Hi Leah. Saw your post here and couldn't help but want to respond. I think that "losing site of the big picture" is just a normal part of the process with doc making -- particularly, if you are going it alone and with minimal collaborative feedback. My advice would be to simply put the project away for a period of time (the longer the better). Take an extended break from it. You will be amazed at just how much more of a refreshed perspective you will have (with respect to your story) once you return to working on it. Good luck!
The Mentoring Room - Ask the Working Pros
This is a Public Topic geared towards first-time filmmakers. Professional members of The D-Word will come by and answer your questions about documentary filmmaking.
Good to meet you and thanks for the advice. The trick is, the doc is about my father learning to fly airplanes again after 40 years. He hasn't had his license all this time, there is a long stoy behind why. The idea was that I would follow him until he got his license again and dip back into some of the issues behind why he was barred from flying - encounter with mental illnes, loss of two loved ones in plane crashes. Good idea in theory.
It turns out that he contacted transport Canada and they just reinstated his license. They send it to him in the mail, just like that. Gahd. This despite the fact he told me it would be a long process to get it again. Then I find out today that he's been booking classes behind my back! Sneaky devil. I think he's tired of having film crews around poking into his life. Fair enough.
So the thing is, I do feel a certain pressure to follow the story.
What's keeping you busy right now?
Leah, for sure there's a story about my family's reaction to being filmed, but I don't think it's nearly as interesting or significant as the story at hand. That's why I saved it for the dvd. But nobody wants to hear the filmmaker whining about how hard it all is (other than fellow filmmakers). Because it's a whole lot harder for your family members dealing with a lens in their face.
Oh, my mistake, Leah. Something about your post caused me to think you were in post-production.
In regards to your circumstance:
I think so much about [verite/direct cinema] doc making is just placing yourself in situations and circumstances where your gut tells you a compelling story might take shape. It certainly seems to me that your idea for this doc was a good one. Obviously, it is difficult (if not impossible) if your subject is reluctant.
As for me, I am patiently chipping away, one tiny little baby step at a time, towards completion of my humble little doc, Blue Devils. Thanks for asking! :)
Okay, this is a big one.
I've got enough material together to start cutting together a 6-12 minute promo of a 55-minute piece, and I want to start shopping it around to get development grants for post-production. (I have found that it takes more than final cut pro and hope to master the nuances of video editing, and that I should probably get some help...)
However, even though I'm not a member of the Writer's Guild, AND I only work with unscripted non-fiction, if I'd be crossing the picket line by pitching.
Now, I don't intend to
sell the movie until the Writer's strike is resolved, but I don't know if it's okay to move forward with it.
One more thing - I'm thinking about applying to ITVS for finishing funds, but this is my first documentary. Where can I find a documentary co-producer that I can apply with in my area?
I will be starting the dig for archival materials for my historical documentary. I'm noting which archives the historical docs that I love use, but does anyone have any other advice on where to start and how to avoid archives that require a Ken Burns budget? My film looks at four events in modern history - The Lisbon Earthquake of 1755, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and September 11th.
Thanks Katya for your advice on advisors!
One more - There are about three songs that I really want for my film. I've seen many documentaries with popular songs and I know that we don't usually have the budgets of hollywood. Are there any tricks to gaining the rights to use these songs without breaking the budget?
Brian - what's your film actually about? Also, what stage are you in now - it sounds as if you have shot already.
Monica - archive and music rights can be very, very expensive - that's exactly why Ken Burns has those $$$$ budgets.
Monica - Re archive footage, you'll pay an awful lot if you go the traditional route of archive libraries/banks. Your best bet is to either find private collectors who own the rights to the footage and would be happy to let you use them for free or a small discreet donation. Other than that, you can also try to approach small local museums/trusts/organisations/TV stations that would not be as greedy as big commercial cos.
Music - check this D.I.Y guide: http://www.clearance.com/get_yourself.htm
Alternatively, you could get someone (friend/student in need of portfolio) to create something for you that sounds "similar" for your film, and sign the rights off to you.
In any way, budget constraints always send you on long and tortuous roads.
Brian, since you are in Austin, recommend you join the Austin Film Society if you are not already a member. There have a healthy doc membership and it would be a great way to network and potentially find a more experienced producer who's interested in your project. As far as the Writer's Strike, not sure I see how you would be crossing the picket line to pitch. Unless you already have a lead, there's relatively little development money from networks or cable entities for first-time filmmakers. You'd probably be better to go the grant route. Like John, we'd want to know more about your film to advise further.
Monica, D-Worder Robert Richter's last film was about the A-bomb in Japan. If he doesn't answer here first, suggest you look him up in the People link above and e-mail him about his experiences finding archival from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. For Auschwitz, recommend trying the National Archives and the U.S. Holocaust Museum.
