Monthly Archives: December 2012

Stripboard Heaven: Top Five Strategies for Scheduling my Indie Feature Film

11 Tuesday Dec 2012

Posted by in Pre-Production, Scheduling

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Last night, I sat in front of Gorilla (and no, not the primate variety) and whipped up the rough draft schedule for my feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.”

Sample of a stripboard for the web series "Dumbass Filmmakers!"

Sample of a stripboard for the web series “Dumbass Filmmakers!“

My previous producing work on the short film “Winner Takes All” (a four day shoot) and the 68-minute web series “Dumbass Filmmakers!” (a 13 day shoot, including re-shoots) taught me quite a lot about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to scheduling. But neither project required as much ingenuity and brainpower as this new schedule for the feature film (a 24 day shoot – hey, a boy can dream!). Here are the strategies I used in drawing up the schedule.  Do you agree with my approach? Please tell me now before I screw up my movie!

Top Five Strategies for the Schedule of “Inside-Out, Outside-In”

1. Location, location, location.  The most obvious consideration in scheduling a low-budget feature is location. Thinking creatively about which locations can double up for different scenes is a big part of the process. The most stressful part of a shoot for me is a company move and especially stressful are two company moves that take place within the same day. Under the schedule I drew up, we’d be at one location for six days in a  row (an entire week for us), a second location six days in a row (another week) and three locations for three days each. I’ve tried to schedule in a way that minimizes company moves and maximizes use of location.

2. Starting with scenes where I don’t have to act. Since I’m acting in the film as well as directing, I thought it was important to start out shooting scenes in which I don’t have to act. So, I’ve made sure I wasn’t acting for the first three-and-a-half days of the schedule. I feel this is about the right amount of time needed for a crew to start to get into the groove of shooting before absorbing the shock of the director needing to be both in front and behind the camera. This strategy worked well on the web series, so I’m keen to repeat it.

3. Keeping the days for potential “star parts” to a minimum. There are three parts for which I’m considering well-known actors. The first part – a delightful part that’s been played by a talented celebrity friend at the last two readings – I’ve arranged to shoot only TWO days. This is incredible to me.

Sample 'Day out of Days' report for "Dumbass Filmmakers!"

Sample ‘Day out of Days’ report for “Dumbass Filmmakers!“

The second potential “star” part shoots three days. And I’ve managed to keep the main antagonist “star” part to eight days. Very manageable. The rest of the film will be populated with less-known actors who have fewer scheduling conflicts. Making the schedule easy on potential “stars” makes it that much more likely that they will say, “Yes.” At least, that’s my thinking. Plus, if you end up having to pay them more than other folks, you’ve limited the cost of that star. It just makes sense. To call an agent and say you’re producing an indie film and have a great three-day part for so-and-so sounds more reasonable to them than expecting a star client to headline your film when not many have heard of you. Plus, sometimes stars bring additional headaches on the set, however inadvertently. The crew might be distracted by them or you might need more resources to deal with a star, like an extra production assistant assigned to them. So limiting the days they work limits the amount of resources going to them. In both “Winner Takes All” and “Dumbass Filmmakers!” we had known personalities and in both cases they only shot two days.  Remember, no matter how many minutes a star appears in your project, they are still in your film! So for super low budget productions, I think it’s smarter to use stars for meaty, juicy supporting roles that can be shot out quickly than for huge lead roles that might require 15 days and weigh down the production.

4. Shooting the subplot last (in case we run out of money). My film includes an intricately designed subplot that supports and pays off the primary plot. It’s essential for the film. However, God forbid, if we did run out of money somehow, I think it’s more important to have the main plot in the can before the subplot. Worse comes to worse, I can always go back and raise more money and shoot out the subplot a few weeks or months later. But I would hate to interrupt the momentum of the actors from the main plot for any reason. And it is the subplot. So if we’re behind and have to shorten it from six days to two or three, we can make hard decisions without it affecting the bulk of the story.

5. Shooting the scenes that require extras on the same day (and on a Saturday).  There are three scenes that require extras in the script and all are relatively short. One takes place outside at a rally, the next indoors at a conference room and the final scene takes place at a house party. If the scenes were long, I’d say I was crazy for scheduling them for the same day. And maybe I am. But my thinking is…we get the scenes with extra’s done all at the same time. Obviously, this is the day we’ll have to provide more food, hire more production assistants, etc. And we’ll have to ensure that we find locations very close to one another or even on the same grounds. But the rally can easily take place outside a building that would house a conference room. Then, I’m just hoping we find the “house party” location nearby. And it’s certainly reasonable in the realm of the story that some of these extra’s can double up and appear in more than one scene. If I’ve got willing extras, might as well use the hell out of them. So I scheduled these three “extras” scenes for the first Saturday. Granted, it’s gonna be one helluva day. But since we’re scheduled to take Sunday off, at least people have some recovery time to deal with all those extra people on the set before we go to a much more controlled setting the next Monday. Plus, since we’re going to be under the SAG ULB contract, we don’t have to pay the extras and I figure it will be easier to recruit volunteers on a Saturday than any other day of the week because of the work schedules involved.

