talks with a gentleman right now who potentially could be my agent once I'm done building my reel up. He manages the first artist I directed a video for, and after knowing him for a few months, I consider him something of a friend. That puts me in an uncomfortable position because after perusing a sample contract of his, I see that he expects a 20% commission from his work. Is that way over the norm, or do different rules apply to directors? Should I try to negotiate him down to 10? Maybe 15 as a happy medium? What should I do? Thanks

During several instances the video cameras in the studio were actually on and transmitting a signal to the monitors in the control room while they were filming (thats why in certain shots of the televisions you can clearly see it is David Straithern and not the real Edward Murrow). The clips of Joseph McCarthy and the court hearings were all stock footage. Since they were shot on film, they would have no reason to flicker. And I agree with your opinion. This is a very important, timely film that just didn't tell its story very well or with any emotion.

He said it - "sip pina coladas". No, I'm just kidding. I understand where you're coming from. And yes, there are films that end with a certain ambiguity and I feel it couldn't have ended any other way (case in point, "A History of Violence" has a great ending that really doesn't tell you where the charcters stand). I viewed "Inside Man" more like one of those movies that contains those scenes that make you go "A-ha!" (like in Oceans 11 when we see the air freshener in the mocked up Swat team bus and we realize what they've been up to all along. Also, the motivation is clear there because Danny Ocean and Tess have a past and now Tess is with the Casino owner). So yeah, I was waiting for that "A-ha" moment and I never got it. I feel like the movie has holes, but again, I had a great time and thats what really matters (Though I will say a much better, current Spike Lee film is "25th hour". For anybody that hasn't seen that one, you have to check it out...now!)

Yeah, I caught all that. But see the problem still is nowhere in the film does it say that Clive Owen's character had any relation to this Jewish family that was betrayed. You're doing exactly what the film made you do - you're assuming because an orthodox jew was a part of the crew that they had some relation to the family. Clive Owen's character says at one point "I did it for the money." He states he left the ring to maintain some sort of dignity, and then goes on to accuse Mr. Case of not having any left. He doesn't say he betrayed his family. He doesn't say he betrayed his friends. He gives us no window into what motivated him to put into motion such a complicated heist. So essentially you can read a diamond much like a fingerprint? I didn't know that, that's interesting. No, not really. :lol: You conjured up a theory and because you weren't involved in the making of the film you're not getting me any closer to what the truth is . After my post, I thought about it some more and figured the bank robbers somehow found out about the diamonds and knew Clive Owen's character could safely walk out with them inconspiciously (because of their location as well as their size). Leaving the ring behind could be a way of clearing his conscious. But of course, my guess is as good as yours.

A while back I caught the first five minutes of an episode of CSI Miami. It started with a group of two girls and two guys driving down an empty road. All of a sudden a helicopter lands a few hundred feet in front of them and a gun toting maniac jumps out and starts firing towards the car. I started laughing my head off because everybody in the scene was so unbelievably gorgeous - I mean even the gun toting maniac looked like he was plucked off the cover of a romance novel! And when I say gorgeous, I mean, these people looked unreal. They looked like a computer fabricated their faces so that every feature would be perfectly symmetrical. As nice as it is to stare at a pretty woman, I think I rather date a girl with a few flaws. Is it that much more enjoyable to go out with a statue? Anyway, I'm totally off on a tangent. :P It seems like these shows cast these amazing looking people because the rule of thumb is to have photogenic faces on screen. That bothers me as a member of the audience because I find it completely takes you out of the scene when these characters do not resemble people you see everyday. I really felt like I was watching a calvin klein commercial, not a piece of drama. The guys need to have razor bumps. The girls need to have messy hair. We don't live in a perfect world. So how does the entertainment industry expect us to identify with these people when they inhabit one?