In reply to Danielle Fautrat's post on Wed 14 Nov 2007 :
Thank you very much Danielle for your great advice - this is just what I needed.
In reply to Erica Ginsberg's post on Wed 14 Nov 2007 :
Thanks for the great tip Erica - I will be sure to look him up.
John and Erica - The documentary is called "Makers."
If you'll recall, I'm doing the feature-length documentary interviewing Prime Ministers and such in New Zealand. I know I'm in over my head so I thought I'd get some experience by filming events at an event in Austin - the Maker Faire, and turn it into a 28 minute piece. I mean, I thought, it's a bunch of cool looking stuff that is strange and the people who build it, right?
But there's also an additional issue that came up - the entire thing looked like it was a countercultural movement - like Burning Man. And I wanted to examine that more, so after I got all my footage (shot in a weekend - the event was only two days long) I started working with the idea that trends in our current society are forcing what was once considered "American Ingenuity" into a counter-culture.
I got the participation of Mark Frauenfelder (editor of Make Magazine - I interview him this Friday), Bruce Schneier (Security consultant), and Adam Savage (Mythbuster) to talk about the DIY Counterculture.
(Savage takes the point of view that eventually the DIY counterculture will, like rock and roll enthusiasts, become the culture, while Schneier takes the point of view that since 9/11, underqualified security personel are treating "different as a stand-in for dangerous because no one knows what dangerous actually looks like."
They're all willing to let me film them, but without development funds I can't afford to fly out to them, so the rough cut I want to shop around to grant-making solutions will simply have their voices recorded on the phone. Additionally, I've got some pretty unique stuff - for example, the Star Wheel, a pedal-powered moving ferris wheel. Sure, other cameramen were there filming it, but I don't think they got the moment that the thing ran into a powerline. (No one was hurt.)
I've put up a couple of promotional preview clips - one of them has already gotten 5000 views due mainly to a link from Fark.com. You can view them all here in 720p H.264 streaming.
Oh, and as for progress - the event's over so I can't go back and film more footage. I
think I have enough for 57 minutes, but I can always scale back to 28 if I don't. (Truth be told, I think this would probably fit best in 45...)
Intro - 2 min. ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"The Counterculture Becomes the Culture" - 8 minutes (Adam Savage talks about curiosity and the DIY culture, robot builders show off computer technology) ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"A Bigger, Better Mousetrap" - 4 minutes (Footage of a Life Sized Mousetrap Game) ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"Who but a Subversive would Make something?" - 8 minutes (Bruce Schneier talks about fear, security, and the danger of being different - some of the more dangerous exhibits are shown)ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"The Ferris Wheel that Got Away" - 4 minutes The Star Wheel is a fun-looking contraption that accidentally runs into a powerline when the cameras are rolling. ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"Ain't Those Freaks Just Grand?" - 8 minutes - Talking about the relationship between performance art and invention. ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"These are our people" - 4 minutes - EepyBird talks about the science of the "Diet Coke and Mentos Experiments," followed by a live recreation. ROUGH CUT COMPLETE
"[Quote to be determined]" - 8 minutes - Mark Frauenfelder on running Make Magazine and devoting his life to the subculture. NEEDS MORE FILMING
"[Quote to be determined]" - 4 minutes on hybrid car conversion. FILMING COMPLETE
"Everything is Miscellaneous" - 7 minutes - an unapologetic break from the narrative to look at all the strange things that didn't really fit in with the narrative but which are interesting enough in their own right to be included. (for example, case modders, craft makers, model rockets, musical tesla coils, self-replicating robots...) FILMING COMPLETE
Conclusion - 2 minutes recapping the lessons learned and what I took away from it. FILMING COMPLETE
Monica - check out D-Worder Denise Ohio's advice on music clearance
Brian - it's very unclear (to me at least) what the above description has to do with "interviewing Prime Ministers and such in New Zealand".
Do you have a 100 word description of your project? A sentence?
Oh, no, it doesn't have anything to do with that. That's a separate project.
"Following Alexis West" is the "real deal." It's the movie I
really want to make and it's the movie I'm spending my life savings on.
"Makers" is the project I'm cutting my teeth and making my mistakes on - a project that I took on mainly to familiarize myself with the equipment I'd be using on FAW, and figure out what I need to do. It was chosen as a subject because it was only 3 days of filming at most.
As for the 100 word summary:
Makers is a 2007 short-subject documentary directed by Brian Boyko about the "do-it-yourself counterculture." With interviews from Mark Frauenfelder (editor of "Make:" magazine,) Bruce Schneier (Security consultant,) and Adam Savage (Co-Host of "Mythbusters,") Boyko asks what the emergence of this counterculture of "making" says about our mainstream culture of "consuming." Are the “makers” on the bleeding edge of the future? Or are they being pushed to the fringes of society because of post-9/11 fear of the unusual? The interviews range from people who build musical Tesla coils, two-story-tall robots, pedal-powered amusement park rides, a giant game of Mousetrap, and more.
