Friday, August 22, 2014

What I Learned After Conducting 40+ Interviews for My First Feature Documentary

Oakley Anderson-Moore Royal Robbins Interview
You’ve got a great idea for film, and it just so happens to be a true story. Best of all, the main character is fantastic and you can’t wait to get him or her on camera! But once you start rolling, and sit back and wait for the magic to happen — pfft. Your interview is a dud. What went wrong? Getting a person’s story on camera is an elusive process, and since I just spent over five years working on a short and a feature in which I conducted over 40 interviews, I thought I’d share a list of things that I picked up along the way that might help you.
Among other things, you may know me on No Film School for written and occasional video interviews I post. I’ve always enjoyed hearing what people have to say, and listening to people’s stories. As fellow artists, maybe you feel the same. Over the years, I’ve gotten to hone that craft, from interviewing upstart inner city skateboarders for Nike’s PlayCity or talking to astronomers scanning the dark skies in Northern Arizona. I started doing interviews in 2008 for my feature documentary Brave New Wild that I’m just now starting to show. (As in, one festival, where I received the Emerging Artist award from the festival director.) A huge part of the film’s strength comes from the interviews. I’m certainly not saying I’m an expert, but there is some method to the madness! Hopefully the following tips can give you a head start on the learning curve for your next on-camera interview.

Decide on the concept of your film, and therefore, the concept for the interviews.

This sounds obvious, but all too often filmmakers think, “It’s an interview, that IS the concept.Really? So just set up the camera anywhere and have somebody talking in front of it? This is partly why documentaries get such a bad ‘talking head’ wrap. Different interview strategies elicit different kinds of tone to your film. For my aforementioned film, which with any luck I can share with you by the end of the year, I did my interviews as single camera setups by campfire light, not only because it was organic to the world of the story (rock climbing outcasts of the 1960s), but also because it allowed for intimate conversations that transported both the person talking, and in turn, the audience, to a world from the past.
In These Birds Walk, the camera follows around a group of orphans at eye level with prime lenses to create the children’s close-quartered world. In Yakona, the captivating underwater cinematography does most of the talking for the San Marcos river itself. And for numerous films including The Fog of War, clever bloke Errol Morris even went to far as to invent the likes of the Interrotron — you know, that telemprompter-like contraption on which Errol projects his face so his subjects can talk to him directly and into the camera.

Are you the best person to conduct the interviews?

If you’re the director, you’re probably the narcissistic egomaniac for the job! (And in documentary, let’s face it, can you really afford to pay someone else to do it?) However, it’s worth thinking about. For example, Jose Antonio Vargas elected to have a tagalog-speaking producer interview his Filipino relatives in Documented to give them space to reveal anything they wanted, while Lacey Schwartz cross-examines her entire family herself to unravel a quixotic family mystery in Little White Lie.

Discuss the eyelines, framing, and camera setup with your DP ahead of time.

Treat it the same way you’d go over the storyboard or a shot list with your DP to direct a scene. This is when you let your team know, say, that you’ll be shooting everything locked offlike in DamNation. Or in a verité setting, maybe you can come up with shooting rules for your DP to establish the aesthetics of the film like Rodrigo Reyes in Purgatorio. You probably decided these kinds of details when you envisioned the concept, but just in case, go over it with your team. The last thing you want is to spend more time setting up for an interview than you do with the cameras rolling.

Prepare for what you want out of the interview.

Sure, in documentary the content is often discovered during production, but you should still have an idea of what the story is going to be, and how it might fit into a narrative arc. This doesn’t necessarily mean doing tons of research with prepared questions for every interview. (I do because it makes me less nervous, but Warren Etheredge, who has interviewed about a million famous people, mentioned to me at a film festival that he never goes in to an interview with prepared questions!) Being prepared should mean knowing what role the person should be playing in your film, and what you need out of the interview. Do you need them to talk about a specific event or topic? Are they being interviewed in order to characterize another person? Are they meant to show you how they react with their surroundings? Stuff like that.
oakley anderson-moore interview brave new wild

Don’t do pre-interviews.

Some people may disagree with me on this, but in my experience, normal people only have one good ‘take’ in them when it comes to interviewing. Save it for the camera! Sure, when you pause for a bathroom break, your interview subject will suddenly blurt out the meaning of life. (Naturally, he/she was at that moment unmic’d and the camera wasn’t rolling. Which reminds me, another good tip: keep the camera rolling.) Ask him/her to repeat it on camera. Otherwise, try not to have your subject repeat themselves.

