The Chicago Underground Film Festival exists to showcase the defiantly independent filmmaker. They aim to “promote films and videos that dissent radically in form, technique, or content from the ‘indie’ mainstream and to present adventurous works that challenge and transcend commercial and audience expectations”.

Held this year from June 24th until July 1 at the Gene Siskel Film Center, CUFF has a reputation of highlighting the quirky, abstract, even oblique and tangent works that other film festivals often overlook. This year’s move to summer dates means it will also avoid calendar clashes with other events, and their presence as the world’s longest running underground film fest means that this could be worth adding to your calendar.

If you think that your film fits the above description, then the final deadline is March 15 and any last minute entries cost $40. Check out the full guide and download an entry form from http://cuff.org/2010/guide.html

Although not a competitive festival, CUFF does present awards, in categories including Narrative Feature, Narrative Short, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short, Experimental, Animation and Music Video. There are also ‘Made in Chicago’ and ‘Audience Choice’ awards.

Keep up to date on the festival via Twitter, Facebook and Myspace.

Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It’s that time of year again… Sundance Film Festival.

Each year the Sundance Film Festival selects 200 films for exhibition from more than 9,000 submissions. More than 50,000 people attend screenings in Park City, Salt Lake City, Ogden, and Sundance, Utah. In addition to discovering filmmaking’s newest talent through the Festival’s program of documentary, dramatic, and short films, Festivalgoers experience live music performances, panel discussions with leading filmmakers and industry figures, cutting-edge media installations, parties celebrating the Festival community, and more.

If you’ve not already bought, here’s a link for tickets.

And the good Sundance people have also laid out a Survival Guide to the 2010 festival.

Can’t attend? Time magazine explain how to “Couch-Surf” the event.

More info – Sundance Film Festival.

Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

In a Town Where Bigger is Usually Considered Better, Relaunching a Downsized ShowBiz Expo Just May Have Worked Out for the Best!

The Film, Stage and ShowBiz Expo is billed as “a five-star event that brings everyone in show business together under one roof.” Having been involved in the entertainment industry here in Southern California for almost thirty-five years (twenty-four of them as President of my own company, The Research Department), I had been a fairly regular attendee of this event when it was held annually in Los Angeles up to 2002. Since 2003, Producer Zachary Lezberg had been producing the twice-annual Film, Stage and ShowBiz Expo events only in New York City so I was excited to learn about his plans to “relaunch” the Expo at the Los Angeles Convention Center on October 17, 2009.

Personally, I find the benefit of these events to be highly relational to an individual’s needs. In a nutshell, the day pretty much becomes what you make it. I always pack plenty of business cards, brochures and a notepad. Don’t worry if you forget your pen, you could have at least a half-dozen by the time you clear the first row of exhibitors. More importantly, I bring along a broadly optimistic attitude that goes something like this: if I make a new friend or business connection or reconnect with one old friend plus maybe learn a few new things then I figure it was worth my time.

For the full article, please head over to http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2330344/review_showbiz_expo_returns_to_los.html?singlepage=true&cat=2

Article by Christopher Darryn

The next Los Angeles ShowBiz Expo is scheduled for April 24th and 25th in 2010.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Quentin Tarantino’s latest offering ‘Inglourious Basterds‘ has hit the screens last weekend and has already grossed in the region of $37.6m in the US. The movie is seen as a pivotal release for the recently struggling indie Weinstein Company, and will be closely followed by Halloween II, expecting to lead them into a strong fall season. It’s also good news for Universal, who split the cost of the movie and distributed it to 22 foreign territories, grossing $27.5m overseas. Those of you looking for a taster of the movie, here is the official trailer…

‘Basterds’ has made waves online, with it’s Twitter following not only growing, but Tweets from fans doing much of the word-of-mouth publicity work. Both the NY Times and LA Times declared it a roaring success, and praise has rained in for Tarantino and Weinsten.

Slightly less has been said of Brad Pitt, which is a shame as I think he really helps make the movie. I’ve always enjoyed Pitt’s characters, from ‘Fight Club’ to ‘Se7en’ to ‘Snatch’ to ‘12 Monkeys’, and I think that this film will slot right into his top five roles.

MTV have uploaded a joint interview with Pitt and Tarantino, which I thought I’d share here as a bit of background.

(Part 1 script)

(Part 2 script)

Feel free to share your thoughts on Pitt, Tarantino, ‘Basterds’, Weinstein or all of the above in our comments!

Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I sometimes wonder how many people in Hollywood (or anywhere, for that matter) have actually heard the term “Dustbuster” before. I certainly hadn’t, at least not until I started working as a post-production assistant. Unless you really studied these things in college, it’s only once you start to work for (or with) a production company do you truly understand just how many different types of film and television production jobs there really are.

“Dustbuster” was the loose name given to the job of digital colorist assist-assist, though the job title was not exactly accurate (in fact, it always seemed an afterthought, something to give us some sort of hierarchy within the company). I mean, we were working a film post-production job, in an assistant capacity, beneath the Colorist Assists, so I suppose you could give us that particularly cumbersome label. However, to save time and spare confusion, I and my fellow workers were called dustbusters, as we were literally responsible for removing dust (as well as scratches, and blotches) from every single frame of every single film the company took on. The colorists needed an impeccably pristine “canvas” with which to do their work, and that’s where we came in.

The process for cleaning film is simple enough to describe on the surface: they would scan the film digitally, and would then send the files to the main computers in our workspace. The film was then broken up into sections, with each section typically assigned to one of the nine or so workstations. Each workstation was loaded with the company’s proprietary software program, which would run the film frame by frame, shot by shot, and scene by scene. The dustbusters would then literally clean the film, by digitally removing every scratch or hair or discoloration. We did this by surrounding the offending mark with a box, which would then scan the next frame for a similar image to render. If there was little movement, the job was simple; if there was a lot of movement, we then had to tweak the box to get it as close as possible to blemish-free.

If this sounds mundane, it’s because it was. An eight hour shift, locked in a small, dark, windowless room, working at a cubicle, and staring at the same couple of thousand frames of film all day isn’t exactly how I would describe the fun side of Hollywood. But more than that, it served to illustrate just how many production jobs there truly are, and how varied they can be. Now, whenever I look at a film’s budget, I can’t help but be impressed by the number of people working behind the scenes, on the smallest details, people whose names will never appear in the credits; I think of the countless production companies, each specializing in an aspect of the filmmaking process. And I marvel at just how big and yet small this town can feel.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

My first production assistant job was misleading, to say the least. It was back in the year 2000; I’d recently graduated from USC, having PA’d on various student films before. But I’d never worked a true production, and as such had little idea what to expect. So when the offer came to work a music video with a friend of mine, I figured it would give me a good chance to learn what a production assistant job entails in a short amount of time (I was assured the production wouldn’t go over two days, unlike a film, which could stretch out over a longer period).

I showed up at a studio in Hollywood dressed in comfortable clothes: sneakers, jeans and a tee-shirt, as I’d been instructed. I was met by my friend, who handed a walkie-talkie and showed me how to key the various channels. So far so good. He then took me around and introduced me to his boss, along with some of the other production assistants I’d be working with. More importantly, he taught me some of the valuable lexicon I would need while working on set: “what’s your 20?” (where are you?)… and “ten one hundred” (I’m in the bathroom). Personally, I didn’t think I’d ever feel comfortable letting thirty or so people know I was in the can, so I figured I’d just skip over that part. But I got a kick out of saying “what’s your 20?”, and used it often that first day. I think I even started throwing in things like “ETA five minutes”.

Anyway, only once I was on set was I told what they’d be shooting: turns out Bob Dylan was filming a video of his original song from Curtis Hanson’s film “Wonder Boys”. Everyone was instructed in no uncertain terms that, once Mr. Dylan was on set, we were all to maintain our distance, avoid prolonged eye contact, and lastly, under no circumstances, were we to talk to him. Ever. I nodded, figuring it was cool enough that I’d get to see Bob Dylan in person. And sure enough, when he walked on set, it was a bit of a thrill that he was standing only five feet away.

I didn’t expect what came next, however: in between shots, to help pass the time, Dylan decided to practice. He started strumming his guitar, and singing songs like “Hurricane” under his breath. I looked at the other production assistants around me, and could see the same barely-suppressed excitement on their faces: we were basically being treated to a private concert by the man himself. I didn’t think the day could get better from there, but it did.

Because of my limited experience, I was plucked from the set and sent to work the monitors in the video village, the area where the director (Hanson), the producers, and the talent all gathered to watch the various takes; in this case, the talent included Dylan, as well as Michael Douglas, who was there to reprise his role in the film for some scenes with Dylan. My job was simple: press play and rewind. I took drink orders, handed out coffee and pastries, and then settled in a chair next to Michael Douglas for the next couple of hours. The highlight came when everyone wandered away except for myself and Bob Dylan; figuring it would be rude not to talk to him, I struck up a conversation and we chatted for about five minutes. At that point, I couldn’t believe they were actually paying me to be there! When the day finally ended, I walked away whistling, having had one of my best days in this city. This is showbiz, I thought to myself; I now have a PRODUCTION ASSISTANT job, and I love it!

Two weeks later, I PA’d a music video in downtown Long Beach, for some crappy boy band that no one had ever heard of. It rained… I was stuck outside, hauling cables and lights, from 10p.m. to 9a.m…. I made $75… I got yelled at twice by the psychotic 2^nd Assistant Director… and I broke my walkie-talkie (and nearly my hand) when some idiot slammed a metal pipe into it. As the rain poured down, I marveled at just how much I had been misled.

This is showbiz, I thought to myself the next morning as I trudged home; and I now have a production assistant job. Yay.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ve been hearing tidbits for months now, from various friends and family in the northeast, about a film studio or two popping up in that area.  The talk centers around the number and variety of film and television production jobs that will be available, in complexes that are set to rival those found anywhere in the country (even Los Angeles).  As time went on, the chatter grew, and so I decided to look into the claims; and soon, two words stood out above the others, both in terms of scope and ambition: Hollywood East.

That’s right, film and television production is coming to Massachusetts in a way never-before seen on the east coast.  As of now, there are two distinct groups emerging as favorites to build studios within the state.  The first, Plymouth Rock Studios, is a film and television digital complex set to open in Plymouth, MA; the second is Los Angeles-based International Studio Group, which intends to build eleven sound stages and related office space in SouthField, MA.  Both of these groups intend to work together, not in competition, to ensure that the larger goal of creating a viable studio system in the state is reached.

These are no fly-by-night endeavors, the kind of operations that build themselves up on promises but fail to deliver for whatever reason (anything from a lack of funding, to a lack of approval by the local legislature).  No, these are legitimate collections of Hollywood producers and executives, including a former producer who once ran Paramount, Walt Disney and Touchstone studios.  And yet despite coming from outside the state, these men and women are showing a keen understanding of how to work with local governments and business leaders, to not only gain approval for the land they need, but also to clearly and concisely lay out their plan for what will be an ambitious business model (one that could conceivably bring 7,000 jobs to their respective regions).  There’s also a youth-oriented feeling among many of the proposals for the studio development, with the goal of retaining a creative and young workforce who would otherwise be lured to California or New York in their pursuit of filmmaking opportunities.

And yet this kind of ambition should come as no surprise to anyone who’s followed the film tax credit battles that have been waged these past few years between states like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Michigan.  Each one is looking to make the claim of being THE BEST home for filmmaking outside of Hollywood, and are competing to be just that.  Such grand-scale plans are exactly what Massachusetts has been searching for ever since the 25% film tax credit that was created in 2006 (and subsequently expanded in July 2007).  There have even been public hearings on proposed legislation to give an equally-high tax credit on studio construction costs as well.  Already the state has seen a dramatic increase in production in the Commonwealth, and if the first step of their intent was to attract the filmmakers, then the next logical step seems to be keeping them there.  Hence the idea behind Hollywood East.

Next up, now that we know who the players are, we’ll take a look at what they’re offering, everything from specific jobs in film and television, to increases in tourism…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

As we mentioned in part I, good product placement is based on a few simple tenets: keep it subtle, make the product look enticing, and create a lasting image.  Sometimes, however, you simply can’t be subtle, especially with certain products (or films, or television shows, etc.).  Paid branding in movies and TV shows rose to $1 billion in 2004; those kinds of figures can cause some business owners to salivate, and lose themselves in the idea of “more is better”.  But as we saw in the films named in the last posting, if you’re not careful, you can actually alienate the audience you’re trying to lure in.  That’s where advertisers need to think outside the box, to bring in the next-level dose of “cool”, so to speak.

One of the first to do so was BMW, a company that has often sought to reinvent itself with respect to advertising.  The minds behind BMW’s ad campaigns understand that they have a distinctly known product — consumers know to expect quality and efficiency with their cars, SUV’s, and motorcycles.  And yet for BMW, this was not enough.  That was why they pushed the creators of the Pierce Brosnan “007” films to switch James Bond’s gadget-filled car, from Aston Martin to BMW. 

With the short film series “The Hire”, however, the company went even further.  In a collection of unrelated short films, there were two constants: BMW, and the man who drove them, Clive Owen (known only as The Driver).  In an ingenious move, the marketers approached numerous successful directors at the time, and had them structure short films around his character – a mysterious man for hire, who drove BMW sedans and SUVs with amazing skill.  Not only did it highlight the power and beauty of BMW’s cars, it also showed just how cool they could operate under pressure (and gunfire, and oil spills, and car accidents).  Rather than wait for some filmmaker to come along and showcase this, BMW chose to do it themselves, and the results were phenomenal.  Beyond what any mere commercial could do, these short films turned the cars themselves into characters.

There’s one final example of product placement worth looking at, and that’s on the Sci-Fi channel original series “Eureka”.  The product is Degree antiperspirant, and the genesis of the branding in this instance is simple: the show is about a town called Eureka, which is chocked full of genius inventors and scientists.  One of the products they’ve supposedly created is an antiperspirant that is incredibly powerful against wetness and odor.  This, of course, is what eventually becomes the formula for Degree.  Seems simple enough, however the advertisers have taken this premise a step further: rather than merely showing the product in various scenes, they’ve actually shown it being created.  In two episodes so far, the product has been an integral part of the show’s storyline (in a not-so-tongue in cheek admission that the town of “Eureka” needs the sponsorship dollars).  In addition to the placement, the advertisers also run “Infomercials” during the ad time, that show various products created in Eureka.  The first of these miracle products is, of course, Degree antiperspirant.  All in all, a very clever way of pushing a product; the only problem is that, despite the crossover, these two episodes were simply inundated with all things Degree, and it became obvious and a little tiresome.

Such is the state of advertising these days.  Branding will continue, in newer and better (and sometimes worse) ways.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If there’s one topic related to film and television that can promote both high praise and scathing vitriol, it’s that of product placement – or branding, as it’s called.  When done right, branding can (and should) be innocuous — a glimpse of a product here, or a mere reference there.  Truly masterful branding, of course, goes beyond simple product recognition, and actually instills in the audience a desire to possess the item in question as soon as possible.  Branding has, after all, always been an extension of advertising.  But there are those unique individuals who are able to embrace both the business aspect of product placement, and the creative side as well.  It is these people we applaud, because the contrast is often too glaring, and ends up deserving of our criticism.  Obvious instances of branding can actually end up turning an audience against a product.  Certain films and television shows have been guilty of this throughout the years, and have paid the price in the court of public opinion.  That’s because, at the end of the day, audiences respect creativity and ingenuity; what they don’t like are “sell-outs”.  They don’t mind being sold products, they just don’t like it when the intent is so blatantly obvious.  And that is why proper product placement in films and television is such a fine line to walk.

One of the first (and seemingly most innocent) branding opportunities came in the film “ET”, when Reese’s Pieces were used to entice a cute little alien out of hiding.  In the hands of a filmmaker like Steven Spielberg, the simplistic use of candy as a device in the film propelled the brand into new levels of popularity.  The importance of that one scene cannot be overstated: in the back of the audience’s minds, then and now, it is firmly rooted that Reese’s Pieces can transcend time and even space (if an alien ET likes them, then surely all of us will).  All these years later, and the candy is a part of the film’s lasting impression; like the film itself, it is a part of our childhood, intertwined in one large mess of products (the film itself, and the countless toys and stuffed animals and movie posters that came after).  Ask children of the 80s, and it’s almost as if the candy were created for the film (or because of it).

Again, that was simply a type of candy, used in the hands of a very talented director.  That was advertising done outside the box.  Advertising executives are a creative lot in their own right… they know that in order to sell a product in an increasingly saturated marketplace, there are times when one must think bigger, and times when one must think outside the box.  Bigger, however, is not necessarily better, as seen in the films “I, Robot” and “The Island” – two movies that were so blatantly saturated with product placements that they at times distracted from the actual plots (such as they were).  The best branding, as mentioned before, uses subtlety; these films did not.  And while the films themselves didn’t particularly suffer, the products that were placed in the films will always be remembered for “trying too hard” (during “I, Robot”, there was actually a scene in which the film’s main character is complimented on his Chuck Taylors; as the movie is set in the future, the sneakers were referred to as vintage – though in real life, they are available right down the street at your local store).

“I, Robot” serves as an example of what not to do.  However, in the next part of this examination, we’ll look at two companies that have re-thought the idea of product placement…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ll admit it: checking the box office numbers of “The Dark Knight” has become a habit with me.  I keep going to www.boxofficemojo.com, and staring at the total domestic take (over $363 million in just 15 days); I read various articles wondering if the film is poised to make a run at Titanic’s epic $600 million domestic haul.  And I find myself theorizing exactly why this film is generating as much noise as it is.  The answer, I believe, lies beyond mere filmmaking.  What we’re seeing is truly a small phenomenon – a perfect storm of a film.  This is what happens when an excellent sequel (even better than its predecessor), rave critical reviews, a magnetic performance by a recently-deceased actor, and incessant word of mouth come together.

It starts, of course, with the movie itself: wonderfully written and directed, with a haunting yet moving score to accompany the great action and suspense.  Even when the first feedback was trickling in from sources close to the production, before any trailer was complete, there were raves about the dark story and the actors bringing it to life (everyone from Christian Bale, to Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart).  And the early reviews were dead on:  every major actor in this picture is worthy of recognition.  They add complexity to the story, as well as to their characters’ development within that framework.  I feel I can watch this film again and again, if only to see each actor so skillfully inhabit their role, wondering in the back of my mind what’s not being said – the stories behind the stories.  Take the Joker, for instance, who proclaims himself an agent of chaos, and yet so meticulously plans his schemes he’s almost like a deranged mathematician.  Ledger plays both sides so well, and so believably, that one can’t help but sit back and marvel at the odd duality of this character, the way he can be almost two distinct psychotics in one.

People like to point to the death of Ledger as the main reason to the film’s success, but that is merely simplifying the issue.  Rather, his passing is one of the cogs in a greater machine.  Critics were already raving about his performance prior to his death; they will talk about it for months to come.  And yes, there are some out there who will see the film only to watch the last performance of a young actor.  But there are so many more who will be pulled in for the other reasons mentioned above. 

Look at the overwhelmingly positive collection of reviews.  It is so rare to see critics getting behind a summer comic book movie, usually because they are so lean on story or character development.  Not so in this case: out of 247 reviews on www.rottentomatoes.com, only 14 are negative.  Read those reviews, and they’re less analytical assessments of the film, and more excited examinations of why the film is so good. 

The best part is, the film actually manages to live up to the intense hype.  What you read in the reviews is the same thing you hear from the average filmgoer; you can feel a breathless kind of enjoyment, can see a “there are so many reasons this film was good I can’t even pick one” gleam in the eye. 

Which, in the end, might be the best explanation for why this film continues to do so well: seeing it once (or twice) is simply not enough.

**Note:  I have to say, I’ll be amazed if the film passes “Titanic” for the domestic box office record. Think about it this way: let’s say at best that “The Dark Knight” grosses approximately $18 million tomorrow and another $12 million on Sunday (at BEST!!!)…  that would put the total box office at just under the $400 million mark.  That would mean that the film would have to earn another $200 million just to tie “Titanic”’s record.  To put it in perspective, that’s almost the entire domestic box office take of ‘Batman Begins’!  It’s a staggering figure when you think of it on those terms.

The one silver lining in all of this is that ‘The Dark Knight’ is on pace to reach the $400 million mark within 20 days (maybe 25)– obliterating the old record of 43 days set by ‘Shrek 2′.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!