In the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who examined American democracy in the 19th century, American director Brian Boyko travels to New Zealand to examine its democratic system. “Following Alexis West” examines the unprecedented peaceful change of New Zealand's American-style two-party system to a European-style proportional representation system in 1993 - and the effects of that change 15 years later. Through interviews with former Prime Ministers and current party leaders, it will show how New Zealand’s “MMP” system prevents problems that we have in the United States, including gerrymandering, negative campaigning, civic disengagement, and undue influence of powerful lobbies.
In reply to Doug Block's post on Tue 13 Nov 2007 :
Ya, point well taken. I was kind of kidding about the how-hard-it-is-to-make-a-doc-about-your-family angle. I've decided that the best thing for right now is just to follow the story and see where it leads. I'm curious what the NYU student response was to your talk on Personal Docs. It's a genre that really seems to divide audiences.
The response was really enthusiastic, Leah. There was clearly a lot of interest. I've actually talked at a few other schools recently and it was similarly great. Doing another NYU class on personal docs tonight (subbing for Thom Powers) and one at the New School on Monday.
Sounds like a really complex subject, Brian. How is the project being funded? And why the title?
John: The project is /not/ funded in it's production stages. I'm paying for everything out of pocket so far. Everything.
I actually brought this up with one of the Prime Ministers I'm interviewing - he taught law in the U.S. at one point and, before I told him it was self-funded, expressed complete surprise that there was any interest in the United States in funding the project, because there's absolutely no interest here in changing the electoral systems here. Everyone here thinks we're the best damn democracy on earth and that there can be no better system, even though they haven't looked at any of the others.
So it's a bit complex - there's absolutely no way this movie would get funded in it's production stages - especially with an untested director. Yet, I don't think a "tested" director would handle the topic, nor do I believe that anyone would believe that a movie about electoral reform would be interesting enough to sit through.
So paradoxically, the fact that no one would possibly fund it and no one would possibly make it is one of the reasons that I feel so strongly that I have to do it. It may be Don Quixote (and my production manager, Pancho) tilting at windmills.
There's other reasons that I feel risking $10000 of my own money on this is a good idea even if it's an abject failure. First of all, I'm considering a major life change by moving to New Zealand permanently. This project will give me contacts and experience in the country so it will be easier to find journalism work. And hey - it's a tough market for reporters - how many of them have interviewed heads of government before they were 30?
But as I said, I can handle the production costs, and I can smush out a rough-cut that looks sloppy but serviceable. It's post-production that gets me - I'd like the thing to look better than an amateur production.
One of the big problems is that, if it wasn't for Makers coming along and providing me with the opportunity for a short-subject, I'd be having the same problem with Following Alexis West as I would for Makers - that is, you need funding to produce a documentary, you need a produced documentary in order to get funding.
Now, I think Makers is a good subject in it's own right and deserves a more professional treatment. But if I don't get it - and that's a possibility - I can still do the best I can with it, shop it around, and use THAT as my previously-produced material when applying for funding for Following Alexis West.
The title, "Following Alexis West" is a reference to Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and is a title less dry than "Democracy in New Zealand" and more serious than "Boyko: Cultural Learnings of New Zealand For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Bushistan."
definitely feel your pain, brian, about the whole catch-22 situation of not being able to get funding b/c you haven't finished a doc yet yourself. but as someone who is only perhaps half a step ahead of you in the process, i think it's best if you approach "Makers" mainly as a place to hone your skills and even make your mistakes, and not so much as a way to have a finished piece that you can then use to get funding for other films.
because if "Makers" is not a standout film, it may not get you much further down the funding line. it will allow you to apply for funds, but you won't get them b/c of the stiff competition. what will really help is to get yourself a producer or Exec Producer on board who will give you (and your future project) the legitimacy it deserves.
i'm not saying that you 100% can't get funding yourself; it's just that it is extremely unlikely, given your subject. so go find some films that you like with similar themes and see who produced those -- then contact them with some good footage and a one-page treatment. best of luck!
In reply to Monica Williams's post on Wed 14 Nov 2007 :
You are very welcome. One more thing that I thought might be useful to you, given your subject matter, even though the connection is not perfectly direct - I have recently seen this documentary called "The Century of Self." It spoke to me very powerfully about the turning wheels of evil in our time, and the documentary itself was fairly well-made. http://imdb.com/title/tt0432232/
In reply to Niam Etany's post on Tue 13 Nov 2007 7:40 UTC :
I would love to talk to you more about Muslim associations in the US (or abroad) that would be interested in supporting my project, either financially, or even as partners.
Christopher Wong - The trouble is if there were any directors making documentary films like mine, I wouldn't be making documentary films.
