Jump to content

"COWARD" online


Guest Stephen Murphy

Recommended Posts

Ack! I never meant to send this thread down this path. In fact I edited that last post to be a lot milder than what first came into my head but looking back on it, it still sounds different to what I intended to post and maybe a bit more like some of the things going on in my head.

 

I'm going to write this quickly and then have a think before I post further on the subject, but firstly I would say that Stephen, you have no need to defend yourself in the matter. Obviously there were a lot of questions going through my head, many of which you have answered but I didn't intend to open it up so far into a debate. I feel bad now.

 

In defence of myself I would add that I'm presently editing the music video that I shot that cost about £40 to make and I'm in the process of trying once again to get council tax benefit and working tax credit because my income is so low that, well lets just say I'm very thankful to the people who are helping me right now. That's not to complain. In fact things are going fantastically well for me and I'm just doing better and better but it's just a shock when numbers so large are mentioned because they are life changing sums of course. So it's just weird from where I am right now. Of course Hollywood throws around huge figures but Hollywood never really seems real, whereas this is real people making a film in "a field in England". So it makes me feel slightly wierd.

 

As you have implied, the costs are presumably spread so it's not quite the way it might seem just to see a number.

 

...and poverty thinking isn't a good way to develop a career (or much of anything really)

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

John, if that was aimed even slightly at me, the first thing I would say (and have said) to anyone who offered me something on that level would be "find yourself a real director of photography", and give them your number!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to be discreet and not mention it - and I'll completely understand if it's something you can't go into - but since you mention the fact that it was "a gamble that was well calculated and worked out", I have to ask.

 

Why was this piece produced?

 

Strangely that's one question I wasn't asking at all.

 

From what I have seen Stephen has built his career on hard work and talent.

It's obviously the more difficult path to take to success but it's one that everybody has respect for, even those who are taking a different path.

 

What Stephen and friends are trying to do is say "look at this incredible thing we did" in the hope it will lead to more things.

 

It's that simple really. In my experience this is also a good way of doing things in some ways. Doing things often leads to more and better things. Inaction leads to decay. We have a culture in this country that encourages people to churn out endless reams of paperwork before they should do anything. It's soul destroying nonsense.

 

I've probably taken a much bigger "gamble" compared to this if you consider genuine risk rather than financial sums so I can relate to it. I could have wasted another 2 years generating paper and sitting in semi derelict buildings with non functioning computers and I would know that the food would always be on the table for me and I'd be able to have the heating on etc etc but that was also destroying me, so I chose to end that and so far I don't regret it at all!

 

Right now, though, there is no reason to produce an expensive feature in the UK because there is no way to sell it.

 

Well it's not a feature. If it was I think there would be a bit more of a commercial outlet for it in the traditional sense but I don't think that's what this was about.

 

Kickstarter, because it is, if you look beyond the smoke and mirrors, in effect a presale, something that no UK-produced feature will under any circumstances achieve otherwise. Right now it isn't an approach that will fund 150k for half an hour of material,

 

Preety sure you are wrong on that score and that's already been achieved and more, of course it requires having something of a following and a track record.

 

I presume someone has an extremely specific, presumably contractual need to make Coward - "Show us the first 28 minutes and we'll give you $100million" or something like that. In that, or whatever such endeavour, I wish you the very best of luck - keep us posted!

 

P

 

I doubt it. That sounds like a no risk deal for the most part.

I'm guessing they were prepared to take the risk.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, if that was aimed even slightly at me, the first thing I would say (and have said) to anyone who offered me something on that level would be "find yourself a real director of photography", and give them your number!

 

I think that's the key thing here. There are different levels to things, and that is a really good thing that we should be thankful for! I hinted at this earlier. It's a bit like the post here some time ago asking why there were such things as B movies. Not in a historical sense but that the poster felt they were so bad they shouldn't be allowed to exist. The thing is that some people love B movies more than the A movies. Also the B movies give people an opportunity to learn things. Francis Ford Coppola for example started out on a B movie. I think Mario Bava shot B movies his whole career!

 

In reality there aren't just A and B movies of course but a spectrum of things, and there are all kinds of different movies too and not just the sort that tend to usually be talked about here and this is all good as it gives people choice and gives opportunity to all kinds of filmmakers.

 

I think it's great that Stephen is working with budgets that make me gasp because it probably means he is now on the cusp of greater things!

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not sure there is any route to success other than hard work and talent!