Forget about the old adage of asking your subject to “answer in complete sentences.” Instead, ask a question that will naturally elicit a complete thought.

Say for example, you want to ask someone about an instance you heard about that happened in 1994. In a print interview, it doesn’t matter whether the answer is a complete sentence, but on camera, you need a complete sentence to edit with. Traditionally, if you tell a person to answer in a complete sentence, they will remember and answer like this:
Q: In 1994, you had your first encounter with a three-headed alien, what was it like?
A: In 1994 when I had my first encounter with a three-headed alien, it was really great –
What is this, grade school? Even when you ask a person to include the question in the answer like this, most forget pretty quick. And interrupting someone to ask them to start over can really mess up an interview. In my opinion, a better plan is to get in the habit of asking questions that demand a complete answer — questions that are vague, yet going in a specific direction. For example, knowing that you want your subject to talk about that three-headed alien from 1994:
Q: What kind of aliens do you think are hanging out here on planet Earth?
A: Well, all kinds! I mean…I’ve seen three different kinds of aliens just myself.
Q: Really, what kinds have you seen?
A: I’ve seen the normal kind with big eyes like in the X-Files, the small green men, and I once saw a three-headed alien. Boy was I excited about that one! I was in my truck on the I-40, it was July 4th, 1994, and all of a sudden –

Don’t lead with your toughest question.

Unless you are going for some kind of court-room exposé, and are trying to reveal how a person reacts under pressure, that is. Your subject has already agreed to sit down and let you interview them. That’s already very generous. It’s then up to you to earn their respect and their trust before you can expect to have a real conversation.
oakley anderson-moore alexander reinhard interview Brave New Wild

Watch out for runaway interviews.

Sometimes when the camera starts rolling, an otherwise very normal person gets the feeling they are supposed to be talking, so they start and never stop! This is a normal reaction. Most people aren’t used to being interviewed. And then there are those people who just like to dominate the conversation and go on any tangent they see fit.
Say you wanted to interview Subject A about the architecture of the NY subway system, and he just spent 20 minutes on a rant about alien encounters! For either type of person, it’s up to you to set the tone at the beginning of the interview that you will be directing this conversation. An easy way to do this is to start off your interview with interruptions. Right away the other person knows that the two of you will be having a conversation, instead of him/her giving a monologue.

Don’t rush through awkward pauses.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is silence. As an interviewer, you are working so hard to make your subject feel comfortable that the last thing you want are awkward pauses. However, there are some people who need that silence.  They need it to think, and they need it to decide to tell you something that you otherwise might roll right past. There are some fantastic moments gotten this way in The Immortalists. I’m not saying you should purposefully leave quiet pauses during interviews, but be open to it.
oakley anderson moore interview brave new wild chris jones

Remember that people get tired.

After three hours of talking, an interview subject can become so exhausted that their sentences start coming out as if they’ve been throwing back a few too many malty Scotches (maybe they have) or their demeanor suggests they are premeditating murder to get you out of their house. That footage isn’t useable! Just like you would schedule how many scenes you can film in a day, so you have to be realistic about what you can cover in one interview session.

Be brave enough to ask about what really matters.

If you’re terrified, you’re doing it right. It’s hard! In the end, don’t be discouraged if the interview bombs or you chicken out on some questions. Work up that courage for round two, and give it your best shot!
In the end, different filmmakers may have different tactics for interviewing, but these help me and I hope they help you!
My personal philosophy for interviewing is built on respect for people, even if I disagree with them, don’t like them, or find them antagonistic. I never look at an interview as a way to expose or ridicule someone – it’s incredibly easy to exploit people on camera. And for what? The complexities of the human experience are so intricate that if art is not embodying that complexity or challenging it, then there’s not much point.
Have you had positive or negative experiences interviewing people on camera? Have any tips of your own to add?
Links:


Menthol on Vimeo on Demand

Now that Menthol was finally released online last week, let’s check in with the release status and watch the 3rd part of our interview series with the makers of the film. This post will complete my 6-part series on releasing the film with a $0 marketing budget. With direct distribution I’ve learned that what appears to be the end of a long road usually leads to be the beginning of a new one, but for this post I’ve selected some big takeaways and put them together in a Direct-Distribution Lesson Roundup. Read on.