Adam Curtis' entire work is an excellent example of how documentary can explore complex ideas with humour and irony, without becoming a dry academic lecture.
In reply to Katya Myer's post on Thu 15 Nov 2007 :
Katya and John,
Thanks for the recommendation! I have been reading about Adam Curtis but still haven't seen his films as I didn't know how to get them. I just realized that I can buy Century of Self now and I'm so excited. I really want to see The Power of Nightmares too. Thanks for thinking of me and please send any others I should see. I really appreciate the help.
There are some links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article, you can even watch some of his (otherwise unavailable) work online.
I am beginning the research phase of my first doc and have a question. As my doc will be driven by period still pictures, I'm wondering what you would recommend for scanners in today's market? I need to buy one soon to begin laying down the 3000+ photos (all B&W) as well as newspaper articles and handwritten correspondences. So reliability, speed, and an easy but broad feature set would be most helpful. From my investigations, prices would seem to be all over the place. I expect a driect-to-video release and hopefully broadcast. Any help would be appreciated.
Actually many mid-range scanners will be more than adequate for what you need. The main thing is to be clear about things like resolution and how these images fit into your workflow, technically speaking. What format are you working with? What is your delivery format?
If you're working on Mac, you should check out Scan Guide Pro (available via the LAFCPUG store)
Thanks, John. I look forward to checking the link out.
Not sure I understand the thrust of your "workflow" comment. That said, my intent is to scan images and edit them into my project using FCP Studio 2 including both my sound design and DVD authoring. I expect I will need Photoshop or Aperture to manipulate images? I intend shooting with either the P2 or the XL-H1 for interviews. Specific format TBD although I am leaning toward one of the HD formats. I am also still considering shooting GV's and the like with my NPR (I still prefer film where possible). As this is a one-man production, I expect to perform my own final mix (I'm a production recordist by trade) and simply author to DVD and self-distribute. I hope I have answered your questions? Again, any help you can offer is most appreciated.
Well you should certainly make the decision about what format you are shooting and delivering on. Not sure how the mix of film and video will work.
Agreed. I have some research to do on that yet. I'm beginning project research in December and the aquisition of photos etc. No shooting for some time yet. Film telecined with proper parameters to match project settings should present no issues.
At what phase of my project will I need to hire an entertainment lawyer? I have an attorney now that has drafted an offering memo for a group of investors interested in my film. They are lawyers and I'm sure they will be asking some legal questions. Will I need an entertainment lawyer throughout the project?
Certainly no harm in finding one you like early on in the process. You only pay them by the hour, as needed, so why not?
I've got a question concerning a contract between director and production company, more specifically the part which deals with the audiovisual exploitation rights.
What is an acceptable percentage for the director/screenwriter to receive of the gross income for a) cinema release b) dvd release c) tv sceenings, etc... I know this all comes down to what producer and director agree upon, but just wanted to know if there is an average percentage that is usually agreed upon.
As a beginning producer and documentary maker this is all new to me, so just looking for some feedback or online resources that can guide me through the business process of documentary production :)
Stephen, unless you're Spielberg and talking about a big Hollywood movie, directors don't get any percentage of gross income. If they're lucky, they get a percentage of net income. Which, after all the bills are paid off (a BIG if), is known as profit. And how much is pretty much done by negotiation on a case by case basis.
If you want to shoot film, shoot film. Five years ago we made the move to shooting Super16 for everything except interviews. I think it's helped our projects both commercially and financially.
Thanks Doug for your answer.
it makes sense that giving a percentage of the gross income is not really done, since the production budgets of most documentaries already include distribution advances, tv presales etc., money that is directly in the actual making of the movie, not raising the director's salary. Correct?
I'd been receiving some standard contracts between director and production company and they all included paragraphs where you should fill in the blank percentages for these exploitation rights.
anyways, thanks a lot for your help
One more question about exploitation rights:
what is the average length in years that the author/director should concede the exploitation rights of the movie to the producer? 5 years? 10 years?
Can this duration affect future distribution deals or do they not affect each other at all?
Stephen, I won't answer concretely because I don't have the answeres, but can suggest given your interest, you might want to continue by googling independent producers' "terms of trade" and "video on demand rights" for various countries, and also explore through any independent filmmaker unions, where you are involved (Is there one in Belgium? If not, if you can handle German look at AGDOK's website, and the UK's PACT ). Electronic media rights are a hotly contested issue. "Should" concede is different from "do". Your questions are clear but the answer can be very complex and depend on territory, it seems to me. I have no knowledge about the US, please note.
"Terms of trade" are just the rules of the game, as agreed by participants,where the percentages and timeframes are spelled out across a sector of the industry. In the UK for example, terms of trade were recently agreed between PACT (indy producers/directors) and various public broadcasters. If you are in Belgium and working locally, my guess is you really do need to talk directly with your more experienced colleagues working in the same market.