 

 

I should make it clear I'm not knocking anything, I'm genuinely interested in the decision-making process behind something like this. It's been discussed endlessly but in the UK we're often incredibly bad at the executive producer's job, that is, finding a market for things. Of course shorts are not generally intended for commercial distribution but there seems to have been some strategy behind this one beyond the "stick it in a festival and hope everyone notices we're great" approach.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy

I think it's an interesting topic for discussion so lets not shy away from it. I can only answer the "why was this piece produced" question from my perspective obviously, and I can't speak for the producers/director but in a general sense here goes...

I would be of the opinion that short films are made for two reasons 1). As a learning process before you cut your teeth on a longer form project or 2). As a way to showcase your skill as a director/producer. I would also be of the opinion that if you're making a short for reason 2 you want to get that short seen by as many studio executives or commercial production companies as possible so that you can translate whatever success your short has into a career of some description. I personally don't think people make shorts just for the pleasure of screening them at film festivals. So assuming you make a short to get noticed as a director/producer you have two options: Show the short at film festivals, in which case you could spend up to 18months taking it around the world and still not have it seen by aforementioned studio execs and or commercial production companies. Or you can screen it privately at specially arranged industry screenings where you can try and convince industry heavyweights to come see your short film and/or on top of all that you can put it online, obviously, and try and build an audience there.

Again in my opinion the purpose of most shorts is to get the director/producer noticed as a director/producer and get them working in the real world.

So if you're trying to get noticed and create a career as a director/producer and you're trying to catch the eye of studios/prod companies/commercial producers etc don't you think they'd be more impressed by something that looks and sounds like the kind of projects they produce on a daily basis? I think they would and so did the director/producers on Coward.

By making something in this way, regardless of shooting format or scale, by making a 30minute drama with a large cast and a large crew and several locations they are demonstrating that they can physically make things of a high calibre, in addition to telling an entertaining story. If I was a studio/producer/investor I'd be more confident investing in those guys then in someone whose short has been shot in their mates house on a canon 5d with 1 or 2 actors where you have to "imagine what it would look like if we had money for cameras/sets/costumes etc" Again I'm not talking about comparing scripts or saying what type of film is better I'm talking about showing you can actually make a movie/commercial with a real budget, manage a crew of professionals, deal with post, deal with vfx, etc. That's why Coward was made the way it was made which required a larger budget then most people would spend. The director and the producers needed a project to let them step up from their current positions within the industry and showcase their ability to produce and direct a film on a large scale with complicated logistical challenges and that's why they invested in this.

 

Over the years I've shot dozens of shorts, 95% of which never do anything more then tour some film festivals and win a few awards. Most of the directors of those shorts are no closer now to a career as a director then when they made their shorts. Same goes for the producers. In the two weeks Coward has been online its already led to several meetings with production companies and studios execs and a tv network. Its got the director representation in both the us and the uk. It will move him out of his day job as an sfx technician into a career as a director. It will do the same for the producers. I will benefit from it, so will the Editor and the actors and quite a few other members of the crew. And that, as far as I can tell, is why this project was made, and why it was made the way it was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure there is any route to success other than hard work and talent!

 

That's a weird thing to say!

How can you look at this country and say that?

How do you think Michael Grade got where he is, as an example off the top of my head?

There are a number of other routes, they just aren't open to everybody.

 

Really suprised to hear you say that today Phil. What's got into you!

 

Unless you are trying to poke me into saying more than I already have?

 

I should make it clear I'm not knocking anything, I'm genuinely interested in the decision-making process behind something like this. It's been discussed endlessly but in the UK we're often incredibly bad at the executive producer's job, that is, finding a market for things. Of course shorts are not generally intended for commercial distribution but there seems to have been some strategy behind this one beyond the "stick it in a festival and hope everyone notices we're great" approach.

 

Well clearly it wasn't mainly targeted at festivals because it fits into the too long for the shorts and too short for the features trap but I'm sure they had online in mind too and it has already got a vimeo staff pick so it's already had quite some success in that direction.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's an interesting topic for discussion so lets not shy away from it. I can only answer the "why was this piece produced" question from my perspective obviously, and I can't speak for the producers/director but in a general sense here goes...

 

I'm surprised to hear that the goals in this regard weren't really discussed at all. Was there just a kind of assumption that everybody was on the same page?

 

the world and still not have it seen by aforementioned studio execs and or commercial production companies. Or you can screen it privately at specially arranged industry screenings where you can try and convince industry heavyweights to come see your short film and/or on top of all that you can put it online, obviously, and try and build an audience there.

 

That's interesting because it suggests that they already knew the people to talk to, a bit like Phil was implying earlier.

I guess they already knew who the movers and shakers were from their previous work in the industry?

Is that right?

 

How do they go about arranging the industry screenings?

 

I also assume they must have some kind of a relationship with the people to be able to invite them to the screenings too?