Release Day + The Following 2 Weeks

It’s here, it’s finally released and it feels really good. The festival process took 7 months to complete despite only attending 4 festivals — not very efficient in terms of momentum for a release. Next time I will definitely consider releasing the film online the same day we premiere at a festival during the peak of our “buzz”. The extra months of waiting and slowly promoting, while insightful, proved to take a lot of wind out of our sails. We made a lot of people wait to see the film who had been waiting. So in a sense, the best part of releasing was being able to send links to the people who have been waiting; people who have followed the project for years. It’s really satisfying to deliver on a promise.

Financials $

Though the release day went well and we’ve received a slew of really great reviews, I can’t pretend that this film is a financial runaway success. We probably won’t come close to making our money back, but it will be a slow trickle as it is discovered by the people it was intended for. People viewing and sharing the movie provide little bursts of interest, and I’ll continue to interact and connect with viewers as time goes on and the film propagates. To me, that part is exciting, because you never know whose hands the film will fall into and what conversation it might start.
Menthol Reviews
Though we probably won’t make any real money on this film, the lessons we learned through this process will be invaluable the next time around. I strongly believe that direct distribution can work to sustain a filmmaker’s career, it just needs as much consideration as the filmmaking itself. It forces me to think about the hats we wear as independent filmmakers today; do we have the luxury of merely being creators or do we have to market ourselves as well? I pontificate on this question and more in this podcast I did with Film Specific about releasingMenthol on our $0 marketing budget.
Film Specific Menthol Podcast with Micah Van Hove
Download the Podcast here.

Post-Production

Here’s part 3 in our Behind the Story interview series, which covers some of what we went through in post:

Direct-Distribution Lessons Roundup

As promised, here’s a compact list of lessons — things that I’ve learned or things I’ll aim to do better at the next time around:
  1. Treat the release of your film with the same sense of care and creativity you would making a film.
  2. Spending months on the film festival circuit might not be worth it.
  3. Stay in close contact with your core audience, together they are stronger than you might think.
  4. Start early and update often. Momentum is everything.
  5. Consider making multiple versions of your trailer for marketing to different audiences.
  6. Always be prepared for the plan to change; adapt or die.

Expectations / Find Your Audience Now

Our goal for this project was never to make money, but to treat it as a learning experience, and there’s no better film school than experience. I exceeded my expectations for what this project could be, where it would take us and how others would connect to it. This of course is helped by having exceedingly low expectations going in, which I think raises an important question. For most first time filmmakers the ability to adjust expectations accordingly to be in line with what you’re trying to accomplish is a valuable tool in itself.
Thanks No Film School Readers
Certainly if your goal is to make a profit or pay back investors with your film, most of us are gonna have to think about our distribution plan in pre-production to figure out what makes marketing sense for your subject matter. The independent world is becoming more and more of a niche market, so I think it’s imperative to find out who you are and who your audience is to get the snowball rolling as quickly as possible. Maybe you won’t see financial success after your first few films, but once a critical mass is reached, I believe filmmakers will have a viable way to make a living off of their art.

Thank You!

Thanks for reading this series and supporting small films. If you’ve seen the movie, please consider leaving a review on our Vimeo on Demandpage! It really helps the conversation about the film remain alive! If you watch the film this week and leave a review you’ll get entered to win a poster. :)
~ micah
Links:

Monday, August 18, 2014

David Wilkinson explains film distribution



Sunday, August 03, 2014

Watch This Nifty Animation to Learn the Major Film Crew Positions & Their On-Set Duties


If you’re just getting into filmmaking, the major positions are usually pretty obvious — like the Director, Writer, and Cinematographer. But you’ve probably seen a credit list once or twice and wondered just who all of those people are — and more importantly — do you need them on your small indie set? Thanks to Vimeo Video School, you can get a rundown of most of the major film crew positions and their duties in just a few minutes. Check out the video below:
With most sets now being tapeless, and more and more people shooting RAW video, the DIT and Data Wrangler (sometimes the same position) are incredibly important crew members. These are the people who handle the footage, create dailies, and make sure everything is working and backed up on set before the cards are erased. They also should be checking to make sure if there are any errors in the transfer, which can happen from time to time. Evan Luzi from The Black and Blue had a great video a while back about working as a Data Wrangler:
For a slightly more in-depth overview of film crew positions, here’s a great video we postedbefore (also thanks going to Evan for this one):
To read the full list from the animation above, head on over to the Vimeo Video School post.
Some of you more experienced guys and gals, what do you think? Anything to add to the above videos?