Maybe see if you can access the European Documentary Network's magazine, DOX from this fall. I wrote a piece about VoD rights for them and you will appreciate the companion pieces in the same issue that were extracted from other sources – especially a compact version of the PACT agreements (really useful if you are new to the topic). Try EDN on-line. Good luck!
you should get Mark Litwak's book called 'risky business'
In weighing my options regarding format, I am strongly considering SD and the use of the AG-DVX100B camera. This consideration is clearly money-driven. I would appreciate feedback regarding the current viability of SD, given the present wave of multiple HD formats and the market. Am I severly limiting my market potential by shooting SD? I don't expect theatrical release. Thanks in advance for your input.
I think you've got the cart in front of the horse. Shooting HD (or better yet, film) will expand your market potential, and (perhaps more importantly) your marketing potential.
No need to sign your posts, Tom. It appears LIKE MAGIC automatically above every post.
Tom: With the Canon HV20 shooting HD video for $800 or less in some areas, I so no reason to go HD. You can always downrez to SD but you'll want an HD copy of your tapes to "futureproof" the footage.
Me, I'm shooting in HD because I don't know what I'm going to do with the footage yet.
Speaking of which – anyone know where I can get a Ph.D. in Documentary Film in an English-speaking country outside the United States?
On the dust jacket of Vladimir Dedijer's book "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican" it says that Gottfried Niemietz, who wrote the Foreword to the book, "has worked on two documentary films about the [then] current civil war in Yugoslavia, which have been broadcast worldwide via satellite." Coud anybody tell me what those two films were, or point me to a possible source of this information? Many thanks for any help you can provide.
I did a quick search but came up with two lawyers by the same name. It is possible he is one of them. Just google (german word for lawyer is Rechtsanwahlt).
Fastest way to the right person is to contact the author or publisher of the book.
If GN has 'worked on' a doc, then maybe just as consultant or researcher or similar that might not show up on a google search.
Alternative, look up films on Jasenovac, and related, then scan credits. Tis possible he will show up that way.
http://www.jasenovac.org/videos.php – Jasenovac research centre in NYC
I could use some advice on organizing my last phase of production. I have already shot an extensive interview with the author of the book I'm adapting. I have a pretty good idea of the structure I will be using for the film, but I'm not locked into it. I now have images to research and gather and some more people to interview. For a historical/essay documentary (Ken Burns and Adam Curtis are my best models) which should come first – the interviews or the gathering of images. I can see the good in doing both first. I have a background in art history and the 20th century, so I have a pretty good idea of what images are out there. Thanks!
Never having made a film in the Ken Burns style myself, here is how i would approach the next steps on (what i know about) this film:
view post production as the place where the film will likely find its voice. as such, you'll want to assemble the foundation and structure of the film AS you acquire the Broll and illustrating material. Even if you know right where to go for all the images that you hope to use in the film, it will undboubtedly take much longer than you anticipate to get the rights to use all those stills and Broll/archival material. Of course, you may claim fair use on all that material, and decide not to pay for rights – but that is a bigger question for you and an entertainment lawyer to answer together after much research.
do this simultaneously with shooting interviews and other scenes that you want to include. But I'd recomend starting right now. You say that you've got a structure that you want to use in the film – sounds like using this big interview as the skeleton. Open up a new FCP project, and save it as "Evil01" import all the usable clips from your big interview, and start laying it down on the timeline in the structure that you imagine. How does it flow so far? Did you get everything you needed from your subject? what else do you need to add? which concepts need to (or can) be explained by other interviewees/sources? which examples in history have stills/film that you can cull from? are you finding the right balance to make the material engaging for your audience? start work on getting all those assets, and by repeating the questions above over and over for many many months, you can start to see your film take shape in the way that you want to get your message through. a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step – and making a great documentary is in many ways a longer journey than that. you've already taken a few big steps, which is more than 98% of wannabe doc makers take, but now its time to jump in the difficult questions of how to best tell your story. it seems to me that jumping into post production, along with creating the beginnings of a paper edit and maybe a white board to outline structure – and you are well on your way! its going to be a great learning experience – and hopefully you'll have a great film in the end as well!
Thanks so much Riley for the thoughtful and valuable advice! It makes perfect sense to go about it this way and I don't know why I was thinking there had to be an order. This is a huge journey, I'd say closer to a million miles. I began two years ago with no idea the work that goes into these films. I Can't believe how much respect I've developed for the people behind this craft. Hope everything is alright in Seattle – stay dry!
my basement got a touch damp – but its dry now...;)
good luck, Monica- keep us posted.
Can anyone point me in the direction of some decent info about streaming my documentary online, i mean how to actually set something like that up. I'm making a documentary short that i'd like to show exclusively on the web.
I now find myself in need of finishing the film and creating a website from which to stream it. I want to go 100% DIY and just put it out there and maybe charge a minimal fee. I guess i should be trawling website development forums (!)
Check out: http://nomadsland.com/content/view/56/138/, http://arincrumley.com (look for the video podcasts from the London Film Festival 'Power to the Pixel' event and especially watch the two videos where Lance Weiler of 'Head Trauma' and Susan Buice / Arin Crumley of 'Four Eyed Monsters' detail the processes they went through for getting their films out there – levering their web presences as much as possible). And after you've looked at those, and best of all, check out http://workbookproject.com for all things DIY filmmaking. It's a big subject and you'll probably initially only want to take on a small section of it by the sounds of what you're trying to do, but it's good to know the bigger picture before starting out I think. Nomadsland might be a simpler way of catering to your needs though too and I've given you the link for their 'About' page. http://www.selfreliantfilm.com is another one to look at.
Good suggestions, Lisa. Have you introduced yourself yet? There's no info about you in your profile so no idea whether you qualify to be a Member. But sounds like you know your stuff, so consider it. You'd have access to many more discussion topics here.
Cheers Lisa. I've had the workbook project bookmarked for a few months and it's one of my favourite sites to visit. Thank you for the link to the "Power to the Pixel" panel discussion, i just watched it, very interesting and just what i needed to watch right now.
I think i know what i have to do but i need to learn the technical stuff so i can put it into practice. I'm off to scour the web.
Hey Evan – I kinda realised that after I posted.... It might also be useful to check out the videoblogging Yahoo group – at the least it'll lead you to great info about optimum compression settings etc... – just type in videoblogging on the Yahoo Groups homepage and you'll find it – but I realise that's not really what you're after...
And cheers Doug – I just did the formal introduction and will get onto the member/bio stuff too... :)
I've got a problem. A key person in my documentary on New Zealand politics sat down to do the interview but refused to sign the release form. We did the interview anyway. On camera, he gave us permission to use the interview in New Zealand's Film Archive and for Online Streaming – unedited – but would not sign the contract.
He's a public figure and it shouldn't be a problem – I don't he'd sue us, but I can see how this can scare off distributors.
Here's what I'm thinking about doing. The problem is not permission to use his words. It's journalism – and so long as he is quoted accurately, it's not a problem. The problem is using his voice and image- the talent release, as it were.
That says to me that my best option, if I want to use him (and he's so key I kinda have to), is to buy a Getty Images picture of him, dump that on the screen, and hire a voice actor to say the exact same thing he said the same way he did during the interview. Because I have permision to use the unedited material online, people can see that the quotes are accurate.
The way I think this would work, artistically in the film, would be to shoot footage of a NZ flag, and have a scrolling screen with a stentorian voice reading:
"Mr [...] was willing to sit down with us for an on-camera interview but was not willing to sign a release so that we could use his voice and likeness in this movie. Because of that, his voice has been reenacted in this documentary.
Those interested in seeing the original footage can go to the New Zealand Film Archives Reference # "X", or go to "www.youtube.com/X" – both of which Mr. X has given permission for."
What do you think?
You'll be able to use the interview. If it happened as you describe it, he very obviously consented to be interviewed.
He's a public figure. And a dick, by the sound of it.
Make him look bad.
He is... a man used to getting his way.
I'll do the rough cut with the full video interview. If a distributor balks, I can tell them what happened and offer the voice recreation option.
When working in news for (Australian) ABC in Europe, I was told on-camera consent is adequate. Did he specifically say no to the images? If not, check with legal eagles but I think you're covered.
You write that this man is a "public figure." Do you mean that he is a politician or a member of a local/national government? I'm just trying to figure out what you mean by "public."
By definition, if a given person is a public figure and they have agreed to an interview, everything they say is on the record and can be used.
In most countries, the only restriction that I can think of would be filming someone inside their homes without consent.
This man is a politician. He holds a ministerial position in the national government of New Zealand. He has obviously agreed to the interview.
There are two complications. 1) The interview took place in his party's caucus room, and we do not have a location release. It's not his home or personal office, but it is an area not open to the general public. 2) The man is VERY well known in New Zealand. He is a famous and very controversial figure here. He holds high national office. But if people in the U.S. don't know who he is, would he be considered a private figure in the U.S. market?
I don't claim to be an expert on ...anything, really, but I do suspect you are overthinking this, Brian. This sounds like a cut and dried case of a Big Swinging Dick messing with you.
If you ask this question in the legal forum you may get a more nuanced response, but I don't think you have anything to worry about in this case.
Thanks – yeah. When we go over the raw footage, we'll see what we have him on tape saying. :)
This is really a no brainer.
A Minister is a public figure. He agreed to go on camera (this is proven by the fact that you have the recording). You can use video. End of subject.
Hi Doug and D-word folks, thanks so much for this awesome resource!