 

Over the years I've shot dozens of shorts, 95% of which never do anything more then tour some film festivals and win a few awards. Most of the directors of those shorts are no closer now to a career as a director then when they made their shorts. Same goes for the producers. In the two weeks Coward has been online its already led to several meetings with production companies and studios execs and a tv network. Its got the director representation in both the us and the uk. It will move him out of his day job as an sfx technician into a career as a director. It will do the same for the producers. I will benefit from it, so will the Editor and the actors and quite a few other members of the crew. And that, as far as I can tell, is why this project was made, and why it was made the way it was made.

 

So would you say that the fact it was online and gained a staff pick from Vimeo etc was what really got the attention of the people that mattered and that this was a better route to getting peoples attention than the film festivals?

 

Also how did the online screening match up against the orgainsed screenings? Which brought the most result?

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy

The goals were discussed Freya. They wouldn't have spent what they spent without discussions.

None of the producers had any connections with industry movers and shakers as you suggest. All our connections were crew and/or vendors. Everyone has an idea of who to talk to though for example in the uk if you want to make commercials of a certain calibre it's pretty easy to see what companies are pitching on and making high end commercials, but in our case we had no personal inside contacts.

Arranging an industry screening is easy. Book a venue that gets used by the industry (in the uk that might be soho house, Bafta, soho hotel etc) and then invite production companies/ studio reps/ producers/directors whoever you want. Wether or not they come is another thing! And no in our case we had no prior relationship with our invitees for the most part.

I've no idea which worked better online vs industry. We did both so it's hard to be specific. What I can say is that when we launched the trailer several months ago it was because it was online and mentioned by an industry movie website that we started getting industry attention at that time - the vimeo staff pick did Give us a much bigger audience, and that in turn led to further mentions on movie sites which leads to industry reps noticing it. Obviously online gets more people to see it and they pass it on to friends and so on so it increases its chances someone within the industry is likely to see it. The industry screenings are limited to those that you think to invite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All our connections were crew and/or vendors. Everyone has an idea of who to talk to though for example in the uk if you want to make commercials of a certain calibre it's pretty easy to see what companies are pitching on and making high end commercials, but in our case we had no personal inside contacts.

 

Clearly this isn't entirely true because I wouldn't have an idea of who to talk to in that context. This would suggest that perhaps this is knowledge gained through working in the vicinity? In the context of commercials, do you mean there are production companies that are pitching to actually make the commercials like RSA? Even with a company as famous as RSA I wouldn't know who the contact there would be! I would assume it wouldn't be Ridley himself, so it would assume a certain amount of knowledge of the industry.

 

I've no idea which worked better online vs industry. We did both so it's hard to be specific. What I can say is that when we launched the trailer several months ago it was because it was online and mentioned by an industry movie website that we started getting industry attention at that time - the vimeo staff pick did Give us a much bigger audience, and that in turn led to further mentions on movie sites which leads to industry reps noticing it. Obviously online gets more people to see it and they pass it on to friends and so on so it increases its chances someone within the industry is likely to see it. The industry screenings are limited to those that you think to invite.

 

Perhaps the two even work together in the sense that people hear about it through online and suggest people go to the screening or people see it at the screening and then mention it to other significant people who watch it online.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy

I wouldn't know who to call in RSA either but I know RSA are making nice commercials and I'd like to make similar commercials so I look up their website, get the number for their office and I just call them. Simple. There's no guarantee they'll look at my work but there's nothing to say they won't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was about to say more or less the same thing.

 

In order to justify that sort of spend you would have to already be reasonably well-connected and confident of your ability to show it to the right audience. I think any perception that this was not the case here may be relative; one's own situation always has a way of seeming unexceptional.

 

The reason I mention this is that I think we should make it very clear to the poor young innocents who we often get on this site that spending £150k and making something really nice is not going to guarantee anyone a worthwhile result. Even the knowledge of how to set up an industry screening, among a lot of other things, is a prerequisite that most people simply won't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't know who to call in RSA either but I know RSA are making nice commercials and I'd like to make similar commercials so I look up their website, get the number for their office and I just call them. Simple. There's no guarantee they'll look at my work but there's nothing to say they won't either.

 

So basic research a bit of confidence and fingers crossed! :)

 

More straightforward than I imagined! :)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I mention this is that I think we should make it very clear to the poor young innocents who we often get on this site that spending £150k and making something really nice is not going to guarantee anyone a worthwhile result. Even the knowledge of how to set up an industry screening, among a lot of other things, is a prerequisite that most people simply won't have.

 

It might not be that they don't have the knowledge but just that they aren't thinking about things in that way.