3 Must-Haves to Get Your Film Distributed


Even though we wax poetic about how rewarding the art of filmmaking can be, at the end of the day, we need audiences to see the finished product. They don’t have to rabidly declare it their favorite film (though that would be nice), but there’s really no point spending all this time and money on a feature if the only person who owns the DVD is your mom. In a series of videos posted by IFP from Mark Litwak, the entertaining Entertainment Lawyer explains how to prepare yourself for the do-or-die of distribution.
First, the good news: the biz is democratic. Says Litwak:
The great thing about the movie business is that it’s inherently democratic.  The established players have never been able to corner the market on the essential commodity that you’re selling: a good story.
Now, the bad news: filmmaking is a high risk business. In a different industry — like real estate — if you buy a house and it burns down, well, you’re not at a total loss because you still have the land. But with filmmaking, Litwak points out, if nobody distributes your film or wants to see it, you’re at 100% loss. So what can you do to give yourself the best odds in this crapshoot?

1. E&O Insurance

Litwak says to get everything in writing so you can get E&O insurance. Without it, you will not get distribution.  We’ve talked about this for doc filmmakers with Brian Frye of Our Nixon, but Litwak points out it’s an essential “malpractice insurance” for all filmmakers.

2. Film Festivals

Understand the main point of festivals: publicity. Got a publicist? Litwak explains how festivals are essential dealmakers for distributors even though, as he points out in my favorite quote, festival audiences are generally not representative of “the average beerguzzling filmgoer who wants to buy a box of bullets with that DVD.”

3. Film Markets

Be prepared to find out that essential film markets are not like art galleries (how we think our work should be presented), but more like the distribution version of that TV show Supermarket Sweep:
If you are making a movie and want to make sure your chances of getting distribution are as high as they can be, check out the rest of the playlist below (thanks to IFP for putting it on their channel):
What do you think about the good news/bad news of a film’s success being dependent on distribution? Do you think alternative forms of distribution changing the risk equation at all?
Links:

Come On People, It's Time to Stop Arguing About Crop Factors Already


We’ve all heard it. “If only (fill in the blank) camera had a full frame sensor, I’d be able to use it.” Or, “The image from the GH4 sure is great, but I just couldn’t get used to a Micro 4/3 sensor.” If you’ve spent any time reading editorial comments about digital cameras in the past 5 years, then you’re almost certainly familiar with these types of statements. While different sized sensors can provide substantial differences in both aesthetic qualities and low-light performance, the argument that’s most often thrown around in these discussions is about “crop factor,” or the relative field of view from one sensor size to the next. Personally, I think it’s about time we put the issue of sensor size into perspective so that we can stop making goofy, arbitrary statements like these. Zack Arias over at DedPxl agrees, and his new video does a fantastic job at providing that perspective.
For photographic applications (not filmmaking applications, mind you), there has been a belief for some time that 35mm is the minimum sensor size necessary for “professional” work. Here’s Zack Arias’ video, which promptly tears down that dogmatic belief:
At this point, you’re probably saying to yourself, “That’s all well and good, internet guy, but we’re filmmakers, and those larger formats don’t apply to us, so we’re going to keep arguing about crop factors.” Not so fast, internet people! In order to understand why crop factors are largely an arbitrary and irrelevant discussion to be having, we need to take a look at the historical context provided by the frame sizes of traditional filmmaking formats. A vast majority of the films that have been shot over the past 100 years originated on 35mm film. Many people mistakenly believe that the imaging planes of motion picture 35mm film and photographic 35mm film (which we refer to as “full frame”) are, in fact, the same size. This is not the case, however. Here’s a niftygraphic from Noam Kroll that shows a relative comparison of motion picture and photographic 35mm frame sizes.
35mm film comparison
As you can see in the above comparison, 35mm motion picture film has a significantly smaller frame size than its photographic brother. Based on that alone, we can put to rest the idea that full frame 35mm is the standard frame size for cinema applications. With that out of the way, let’s take a look at how the frame size of traditional 35mm motion picture film compares to the size of some of our more modern digital sensors, such as the sadly maligned APS-C. Thiscomparison chart from Prolost sums it up nicely.
Frame Size Comparison
This chart really nails what I’m trying to get at with this post. In the Zack Arias video above, he says that the relative difference between full frame and APS-C is negligible. In fact, he repeats that sentiment quite a few times to really drive the point home. For filmmakers however, where the historically-standard frame size is actually smaller than “full frame” 35mm, the difference is even more negligible.
Of course, despite the fact that APS-C is the closest size to what cinema is traditionally shot with, the Canon 5D’s massive popularity in the late 2000s had some interesting effects. For one, it sewed into the collective consciousness of a new wave of DSLR filmmakers the idea that full frame is the standard frame size for all cinema applications. Instead of viewing APS-C cameras as the modern equivalent to motion picture 35mm film (at least in terms of frame size), DSLR filmmakers starting comparing everything to full frame. All of the sudden, APS-C cameras had a 1.6x crop factor, and that was inherently a bad thing.
So let’s get this straight. Comparing a sensor’s field of view to full frame 35mm film makes no sense, and we should all stop doing it immediately. There, I said it.
Larger sensors do have some advantages, like more easily-achieved shallow depth of field, and they can be far superior in low light situations. With that said, large sensors aren’t inherently superior than their smaller counterparts in other areas of image quality, especially areas like dynamic range.
Ultimately, what I’m getting at is that we need to stop arguing about crop factors as if they are some kind of all-important and defining characteristic of image creation. We have the ability to choose from any number of formats – full frame, APS-C, Micro 4/3, s16 – and those formats have differences in field of view and aesthetics. That’s just how it is. Some formats better meet the needs of certain shooters and certain stories, and determining those needs is a crucial step in figuring out which camera system to use. But if we keep arguing about crop factors, then chances are we’re not spending that time doing something productive, like shooting.

Friday, August 01, 2014

This Helpful Chart Has Everything You Need to Know about Today's Digital Cinema Cameras


Discerning cinematographers know that different jobs and projects often require different tools. With digital cinema technology proliferating at an incredible rate, cinematographers now have such a wide variety of camera systems to choose from that the process of deciding which one meets the technical and aesthetic needs of any given project can often be entirely overwhelming. If only all of the relevant technical information for each high-end digital cinema camera could be aggregated into one place, maybe into the form of a well-organized chart –Luckily for us, Tom Fletcher over at CineVerse, a nationwide rental house, put together just such a chart with all of the major digital cinema cameras on the market today (the high-end ones, at least), and it’s an insanely helpful graphic that puts our top-of-the-line digital cinema technology into perspective.
The following chart is a relatively quick look at all of today’s digital cinema cameras, but it pulls out the most relevant technical information that a cinematographer would need to know and puts it into a readable and well-organized format. This chart also has a column for the definitive pros for each of these cameras, which makes it easy to see which of them meets the needs of your project. It also includes the average daily rental rate for each in a body-only scenario. Super helpful stuff.
The following images are just a portion of the full chart, so click on either one to be taken to the PDF, which you can download and print for convenience.
Camera Chart 1
Camera Chart 2
There are a few things that stand out to me after spending way too much time staring at this chart. The first is that, from a technical perspective, all of these cameras are incredibly different in terms dynamic range, bit depth, recording formats/sizes, anamorphic compatibility, frame rates, etc. Based on this information, it should be relatively easy to determine whether or not any given camera meets the technical requirements of your project.
The second thing that stands out is that 35mm film, despite the fact that it’s being used less and less these days, still has a few major technical advantages over current digital cinema technology, the most important of which is dynamic range, which comes in around 15 stops, maybe 16. Only the DRAGON sensor (with HDRx enabled) offers comparable dynamic range. Even then, film still has more of its usable dynamic range in the highlights than any digital sensor, including the ones in ARRI’s cameras.
Ultimately, all of this technical information is just the first piece in a much larger puzzle. As important as it is to be well-versed in the technical aspects of these cameras, the more pressing issue is whether or not each sensor’s unique aesthetic can help you tell your story the best. That’s a much tougher nut to crack, and it takes some diligent camera testing to determine the aesthetic differences between these cameras. That, however, is a topic for another day.