I'm currently in post on a feature documentary. I've been in discussions with a producer and funders who I will probably be partnering with. In looking through older posts I saw that you recommended your lawyer Richard Freedman, highly. I don't know if you're into making public endoresements or renouncements, but that post was in 2003. : )
Just wondering if you would still recommend him and/or if you might recommend another trustworthy entertainment attorney that works with indie directors, and perhaps is not incredibly expensive, in NY?
Or if anyone else might chime in with a recommendation (if such recommendations are allowed)?
Thanks so much!
And major congrats to Doug on A Walk Into the Sea!!!!!!
another question. Could anyone lay out a basic idea of forming an LLC? Specifically: if I've been making a film and it's in post, and I bring on a producer and funders, and that producer's lawyer draws up the LLC and operating agreement, ...this is where I get a bit confused. If the producer's lawyer draws up the operating agreement and represents the film, is it any conflict of interest or am I at a disadvantage because he's also the producer's lawyer?
Wouldn't I instead set up my own LLC, and from there enter into an agreement between my LLC and their corporation? Or is it standard practice to form an LLC with all the parties involved? I want to retain ownership of my film, so I'm not sure how that works.
I don't mistrust any of these people, I just have no idea how these things work. (obviously why I'm asking for attorney recommendations). Thanks!!
I'd ask these guys about the LLC as I'm not an entertainment lawyer. But if it were me, I'd set up my own LLC and keep ownership and control.
2nd that thought. Last money in should be treated very differently than the people who walked with you from the first step.
Thank you so much! I will look into both.
From what I've read it seems that the LLC can be structured (with all partners) in any way, so I could be sole owner and it determines how payments/points/percentages come in and clarifies what everyone's roles and responsibilities are. But yep, I'm not doing anything without consulting an attorney.
I'll keep you posted. :)
good luck, marianne. tell bob and/or dan that i sent you their way. it can't hurt.
Many thanks for the response to my previous question. Now I have another. Could anyone advise me how I could get hold of a copy Jonathan Lewis' documentary "Reputations: Pope Pius XII – the Pope, the Jews and the Nazis", which was made for BBC2 and shown in 1995? I tried contacting BBC about it through their website, but received no response. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps there is some way to contact Jonathan Lewis directly?
Hi Doug- I spoke to both attorneys you recommended, they were both really wonderful and both raved about you : ) (really).
One more expensive w/no retainer, one less expensive requiring a retainer, and both seemingly equally great (knowlegable, helpful, cool).
Many thanks again!!
you're welcome, marianne. sorry i gave you a tough choice ;-)
I'm assuming it's not available to buy.
It could be expensive to get a copy from the BBC as it's liklely it's sat on a big shelf somewhere and could cost £££ to get a copy from the master tape. Maybe you would have more joy with contacting Jonathan Lewis?? Might be a long shot though...
It's a bit naughty but it might be on a torrent somewhere on the web? Especially since it features Nazis there always seems to be plenty of Nazi related documentaries available for download.
Wondering if someone can advise me on sound. I'm going to be working with a dp in January on a shoot in a hilltown in Italy for my first doc. Our sound guy can't do it, and my budget already has me eating beans and rice. So we're going without a boom operator. My dp assures me we'll be fine, but all anyone has ever warned me about (and I'm a TOTAL newbie) is how important sound is.
My dp has done other docs, and I trust his opinion; we have wireless mikes and he's got an awesome camera with a good mike, but again--everyone has always said, don't rely on the camera mike. Most of our work in Jan is going to be interviews and b-roll, but are we screwing ourselves without a boom operator?
Have read your previous postings, was under the impression you'd be shooting next summer. You could be fine without a soundman, I have completed several documentaries without one, it really depends on what you're doing.
For interviews and some B-roll you should be fine without one.
I live in Orte, outside Rome and I've worked here zillions of years. if you care to call for a chat, feel free to do so. Remember we're 6 hours ahead of you over here.
E-mail me and I'll send you my phone nr.
I concur with Wolfgang that as long as your DP sets up the audio well for the interviews you should be fine.
Doing the one man band thing only really gets tricky when you have multiple people talking at one time eg. a dinner scene with lots of people or a hike in the hills with lots of people etc etc, any of these "verite scenes" with multiple people is when an audio tech with boom/multiple lavs is worth their weight in gold.
The camera mic will be fine for b-roll but for an interview thats more than a few feet away it wont be much good. If you take it off the camera and mount it on a stand close to the subject being interviewed it could be a good addition to the lav mic too.
When you go the one man band route its best to acknowledge that it can be done but if and when something goes wrong it definitely takes one person doing multiple jobs much longer to identify problems and correct them than when you have a dedicated sound person doing nothing else.