 

Not convinced about the "poor young innocents" thing either. There aren't so many innocent people on this planet.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy

I think having the confidence to get the movie seen is one thing, but the director is no more connected to RSA or Paramount or whatever big prod entity you want to insert here then you or I. The difference is he was willing to gamble everything that he could make a movie they'd want to see and that he'd find a way to get it seen by them or someone like them. I wouldn't take that gamble but then perhaps thats why I'm not a director - I'm not brave enough to risk that.

 

For the poor innocents out there spending 150k on a short is not a guarantee to a worthwhile result. Neither is spending 500 pounds on a short. Either way you're taking a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a studio/producer/investor I'd be more confident investing in those guys then in someone whose short has been shot in their mates house on a canon 5d with 1 or 2 actors where you have to "imagine what it would look like if we had money for cameras/sets/costumes etc" Again I'm not talking about comparing scripts or saying what type of film is better I'm talking about showing you can actually make a movie/commercial with a real budget, manage a crew of professionals, deal with post, deal with vfx, etc. That's why Coward was made the way it was made which required a larger budget then most people would spend. The director and the producers needed a project to let them step up from their current positions within the industry and showcase their ability to produce and direct a film on a large scale with complicated logistical challenges and that's why they invested in this.

 

This is a good point. I have to say I can understand that attitude as well. I ran into one of Phil's "Young Innocents" at a trade event. He had shot a film on his 5d that had just won a film competition and they now had funding from some studio or other to make another movie. There was a guy there who was somewhat significant in the vendor side of things, basically there to help sell product but he was a nice guy and when the kid explained his situation he suggested to him, that if he was in the situation, he wouldn't actually buy a camera but would go and hire an Arri Alexa and shoot it properly! (I was impresssed with the guy for suggesting this because he was there to shift cameras basically but it was really good advice I thought!) The kid looked absolutely terrified at the suggestion and said that he wouldn't know where to start with such a camera. I was actually really shocked by the extreme reaction in fact. It certainly didn't inspire confidence.

 

...and before you feel sorry for him Phil, said "Young and Innocent" character was quite mean and nasty to me a few moments later and lost everybody's sympathy, so there you go.

 

When I see something like that, it does make me understand why a studio/producer/investor might feel that way.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the poor innocents out there spending 150k on a short is not a guarantee to a worthwhile result. Neither is spending 500 pounds on a short. Either way you're taking a chance.

 

It's true, and the whole risk is relative to your situation too, so 150k might not be significant in one situation and 500 might be in another.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Murphy

I can't stress this point enough in case it seems to have become overlooked in this conversation - None of the people who risked their own personal money on this project could afford to loose the money. It was not an easy decision for any of them to invest in themselves and their future careers in this fashion. They sacrificed a lot. An awful lot. More then I would be willing to were I in the same position. But as I said it was a calculated risk and one that looks like it will pay dividends for them in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stress this point enough in case it seems to have become overlooked in this conversation - None of the people who risked their own personal money on this project could afford to loose the money. It was not an easy decision for any of them to invest in themselves and their future careers in this fashion. They sacrificed a lot. An awful lot. More then I would be willing to were I in the same position. But as I said it was a calculated risk and one that looks like it will pay dividends for them in the future.

 

That's what scared me about it when you first said how much. It is a life changing sum of money.

 

I'm glad it worked out! :)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think Coward was beautiful, Stephen. For your part, you did a fantastic job and that is visually evident. Having said that, I echo Phil's sentiment and think that 150k UK (or whatever 200+k USD equivalent is) is not smart business sense to spend on this short. A feature, even a subpar one, would do much more for everyone's career than this likely will. At least you could have sold this film as a whole to distributors as is or made a 100k feature and used the rest of the cash to fund deliverables and been super prepped for a deal.

 

Sorry, just being honest based on real world scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, hang on a second - I didn't say it wasn't sound business sense, I just would want an extremely definite idea that I had something to do with it when it was done.

 

Ok, Phil. What business sense do you think it makes to spend that much on an unmarketable (as is) runtime? Unless you have the make and pray strategy? A feature can always be successfully self distributed. But 28 minutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I have no idea, it's not my business model!

 

Presumably there were sound reasons to do it, I'm just saying I would want a pretty good one before I spent that much cash. That, in essence, is what we're talking about here.

 

Also:

 

A feature can always be successfully self distributed

 

Good grief, can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

Good grief, can it?

 

I didnt mean that the way it sounded. What I meant was "a feature always has the option to ATTEMPT to self distribute witht he potential of success. Not that everyone can be successful but it is an option. And funny enough, the outcome isnt always determined by the film snob idea of what makes a good film. Many a bad film (in the opinion of the film buff or snob, depending on perspective) has still had good financial results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...