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Did I miss something? Why did Clive Owen's character go to such great lengths to get these diamonds and black mail Mr. Case? How did he know about his Nazi past in the first place? It sort of bothered me that none of this was explicitly stated in the film. Also, how did Detective Frazier know something was fishy with Case after procuring the ring? Seems like so many things the audience has to assume to make the film work. Overall it was entertaining. Very funny - especially the Grand Theft Auto parody - a grenade in the mouth - damn, is that satire or what? And yeah, that Denzel dolly shot didn't work for me - very silly. That effect only really works at a slow, dreamlike pace. But again, I had a good time. Thumbs up from me.

Well actually, on "House of Wax", Paris Hilton did quite a bit of "DPing". Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Mr Haas, I was replying to a comment a Miss Kim Vickers made in reference to movies in general, not Hollywood. I think the fact that "Y Tu Mama Tambien" is completely in Spanish (Mexico) and "Run Lola Run" in German (Germany of course) is a dead give away that they are not Hollywood films. Anyway, Miss Vickers' criticism that movies are playing it too safe encompassed all industries from all countries (and if I'm putting words in your mouth, forgive me Miss Vickers). My argument was that there are a lot of great, original, and controversial movies out there that push the boundaries of what is safe, and I feel this pertains to manyindependent films, as well as those optioned by major studios. Thanks

Well, the Independent Spirit Awards does have a category called the John Cassevetes award. This goes to the best picture made for under $500,000. To me, thats the true definiton of an independent film. It always irks me when people categorize a film as independent or low budget, and yet it has a budget of a few million, an all star cast of well known actors, and enough pull to be given a theatrical release. Makes me feel like they should just invent a brand new category for the little guys shooting movies on DV with actors whose prior experience includes high school plays and summer stock.

I think you, along with many other people, just aren't giving modern day film enough credit. People keep saying the Hollywood machine is churning out the same formulaic, 3 act structure films - and yes, this is true. But quirky, exciting, "dangerous" films are on equal footing. Think of some of the stuff that has come out the last few years; "Pulp Fiction" - the most obvious example. The film that essentially defined what movies would look like for the next decade. "Being John Malkovich" - a complete mind f*%k. "Fight Club" - dank, grimy, and unabashadly nihilistic. I'm surprised this one didn't start the apocalypse. "The Woodsman" - a film whose protagonist is a pedophile. Whoa. "Memento" - for one, a film told in reverse order (its been done before, but never quite this clever). Also, it surprises the audience with a familiar technique - withholding vital information - yet it doesn't do it arbitrarily. The character's condition demands it. "Adaptation" - another great post-modern Charlie Kaufman script. "Run Lola Run" - 3 films in one. "Y Tu Mama Tambien" - a completely unfiltered portrayal of teenagers. "Requiem for a Dream" - the first time an after school special delivered its message effectively. I'm not taking the time right now to carefully think of all the great films that have come out, so I know I've omitted a ton of great work. But what more can we want? We can't expect something edgy and mind blowing to come out every single Friday. I don't know if we keep comparing this generation of films to the hey day of the 70's, but people place so much emphasis on the "Armageddon's" and the other blockbuster crap, they just don't take the time to appreciate the gems.

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" "Short Circuit" "Robocop 2" I'm a child of the 80's, what can I say. No matter how old I get, I always see these movies through the eyes of a 9 year old!

Not irked at all, Jonnie. I apologize if I came off strong. I've just heard so many stories of miraculously precocious kids that I believe this is just another one of those instances. Believe me, I'm one of those people hoping this is a lie. I'm a 24 year old still trying to get my big break in the directing biz, so I'm as green as Kermit with envy!

Whats your point? Am I to ascertain from your comment that all 9 year olds are terrifingly shy, and that this kid doesn't have the cojones to tell the cinematographer where he wants the camera and to ask the actors to do the next take slower? Is this kid going to have to wait at least until he's 18 to fully master "craft services etiquette"? I've directed before, I know what it takes to be a director. Some have more knowledge of cinema than others, but in the end I think the director is the one position on the set where you don't have to learn the trade in order to be competent at it. A lot of directing is instinct and motivated from the gut. Again, I'll say its a big publicity stunt as much as doing a feature with cellphones - but that doesn't mean this kid needs his hand held the whole way through.