So…that’s my strategy on the first rough schedule, What do you think? Wisdom or foolery? Let me know, my fellow DIY filmmaker friends.

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker and actor living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Advertisement

So you’ve raised $2,500. What do you buy first? Filmmaker-distributor Rob Williams discusses DIY indie filmmaking

10 Monday Dec 2012

Posted by in Casting, Interviews, Release

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rob Williams isn’t just a filmmaker, he and his partner Rodney Johnson have created Guest House Films, which distributes movies primarily for the gay audience. I met Rob after they acquired rob williamsFatelink’s film “Winner Takes All” for their “Black Briefs” collection, which went on to hit number one on TLAGay.com‘s sales chart for LGBT titles. Rob talked with us about his new film “The Men Next Door” and about the process of making a film from incorporating to casting to finding the right distributor. And, yep, he answers that question. What should you do with the first $2,500 you raise?

Hunter: You’ve gotten to the promised land of indie filmmaking and by that I mean, you haven’t just directed one film. You’ve directed six! How has the craft and business of filmmaking changed between your first feature and “The Men Next Door“?

Rob: For me, filmmaking has become easier for two reasons – (1) I’ve gained experience on each film, which lets me better anticipate problems and hopefully be more creative with my work; and (2) changing technology makes for easier camera purchase or rental,  software availability, distribution options, etc. And we have spent a lot of time working on building Guest House Films since we shot our first film, and while the business end of it never gets easier, perseverance definitely pays off.

Hunter: I’m beginning to get a little suspicious of aspiring filmmakers who tell me that the only reason they haven’t made a movie is they have no one to finance it. What advice can you give filmmakers to get over that hurdle? Or, with digital technology, is that just an excuse at this point?

Rob: I think the combination of digital technology and crowd-sourced fundraising (such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo) make it easier than ever to make a movie without any excuses. You can buy or rent a high-quality digital camera for very little money, find actors and crew members willing to work for little or no wages (though I always recommend paying every member of your cast and crew), edit the movie on your computer, and release it online. That’s where the real indie filmmakers are turning these days, and with a little imagination and a lot of hard work, anyone can get their movie made. Now, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is another question!

Hunter: Are you functioning as your own movie studio in terms of owning equipment, editing facilities, in-house graphics? How much stuff do you rent/farm out versus keep in-house? And if an indie filmmakers has $1500-$2500 to invest in equipment or software, what would you advise as the first purchase?

Rob: We have always believed in doing what we can do well, and then farming out the rest. For us, that means hiring a good director of photography, editor, music composer, graphic designer and all of the other positions that make a movie stand out, and allowing us to focus on the writing, directing, producing and distribution. But we’ve never really invested in equipment for one reason – technology changes incredibly fast. That amazing HD camera that costs $2,500 today might be completely obsolete in a year or two. My advice to an indie filmmaker with that amount of start-up capital would be to find a good attorney and use that money to incorporate their business and get the basic legal paperwork done so that they can move forward with building their brand.

Hunter: How do you keep the casting process streamlined and efficient? Casting is one of those things that a lot of indie filmmakers don’t budget for – they figure it’s two days borrowing an office and buying some doughnuts for the guy helping you video the auditions. But if the casting process takes a month…well…that gets expesnsive, right? Time is money. How do you keep on track?

Rob: Casting should never be an expensive process. We keep track of actors we like, and if there is an opportunity to work with them, we’ll try to bring them in. It’s much easier to find an actor you like and who is good, and approach them directly, than to hold a huge cattle call. But if we have to, we post on online casting sites, carefully comb through submissions and keep the audition process to a minimum. And if that doesn’t work, we ask fellow filmmakers – referrals are the absolute best way to find good actors. If another director or producer can vouch for someone’s talent and work ethic, that goes a long way with me.

Hunter: Of course, as an old school romantic, it seems totally awesome that you make movies with your partner Rodney at your side. Is it fun to be able to develop as a filmmaker with someone you care about so much?

Rob: Absolutely! It’s great that we have been able to start our company together, work together to make it grow, work on each film together and share in the rewards. We are both passionate about filmmaking and dedicated to producing the best films we can.

