The way it works is this: the first act of my script will now be read at a WildSound event in Canada in March. If it is selected as the audience pick, then the entire script will be read in May. Fingers crossed for coming out ahead in the audience voting, as I’d love to hear the script read in its entirety in May.

Short Animated Film
Nothing wrong with the other entries, but — Wallace and Gromit! Nick Park deserves to win it. It is, however, a crying shame that Peter Sohn’s Partly Cloudy was not nominated. It is very sweet, original, and, of course, excellently crafted.

Original Score
I’d love to see Michael Giacchino win, but I suspect this is another category where the Avatar juggernaut will roll on unstopped.

Original Song
As is usual, I don’t care for any of the songs on the list.

Make-up
No opinon.

Sound Editing and Mixing
It doesn’t seem like the nominating committees tried very hard on these two. It’s all the big films, and will probably come down to more Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker. I think I’d go with The Hurt Locker, because I loved the way the sound was used to create both a sense of place, and emotion. While also excellent, Avatar was mainly overwhelming, which with sound I think is easier than being subtle.

Foreign Language Film, Short Film, Documentary, and Documentary Short
I never manage to see all the foreign, documentary, and short films before the actual Awards, but that’s fine with me. Every year I get to hear about numerous excellent films to go check out that I might otherwise not, and almost always several of them are both excellent and also something I personally can find interesting and/or entertaining.

Film Editing
I thought the cutting in District 9 was quite excellent. Same with Avatar and Hurt Locker, but I’d throw down for D9 on this one because I felt the editing was a strong component to making the world seem real. More than Avatar, D9 gave me room to slip into my own imagination and allow me to forget I was watching a fictional film. Hurt Locker did, as well, but that’s a bit easier with a realistic drama.

Costume Design
Nothing wrong with the other contenders, but I’d pick The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, mainly because I prefer to see the craft awards go to the shows where they weren’t simply flat-out recreating a particular historical era (unless some recreation work is just so outstanding as to rise above all else — which I don’t see this year).

Art Direction
I’d be keen to see this go to Parnassus also, mainly based on the “rooting for the little guy” ethic, but I suspect Avatar will take this one. In terms of creating a comprehensive, visually rich world, Avatar would be a well deserved choice. Frankly, I’d probably vote for Avatar for this myself, and lie about having voted for Parnassus in order to support the littler guy. Or maybe I really would vote for Parnassus. Doesn’t matter much, I suspect Avatar will scoop this up, too.

Cinematography
Avatar or The Hurt Locker. I could go either way.

Visual Effects
Avatar and District 9 are both quite worthy of their nominations.

Avatar will certainly win, but District 9 cost a reported $30M, whereas Avatar was $240M (both according to IMDb Pro, though some reports claim Avatar was closer to $400M). In my opinion, the District 9 crews did an amazing job at creating a convincing world with less than 20% of the budget Avatar had (budget for the whole film, who knows what the percentages of budget spent on F/X only were like between the two).

On the other hand, the Avatar crews created some incredible environments, and the scope and scale of the work is awe inspiring. Both D9 and Avatar animators did a great job making characters whose designs are awkward at best really come alive. I didn’t expect to empathize with either the insectoid Christopher Johnson, or the blue, catlike Neytiri, but I actually did. Both are quite worthy.

Star Trek was decent enough, but was the work really better than Terminator 4, 2012, or Transformers 2? It’s hard to say. All four of those films had good work and bad, though as an actual film, Star Trek is certainly more worthy (but that’s not what the nomination is supposed to be about).

Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress
Precious all the way. I thought Mo’nique and Gabourey Sidibe were both amazingly good in that film. If you haven’t seen that film, you should, though be warned: it is a very difficult film emotionally.

Best Supporting Actor
I loved Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds, but on the other hand his characterization, as enjoyable as it was, was a reflection of some of the very strong criticism I have about that film (about how it eschews character in favor of gimmick, and how the most compelling elements of the story are thrown away or ruined during the climax in order to make room for spectacle rather than story).

Therefore, I’d pick Christopher Plummer in The Last Station.

Best Actor
George Clooney or Jeremy Renner. I thought both were quite excellent in their respective films. I’d probably go for Clooney, but it’s damned close in my mind.

However, I am picking from the available options. I also happen to think it is a crying shame that neither Sam Rockwell (Moon) nor Sharlto Copley (D9) were nominated. Both were amazing. Both were integral to their films. Without those actors, those films would not have been as excellent as they are — in fact, the films may not have worked at all with different actors — a criteria I’d think would be essential to this nomination. It goes to show the fact that acting, not VFX, is what makes a truly great Sci-Fi film continues to be woefully ignored by The Academy.

Writing, Adapted
What a difficult choice. In different ways, Up In The Air, District 9, and Precious are all quite excellent. In The Loop is also quite worthy (I’ve not yet either seen or read An Education). I suppose, in terms of sheer artistry of writing, I’d have to go with Up In The Air (though I’d love to see a sci-fi like D9 actually win a story-centric award).

Writing, Original
I am reassured that Avatar is not nominated in this category, because the writing was far and away the weakest element of that film. It’d be interesting to see Up get this, because animated films don’t win writing awards very often, but being up against The Hurt Locker, The Messenger and A Serious Man doesn’t bode well for Up.

In terms of just writing as an art and craft, I’d probably go with A Serious Man. And as for Inglorious Basterds, it has some really great stuff in it, and some stuff I really feel doesn’t work, so for me it’s not a serious contender. I’m disappointed that Moon was not nominated instead.

Animated Film
I’m impressed that The Secret of Kells made the nomination list. Talk about a great victory for the little guy: Kells is a six and a half million euro production out of Les Armateurs in France, and is quite an excellent film to boot. That it got notice amongst the giants of American animation goes to show that sometimes folks at The Academy really do “get it”. I actually liked all of the nominees that I’ve seen (I haven’t seen The Princess and The Frog). All that said, of course I’m rooting for Up. I think Up is excellent, and would even if I were not a Pixar employee.

Directing
As far as I’m concerned, this should either go to Katherine Bigelow or Jason Reitman. I think I liked Up In The Air somewhat better overall, but I think the material and conditions of making The Hurt Locker were much more difficult. I’d vote for Bigelow.
Too bad Duncan Jones was not nominated for Moon.

Best Picture
Expanding it to ten films has really made things interesting. To start with, there is only one film on the list I don’t particularly care for — Inglorious Basterds (I haven’t seen The Blind Side or An Education). And even Basterds had moments of sheer brilliance, and it’s dialog is certainly far better than Avatar, I just think it went far enough off the rails to plunge out of contention in my mind.

Choosing for this category calls into question what the award is supposed to actually be. If one takes to heart that the award goes to the Producer(s), then perhaps it could be seen as a “most incredible act of filmmaking” award. From that perspective, Avatar would be a shoe-in. It’s hard to fathom that that thing actually got made. The sheer audaciousness of it is in itself award-worthy, but to pull it off so successfully is truly an epic act of filmmaking.

If one looks at the award as an award for “most culturally resonant film”, then Avatar is also a lock. Having made a zillion dollars at the box office, and already inspiring legions of LARP-ers and Cosplayers to create their own Avatar worlds, there is no dobut about Avatar’s cultural significance. On the other hand, popularity alone would lead to some very unsatisfying Best Picture awards.

However, if it is best use of all the elements of filmmaking to tell a coherent, entertaining (or thought-provoking) story in a compelling manner, then the field is wide open. Any one of the nominees that I’ve seen, save for Basterds, is worthy in my book. Avatar is one of the weakest in terms of traditional Best Picture components — acting, dialog, story depth — but not so weak that it winning would be offensive.

And the only film I can think of off the top of my head that I feel should have been nominated but wasn’t is Moon. I literally couldn’t decide if it were up to me.

But it isn’t up to me, and I think Avatar is going to overcome being one of the weakest of the lot in terms of acting and dialog, and win anyway.

My screenplay “Let The Games Begin” is a finalist in the 2010 Wildsound Feature Screenplay Contest, a contest which includes feedback on all submissions and gives the winner an opportunity to hear their script performed by professional actors in Canada. I think that’s a pretty cool prize for a contest, and would really love the chance to hear the script read by professionals and make edits and adjustments to it based on that experience.

The same script was also a Finalist in the 2009 Austin Film Festival Drama Screenplay Competition. I am a big fan of Austin as an experience — I’ve met several folks through Austin who I now consider friends — and I’m proud to have placed two years in a row (in 2008 my script “Welcome To Akron” was a Quarterfinalist).

Their current project can illustrate the power of film to tell the story of underrepresented people, and underscore how filmmaking can be a part of the response to a major disaster in terms of both short-term awareness building, and longer-term documentation that both tells an important story and assists in the analysis of how to better prepare for future disasters.

These students study at The Ciné Institute, based in Jacmel on Haiti’s southern coast. The school was completely destroyed in Tuesday’s earthquake. The Ciné Institute provided Haitian youth with film education, technical training, and media related micro enterprise opportunities.