If we have child prodigys who can compose symphonies and decipher complex math equations, who's to say we can't have one who knows how to direct at a young age? Sure they're hyping it up - the final product may be a lump of dung. But that doesn't mean he's not running the show.

I always find a lot of unnecessary use of the crane in R&B videos. If you think of some of the performance sequences in videos like Ruben Studdard's "Sorry 2004", Alicia Keys and Ushers "My boo", and Eamons "I don't want you back", the camera just suddenly swings high up on the crane for no reason whatsoever. Always annoys me. That and director teams on some of these videos. Does it really take two guys to direct a sorry ass video? :P

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.

I echo everyone's sentiments. The cutoffs were uncalled for. They could have easily lost those montages that were pointless and had little to do with the theme of the show aside from the fact they were about cinema! <_< Then they would have left more time for these people who will probably never have another chance like that again to thank all the people that helped make that moment possible. Also, let me just say - Jon Stewart for Pres, 08'. One of the funniest hosts in a long time. What was remarkable was the way he sustained his presence throughout the entire show. So many times a host will open with a great monologue and then just sort of disappear with lame little introductions between each segment. Jon Stewart ad libbed stuff that was just as funny as the pre-written sketches. (The joke about 3-6 Mafia fighting with Isaac Pearlman's posse was friggin' hilarious). Speaking of - Big Ups to 3-6 Mafia. Unbelievable. First Eminem, now them. Incredible that these cat's with tattoos on their bodies and golds in their mouth received a statuette alongside Hollywood's elite. Just another step in legitimizing a genre of music that was considered a fad just a decade ago. Plus it was funny to see these grown men jumping up and down onstage like a little league team that just took the pennant. I just hope they thanked Craig Brewer (I'm not sure if I heard his name) Finally, Brokeback got ripped. Crash...you have got to be kidding me. Oh wow, bigots have a reason for their prejudices, everybody's capable of good and bad, people are multifaceted, bla bla bla. Why all the hoopla? Its been done before in every complex character study. I think two gay cowboys in a heartbreaking story about love denied is more novel, more engaging, and was impeccably executed by Ang Lee and co. WHATEVA ACADEMY <_<

Any chance that article will be published online in the near future? Congrats, Mr. Mullen. Nice to see such a helpful guy receiving recognition for his talents.

Alphabet cereal, duh!

Hey Guys So, I attempted to use the program from wilcox and snell. After going through a whole process of getting the footage onto pc (snell's program is not compatible with Mac), unwrapping the mxf files only turned them into text files. So, can anyone else suggest another solution? I'm going to try out a program from a company called mog solutions www.mog-solutions.com which has mxf players, mxf explorers, etc. If anyone has had experience using these please let me know how it went for you. Geez, a week since we shot and I haven't been able to touch the footage. If I could afford film, oh how things would have been different :blink: .

Thanks for the info, Matt and Phil... I'm going to try some of the stuff you had mentioned. You've given me some hope. Anyone else who wants to chime in, please continue with the suggestions. I've been trying to figure out how to import this footage for a few days now! :blink: Thanks again

When you say "beefed up", could you also apply that to the quality of the footage? Is it any better looking than the stuff you getting shooting 24p on a DVX? Or is it exactly the same? I nervously wonder because for whatever reason I can't import the footage I got off the p2 cards from a rental house's firewire drive into FCP 5.0.4. So I'm stuck with the tapes we recorded onto for backup. Could I have just captured the same quality with a friend's dvx? :(

Umm, what are your sources for that? The shots are all done with computers. Think carefully - floating through the inside of a trash can, craning down through the surface of a city street into an underground parking garage, etc etc...they're not doing that in camera, buddy. Didn't Mr. Mullen already warn this forum about making stuff up? :blink: