Sidney King

hi Mark, In talking with producers who've secured name talent for their indie features, I've heard in general you'll need to be offering something along the lines of 100K for a starring role (3-4 weeks of work), or 25-40K for a week's work (or roughly 5K a day). That's to be taken seriously by casting agents and managers, and those will be pay or play arrangements (money goes into escrow and they get paid regardless of whether or not the film gets made). Not to say a different arrangement isn't unheard of, and of course you might find the actor willing to work for less based on passion for the material, etc...but those are ballpark figures you're looking at to make a legitimate offer through the "proper" channels (not dumping a script onto their hairdresser's lap, etc...). Regarding SAG, I don't think any actor you've ever heard of would consider doing a non-SAG feature (obviously they're not allowed to, and actors can't exactly work under a pseudonym like, for instance, a boom op can). I've never heard of a serious, name actor working on a non-SAG feature...maybe someone has heard of examples to the contrary?. But going SAG doesn't necessarily mean spending big money, and often when you hear of actors taking a role for "scale" or "no money," they're just getting the SAG minimums, which range from nothing (for experimental or educational films, which can't be distributed or sold) to about $700/day. best of luck with your feature!

There are many factors that affect a completed film's sales potential, and truthfully, origination format is fairly low on the list (things like name actor involvement, exposure at the major festivals, and general market trends are much more important). It all depends on how you plan to position your film in the marketplace (genre, potential distribution streams, etc...). There are a lot of moving parts to consider, and the marketplace changes quickly. To really explore the business side of things and how your origination format fits into the equation, I would recommend you talk to experienced producers, sales agents, distributors, producers' reps...people who buy and sell films for a living. Good luck!

I'm not sure you read my earlier post in which I basically said the same thing oops, sorry for the redundant post. Another somewhat hidden cost in post working with anamorphic is removing the "flash frames" caused during the transfer by the thin splices in a conformed anamorphic negative. That bill ran 12K for us, and can be higher. Just something else to tell your producers early in the process to prepare themselves for.

Perhaps it's for creative reasons that you're looking into a DI, but from a producer's perspective, a traditional finish on 35mm is still signficantly cheaper. I just finished post on a 35mm anamorphic feature, and was very happy with the results we got from the old-school approach. Of course the visual needs of each specific project will dictate whether a DI is the right choice, but you can offline edit, create your titles/opticals (providing they're fairly basic), cut your neg, time it, and get your HD video deliverables and intermediate prints, all for significantly less than even a modest DI package. Again, the creative needs of your project may dictate whether a DI is the right choice, but for a low-budget feature (including 35mm anamorphic) the traditional approach is still more cost-effective.

Another name would be Shona Auerbach, she was director and DP on the feature "Dear Frankie," starring Emily Mortimer. It's a lovely film, and looks terrific. Apparently she is a still photographer of some renown, as far as I know "Dear Frankie" is the only film she's DP'ed or directed. Anyone familiar with her or more of her work? Obviously she can work with actors as well, the performances were great.

Here's another three cheers for Media Distributors. They have a large inventory, are great to work with. We went through about 300 rolls (the 5279) from them with no problems whatsoever (except a few measuring out shorter than labeled). Obviously they're on the ball with their QC, and they have a generous buy-back policy. Of course working with short-ends is a pain, but the prices you'll get from a place like Media Distributors is still well below even the discounted price a Kodak rep will offer you. I would love to shoot with fresh-from-the factory Kodak, but for low-budget folks their prices are just not competitive.

Interesting. So they basically went into one of the poorest corners of the planet, filmed people without their consent, and used real-life slums (and real-life human beings) to save money and add production value to a Hollywood movie. Good thing they had the Aaton or heaven forbid, they would have had to build sets and maybe even get people's permission before filming them.

At least in the States, any sort of HD projection is still quite rare (a few big ones like Sundance and Tribeca do). The most common tape format is BetaSP, followed by DigiBeta and miniDV/DVCAM. DVD is actually very common (and becoming more so) as an exhibition format, especially at smaller festivals. Unfortunatey 16mm has all but disappeared as an exhibtion format (again, this is the US). Submission-wise, DVD is the standard, although it never hurts to include a VHS backup. Some festivals will not tell you if they have playback problems with your DVD. They just pitch your entire submission.

I think when you're talking about aesthetics in almost any form (whether you're judging a restaurant or a film), it's important to evaluate the "text" (or film, or dining experience, etc...) against what it is aspiring to, not some absolute set of criteria. You can't really compare fast food with haute cuisine, but you certainly can compare how successful each is in acheiving its goal (a good $2 Big Mac is "better" than a horribly-cooked, $40 filet). We're more inclined to view something as a failure when it falls far short of its own goal, even if on its own merit it is "better" than an inferior work. For instance, all of the elements of a film like "Snow Falling on Cedars" on their face value may be considered "better" than the elements of a teen gross-out comedy, but we enjoy the teen comedy because we know what we're in for and it accomplished what it set out to do. And we're disappointed with "Cedars" because it just didn't measure up to itself. Hope that makes some sense. That being said, "Snow Falling on Cedars" is one film I think that certainly didn't work.

That certainly sounds like a frustrating experience. I would point out (as others have done) that when it comes to no/low-budget projects run by novice producers, the DP often has much more hands-on experience and knowledge as to the logistics and mechanics of what it takes to actually shoot a film. Sometimes the DP ends up doing a whole host of things that is really outside the job description. So, I think DPs should be careful they're not taken advantage of and essentially end up serving as a co-producer in addition to DP. That being said, remember that often times the producer(s) in those situations aren't being paid (or being paid next-to-nothing) for their work. It can be a fine line between being a labor of love for all involved and being taken advantage of in terms of duties. Setting clear expectations at the beginning (preferrably in writing) is a good place to start.

of course it's hard to tell much about a specific production on such little information, but a couple things come to mind: a lot of how-to guides and articles out there on low-budget filmmaking recommend hiring a DP who owns his own package (and of course the wisdom of that advice is highly debatable, but it is out there). It's also possible they're doing their budget break-down to combine camera package and DP as kind of line-item deal, which is probably simpler for them (i.e, "OK, we have 10K for DP and camera. How do we do it?"). And easier than hiring a DP and then asking him for his equipment wish-list and then start nitpicking (and keep in mind how intimidating an equipment log for a fully-loaded 35mm camera package can look to a novice producer). Of course all this could be easily solved by hearing from Mr. Srikant himself... but anyway, there are a couple reasons I could see they might be doing things this way, it's not necessarily fishy. Just remember all the standard disclaimers when considering a job...

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."

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.

For what it's worth, I've been shipping two 2000' reels in a standard 2-reel metal ICC case, and together the film and case weigh 24lbs. Of course the vast majority of that is the case, so I wouldn't think a single reel would weigh much less. They also make plastic cases, I don't know how much lighter (or more expensive) they are, the metal 2 and 3-reel cases still seem to be the standard (the 3-reel case weighs 34 lbs).

For low-budget, non-union work in the States you can get key grips who know what they're doing for 150-175/day, USD. That is on the low side, but you can find experienced people to work for that rate in the right conditions. Again, that's for a key grip, other grips would work for less (and there's usually no shortage of G/E intern-types willing to work for just room and board). Of course you have to be careful when you're trying to SAVE money and you end up with too many grips running around who don't know what they're doing. On my production I had one who wrecked a rental truck and another who blew out a ballast. Insured, but the deductible on those items were killer.

I think Hal is refering to entering (or playing via midi-compatible keyboard, etc...) older classical scores (not recordings), which are certainly in the public domain and available for any and all exploitation by everyone. You can do whatever you want with Chopin or Bach, et al...with midi or any instrument; put it in your film, sell it to anyone who will buy it, and so forth.

It will depend on whether your negative will be AB or single-strand; you'll find negative cutters charge more for single-strand, but lab costs are less. So, talk with your lab and whoever's doing your titles/opticals to decide if single-strand or AB will be best for your project (which will in turn depend on what your plans are for your film in post: traditional color timing, just doing a transfer, etc...). Most negative cutters come up with a bid based on the number of cuts, so that information is more crucial than length. I got bids from about a half a dozen (this is in the US), they were quite similar. You won't find a huge variation in the bids you'll get. anyway, to get to your answer, expect to spend between 5-8K, again depending on the number of cuts and whether your negative is single-strand or not.

That's right, Focus was threatening a lawsuit against him, etc...they were milking that incident for all it was worth, PR-wise. In a funny second chapter to the story, the film screened in a different theater in Salt Lake City, sold like crazy. I think $30,000 in its first weekend.