Hunter: You and I have talked a little bit about the evolution of LGBT film. Are you seeing any trends in how the films are maturing? Or are they maturing at all? Should a young LGBT filmmaker still make his “coming out” story if that’s what moves him? Or are certain stories deemed too “passe” and others “hip”?

Rob: It’s tempting to say that we’re moving into a “post-gay” world of filmmaking, where the characters’ sexual orientation is irrelevant. But that’s just not true, especially for people like me who want to make gay-themed films. Hollywood films may incorporate more and more gay characters in a nonchalant way, but indie gay films are made for the gay audience. Our viewers want to see their lives reflected onscreen (or perhaps see what they wish their lives would be). I wouldn’t ever tell a filmmaker to stay away from any particular genre, because we need filmmakers to tell stories that are important to them, that move them and that could resonate with their viewers. Sure, coming-out stories have been done to death, but if someone has a fresh take on it, they should go for it. Good storytelling transcends genre.

Hunter: You’ve now branched into distribution with the “Black Briefs” and “Blue Briefs” collections of gay shorts. (And we’re especially grateful since it includes our own “Winner Takes All”). How did this bridge to distribution happen for Guest House Films and why did you feel it was important? Is being a distributor more or less fun than the producing?

Rob: After dealing with distributors for our first four films, Guest House Films made the decision to get into distribution with our fifth feature film, “Role/Play,” taking advantage of the relationships we had built over the years and the increasing ease with which filmmakers can get their own products out to the public. After the success of “Role/Play,” we saw an opportunity to get other people’s films out there, particularly short films. There are so many amazing gay-themed short films produced every year, and so few ever get seen outside of film festivals, and we’re glad we can help filmmakers get their work seen. It’s a lot of work, but it’s also very gratifying to see these great films reach a wider audience.

Hunter: I know and many others in the community know your reputation for honestly caring about LGBT filmmakers and being honest in business, which is amazing in a field rife with piracy and “creative accounting.” What are the biggest ethical pitfalls that young filmmakers face and what are some strategies for staying true to yourself?

black briefs

Rob’s collection of dark short films landed on the top of TLAGay.com’s sales chart in 2012.

Rob: The biggest pitfall young or first-time filmmakers encounter is accepting the first offer they receive or not doing their research about distributors. Before signing anything, filmmakers should ask around and find out exactly what they’re getting into. If they want to stay true to themselves and to what they want to do, they should focus on developing good scripts and finding good actors, and then simply make the movies they want to make. Don’t let anyone tell you what you should or should not make – create the movies that mean something to you, and that will make it resonate with others.

Hunter: Thanks for your time, Rob. I think it’s exciting that you’re going all the way with DIY and distributing product yourselves, making more money on your own films and providing a platform for newer artists to gain exposure and a financial foothold in the market. 🙂

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker and actor living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).

Version 2.0: The Second Screenplay Reading

06 Thursday Dec 2012

Posted by in Development, The Script

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An intimate, elegant screening room fittingly served as the locale for our second reading of “Inside-Out, Outside-In”, unconsciously expressing the ethos and hopes of the project. At first scheduled for the more grand space on the 5th floor, I decided to relocate our reading downstairs so my WeWork colleague Kristin Nedopak could more easily access the 5th floor screening room to celebrate the release of her webseries, “Skyrim Parodies.” At first obstinate over a change requiring more emails and a slightly smaller room, I relented. After all, the number four is the number of spiritual wholeness and maybe a bit of good luck might follow a bit of a good deed. Turns out, the fifteen actors and three invited guests fit perfectly into an imperfect circle of chairs of differing sizes, styles and fabrics.

Like all readings, despite my best efforts, we started late. Still, as director, I felt is was my responsibility to properly frame the evening and send us in the right direction. So I somewhat awkwardly told our group that the script was intensely personal to me, hoping that such a revelation would increase the chances that they would also bring an intensely personal approach to the night. Building on that notion, I asked the actors to let go any sense of a “professional veneer.” Lately, I find the acting in studio films so boring because a sense of the actors’ professionalism prevents me from relating to them no_egoas human beings.  They almost know the beats too well – it’s like watching an emotionally resonant cuckoo clock. Even at an early stage, I didn’t want to see that happen to my actors. So I suggested they see the reading as a “practice round” and encouraged them to just be a human being in a situation, not a professional actor at a reading.

Just before we dove in, television’s Rex Lee once again blurted out a quote of the night, “Is that buzzing, like, going to go on for infinity?” Apparently, a smoke alarm needed more acknowledgement than a roomful of actors and went off with annoying regularly throughout the reading. But something amazing about a good story and good acting – once we got past page 10, I didn’t hear the buzzing anymore and not because of a decrease of its decibel level.

I’d made a number of changes in the cast of the reading – about half the people were new. Sometimes, it was a result of a desire to try a new angle with the character, sometimes a scheduling conflict forced a change. Also, my friend Zsa Zsa Gershick, an accomplished playwright and director, previously implored me to see different people in many of the parts before settling on someone, as part of the process of understanding the character as deeply as possible. Indeed, the fragility of casting and character development pervades my thinking at the moment – add a few years to this character’s age and another character needs to be younger. If we go with a more quirky sensibility for one character, it requires a different character to step up as an authority, changing the requirements for the actor playing him.

An interesting addition to the evening was Jerod Meagher, an unrepresented actor just starting out at Ivana Chubbuck’s studio, where so many of us have trained. He stopped by the office a few days before the reading in hyper-ripped jeans to get some direction on the Jerod Meagher, actorcharacter. I immediately liked that he took notes with a pen and crudely folded piece of paper rather than an iPhone or some other secondary device. It’s a good thing if notes are fragile enough to be lost. He apparently made a good impression on at least four female attendees whose comments after the reading ranged from, “He’s got something” to “He’s sincere” to perhaps the most powerful – “I don’t know, I just like Jerod.” The ever-quirky and entertaining Tracey Verhoeven went a step further and said, “He’s just like a little angel. I mean, not like one of those fat cherub angels but like a good-looking one.” Also new this time were talented veterans Whitney Anderson, Luke Massy, Ethan Rains whitney aand Charles Hoyes. Whitney, who recently forwarded my acting reel to a director for a mind-bending fright flick for the role of a juicy psycho guy, is one of the most helpful people to know in terms of making recommendations. She’s savvy about seeing when colleagues might be a good fit and has no problem connecting them, a refreshing attitude in this town.

Afterwards, the approval of the adjustments I made to the script were heartening and the discussion turned more to “which way to go” with certain characters and practical concerns for the shooting rather than folks suggesting major overhauls. I even got one, “It was fuckin’ awesome” from a guest. That felt good. I am still worried about the climactic scene being too talk-y and Ann Russo echoed that concern. But we both felt the visual element of the choreography in that section might compensate for a dialogue-heavy stretch. Ms. Russo easily could’ve been a colleague of mine as a story analyst. She consistently airs notes that my foggy unconscious hasn’t yet articulated, so I was especially grateful for her feedback throughout the night on characters, plot and pre-production. There’s always a chance people are holding back their doubts out of respect or fear, but I now feel confident enough with the script to go ahead and create a shooting script to schedule the film and start getting more detailed with the budget.

Speaking of budget, the one startling bit of feedback came from high fashion designer Sphetim Zero, who passionately declared that he would need $50,000 to properly costume the feature. I appreciated his ambition, but warned him that was impossible with our current budget constraints. He encouraged me to open myself up to receiving more from the Universe. I agreed to be more vigilant about hoping for the best, but warned him to think of a back-up plan. We both agreed that he would help me clothe people from their closets for the industry read in February and take it from there.

Once again, a core group ended up at Bossa Nova for late night steak. This time, Dumbass Filmmakers! producer Jason Fracaro joined myself and aspiring social media guru Richard Scharfenberg (more on this effort in a future post). Jason, back from a 10-week basic training for the Army and his inclusion in the National Guard, has a reputation as one of the best guys to know (and one of the worst gaydars – ask me privately) and he gamely filled our quota for at least one “straight guy” at the dinner. Rex arrived late and this time, we were able to order his “ribeye steak cooked ‘medium rare plus’ with plantains, extra pico de gallo, extra salsa” before he arrived. But, just like last time, he paid for all of us with the quick move of a credit card and a declaration that, “I don’t believe in splitting checks.” He’s one of those guys that picks up the check when it’s kinda expensive or a big group and lets you return the favor at a hamburger joint. Ah, friends.

Correction: Ah, friends…and filmmaking.

Cast of the 2nd reading of “Inside-Out, Outside-In” (in alphabetical order): Whitney Anderson, Camille Carida, Marilyn Chase, Jason Fracaro, James Lee Hernandez, Charles Hoyes, Hunter Lee Hughes, Marcus Kaye, Rex Lee, Luke Massy, Jerod Meagher, Ashley Osler, Ethan Rains, Ann Russo, Tracey Verhoeven. Invited guests included Mr. Richard Scharfenberg, Mr. Jay Walters and Mr. Sphetim Zero.

—

Hunter Lee Hughes is a filmmaker and actor living and working in Los Angeles and the founder of Fatelink. His current feature film Guys Reading Poems is touring film festivals and this blog is dedicated to the process of making his second feature film, “Inside-Out, Outside-In.” If you enjoy the blog, please support our team by following us on Facebook, Twitter (@Fatelink) or Instagram (@Fatelink).