I shot one man band in a verite scene last week, a demonstration by workers who met at a parking lot and marched a half mile to their factory. It was sub zero temperatures and all was going well right up til the march got underway. The second they set foot on the road the lav went down. I had to march along and try and fix it on the fly. It didnt happen and we had to go with camera mic only until they arrived on site and we managed to rectify. Thats the downside of one man band cause if we'd have had an audio tech he probably could have fixed the problem while I shot on. With only me I had to choose between fixing it or shooting and after a few fumbly minutes I had to give up.
Wolfgang, you can find me at email@example.com. I am in constant communication with people in Italy, so will respect time difference. My latest thought is that I should find some equipment and do my own sound if a situation requires a boom mic. (I've never even handled one, though-
and no offense to an sound people-but desperate times . . . )
So, while I did say this will mostly be interviews and b-roll, I image there might be, say, a farm shot, a pig slaughter, a woman cooking in her kitchen. These are scenarios I imagine that will need additional mic-ing.
Thanks, Nick! Just so you're clear. I'll be there with the dp. I'm not operating the camera . . . and I'll have my hands free. So I'm just wondering if there's a way I can help if I have a boom mic.
I was gonna suggest you do your own booming when necessary, Darla. On camera mic can work in many situations but unless you're trying to be really inconspicuous, booming is better.
Okay. I shadowed some filmmakers once, and I get the point of how to hold the mic toward what's being filmed, but all those dials and channels – no idea. Is this really something I can do if I borrow a boom mic? (I'm feeling heartened.)
Darla, can you pay a soundman a half day of pay before you go to train you in how to use the dials and channels? For what you want to do, it really is not as daunting as it may look. And, once you're there, perhaps do a test run interview to start so you can get comfortable with the boom before going into the keepers.
Thanks, Erica! I think largely I'd like to use wireless mics for our interviews, yet, when I think about those I want to interview for this shoot, many will be women who I want to be in the kitchen cooking or preparing something or a cafe owner being behind the bar of the cafe (there might be clanging of dishes) – so in these instances, could we get away with wireless, or is it best to use boom? Anyway, I think you're right. I'm going to see if I can get a quick-and-dirty lesson and find the equipment. I've still got some time.
darla, you should be fine doing boom. a reasonably intelligent monkey could do it – i should know because i've boomed many of my shoots. what is not so easy is the sound mixing. again, it's not rocket science, but if you are a boom novice, then you probably don't want to be taking one hand off of the boom to adjust levels.
the main thing is to be sure of what you are shooting. if you absolutely know that you will only be shooting broll and interviews, you can forget about the boom pole. but if there's even a chance that there will be improptu conversations between two or more people, bring along the boom pole, and record sound directly into the camera. If you and your DP don't want to be tethered together by a sound cable, you can also look into getting a wireless boom setup. this is kind of the best of both worlds (for you) where you don't have to adjust levels (the DP can do that), and you have freedom to roam around.
Great, Christopher. This sounds really promising. So I can handle the boom mic and I really don't need to worry about sound mixing? If I have a boom mic with cables, I'm tied to my DP; if I have a wireless, I'm free to roam. (But then how does DP adjust levels in either case?)
I do imagine there'll be situations where I will definitely need it. Thanks for the great advice!
here's where my ignorance with sound will be very clear... and i really hope someone like rafael jumps in quickly with advice. but i do know that it's fairly easy to rig one of your wireless mic systems so that your wireless receiver is plugged straight into the camera where the DP can then adjust levels. (small word of warning: some DPs are not accustomed to adjust sound levels while they are shooting...) on the other end, you'll connect the wireless transmitter directly to the boom mic, but you'll need to make sure you have the right kind of cable that can go between. i recommend you ask your sound guy for advice.
Hi again, film folk,
I'm making my first feature doc and I'm in post-production, talking with potential producers about raising finishing funds and helping put together a post team and complete the film. I'm wondering if anyone can give basic suggestions for how such deals are typically structured? Does the producer get a salary, a deferred fixed payment, a percentage, points, part ownership? Perhaps all of these things are done but as the doc is in the editing stage I'm not sure what's appropriate or standard. If anyone could share their experience/knowledge on this, I'd really appreciate it!
There is no standard, Marianne. At least in the U.S. A typical scenario, and one I've used when I've come on a film part-way through as a co-producer, is to get a fairly low guaranteed fee (deferred) vs. a percentage of funds raised. And I mean all funds raised from that point on, not just funds the producer raises. And, perhaps, a profit share. Obviously, if the producer raises more money than the guaranteed fee, they get the higher. I should add this also includes revenue that comes in from sales until the film gets into profit (should it be so lucky).
I'd also be very clear about credit. They get producer credit if they stay on through the distribution of the film. If they leave after post but before the distribution, they might get a co-producer or executive producer credit.
But it's all negotiable...
I understand the budget for this project is stretch thin, none the less you might want to consider diverting at least a portion to a t-shirt or two, espeically if you're going to be doing boom work.