I read an NYTimes article just before the film was relased which quoted several leaders of American evangelical Chrisitans (I think maybe James Dobson), they basically said their approach to this film was to ignore it, they figured trying to mobilize a boycott or some similiar protest action would feed the flames of publicity for the film. So they kept a low profile. It's true Oliver Stone blamed the Christian right for the poor performance of "Alexander," but I remember hardly ANY organized or even loose resistance to the film from evangelical groups; I just don't think they cared. I think it was just a poor film that did badly and Stone is searching hard for a scapegoat. With "Brokeback," I enjoyed it quite a bit, thought it was one of those films we see all too few of these days: focused storytelling, strong acting, and powerful and effective visuals. I thought if you strip away the whole gay/cowboy element, it was quite a conventional film, it was just executed extremely well on all levels. Which as well all know, is much harder to pull off than it looks.

I for one am grateful for all journalists, print, still, moving, whatever, in Iraq. Being forced to rely on the Pentagon for "news" from a war zone on the other side of the globe is a pretty terrifying prospect. I'm curious if anyone was at Sundance and saw the doc "Iraq in Fragments." It's a documentary on the occupation shot in, and I'm not kidding, 35mm. It's the result of several years work, is more like an extended visual tone poem than a doc structured around a central narrative. Apparently it's quite stunning work. If anyone's seen it please chime in, I'll definitely be following it to see what happens with it.

It's also hard for me to imagine when it's ever appropriate for an editor to be giving timing instructions, but the power balance in these situations can vary quite a bit. Depending on the project and the principal creative forces (and producers) involved, it's feasible someone like Walter Murch could have more creative influence than an editor would typically have in a similar situation. An actor shouldn't be able to fire a director, either, but if the actor is Harrison Ford and the director is a kid just out of USC, it could happen. I'm sure a lot of DPs here have been involved in creative conflicts in post (especially timing), I think you really have to try hard to do the best you can to work within the creative goals of the other people involved (who are, after all, paying the bills) even if they're pushing it into an area you feel is compromising your work (perhaps drastically underexposing a shot to fit the "new mood" of a scene, etc...). Ultimately if you're too prickly or difficult to work with on these things they may just cut you out of the process altogether and the results could be a lot worse. Catch more flies with honey and all that. I'm certainly interested in hearing about creative conflicts in post between DP/editor/director/producer and how these were resolved if anyone wants to share.

yes, shot with the CineAlta F950. In the Fresh Air interview Soderbergh said they used "literally no lights." There is a key grip and gaffer listed on the project, though (not Jim Plannette, who has gaffed just about all his other films). Weekend estimates for the film don't look too good (at least the theatrical numbers). About a $2,200 per screen average. I'm sure it will take longer for them to tally the DVD sales/cable ratings, etc....and declare it a success of failure. The perceived or real threat to theaters is only one part of the equation, though; some people think the impact of this release platform is actually more threatening to the retail outlets who made DVD sales so lucrative in the first place (especially Wal-Mart, which accounts for 40% of all DVD sales). The retailers also rely on an important window that is removed with this model, the one between when a DVD is available for sale and when it's available on pay cable or pay-per-view. The studios have been chomping at the bit for a while now, looking for a way to cut out the retail middlemen like Wal-Mart who take a huge chunk of "their" profits. This experiment could turn out to be a very important step in that direction. Or maybe not, time will tell... Am curious if anyone's seen it. Does it look like it was shot exclusively with available light?

I know someone who AD'd the Sopranos, don't know the # of setups but he said the budgets were 4-5M per episode (this was a couple season ago, it might be more now). They also shoot additional coverage (PG-13) for syndication. For instance, in the BadaBing when there are topless strippers in the background, they would put on a top and just literally re-shoot the scene (or that particular set-up). And they reshoot certain lines of dialogue as well, for the same reason. Someone's thinking ahead...

A pretty interesting case involving this issue is Kim Basinger and "Boxing Helena." She was sued by New Line (after the film flopped) for violating her verbal commitment to star in the film; she lost to the tune of $8M, and declared bankruptcy. She appealed and the decision was overturned. You can find some legal analysis of the case online if you fish around for it.

Well, in response to Mr. Edge, the original post from Oliver did say the director "created" certain "things," that the project "originated" with him, that he even came up with the title. These are all issues related to intellectual property that may have everything or absolutely nothing to do with how this particular case would be adjudicated or settled. Sure it's unclear, so what? As far as I'm concerned anyone is welcome to call everyone else on the board legal idiots, but they're missing the point. Oliver is just asking around for some ideas and real-world experience from folks involved in this particular industry; I shared what little bit of (actual, not theoretical) experience I had in this area, as others have done. No one is pretending to be a lawyer, pretty much everyone has properly caveated their statements. We're just sharing ideas and experiences, the whole point of a message board.