If you’d like to donate money or equipment to help them keep shooting, and rebuild their school, click here.

(I heard about this opportunity to help Haitian film students through an e-mail sent by Peter Marshall of actioncutprint.com.)

a) Technical limitations: Long-form video is not very much fun to watch over the kinds of connections most people have. Because of this the average length of video that people will watch, according to many self-proclaimed web video experts, is about three minutes. One result of this situation is that three to five minutes has become the standard length for “webisodes”. Anything that is longer than that is considered to be “pushing the boundaries”. Listening to music over the Internet used to be too much traffic for the network to reliably deliver, so this situation probably won’t last forever, but when the technical limitations for smooth streaming feature-length content will be overcome is really not certain.

b) User experience: The user experience for online film viewing is not great. Not only the technical limitations, but the viewing UI and context. Embedded browser video is often displayed too small, and surrounded by distracting advertisements and other ancillary content. The different user improvements brought to online music listening that were delivered by iTunes and Pandora, respectively, need to happen for video. Recent web-embedded players that can go full screen are a start, but the content location and management services for video are quite lacking.

c) Pricing: Torrents and other tools of the theftosphere have created the expectation in far too many people that everyone in the world will give their work away for free (except, of course, when you ask avid torrenters to give you the fruits of their own labor for free). The fallacious argument that is used for bands (that the downloads should be free so the band can make money attracting people to pay for live shows) doesn’t even have a prayer of holding up when it comes to filmmaking.

What video content creators need to do is split the difference: give away free trailers and short films that will create goodwill (because you’re playing the “give us something for free” game) and if it’s good enough also drive viewers to your premium content. Then you need to deliver to the viewer paid content that is as good as or better than the stolen goods available online (and you may be surprised at how high that bar really is — some torrentable video actually looks better than commercially available DVDs).

photo by Sasira (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sasira/3983753349/)

So far the Internet has been a good publicity vehicle, but has not been a very good place to distribute work in order to make money to support yourself as filmmaker. But progress is being made.

(read more “below the fold”)

YouTube and Vimeo may be fine for giving away short videos and trying to get “hits”, but they are basically useless in terms of (directly) making money to support your filmmaking. But iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, Blockbuster, and GreenCine are all making strides in delivering video over the network in ways that both pleases customers and provides a revenue stream for the content owners. Right now, it’s nearly as hard for true Independents to get into most of these distribution streams as it is to get a deal with a standard low-end DVD distributor (iTunes is currently the easiest), or far too expensive in terms of the cut the distributor takes (Amazon).

The lower cost of basic infrastructure for distribution means that someone with a sufficiently sizable system to be a serious contender will eventually provide distribution at a reasonable cost to anyone who wants it — but “anything goes” is not quite what a serious filmmaker wants. Lack of editorial control leads to the kind of wilderness of content that is YouTube, where a deluge of crap can overwhelm good content. Brands will need to be built which are founded upon providing a filter for users, some happy middle ground between the permissiveness of iTunes and the restrictiveness of Blockbuster. Right now, who will pull this off is unclear, though my money is on one or more of Netflix, iTunes, and GreenCine (if the latter can overcome the technical and partnership hurdles and at all catch up with Netflix).

What is especially exciting about all the aforementioned services is their various partnerships to deliver legal video content to various set-top hardware devices. Right now that market also lacks standardization, and who survives as an Internet-based distributor may very well be related to what hardware partnerships they’ve created as some companies win and some lose the hardware wars. Hopefully, standards eventually emerge to weed out the various proprietary systems that thrive in order to attempt to lock in customers to one system.

But the distribution medium that most people think has the greatest potential for short-term profitability for content creators is on-demand cable. This hybrid between traditional cable and the two-way data communications provided by Internet protocols (though it could have been done direct dial as well, and some early attempts tried that) is already in place and accepted by customers. One problem with it is that the user interface and selection of content for many on-demand cable systems is not great (and timeouts that start countdown from purchase are antithetical to current viewing trends — users prefer a system that runs the timeout clock after the start of the first viewing so they can build a queue and watch it in whatever order they want).

The other problem is that getting into this distribution stream is still difficult.  It is great for mid-to-large size distributors who already have relationships with the cable providers, but useless for true Indie and NoLo folks.  Once the customer experience hurdles are smoothed-out, and if the cable companies open up on-demand slots to Indie and micro-budget distributors, this could be a very good way for films that aren’t able to snag a theatrical release slot to get seen and make money in a world where DVD sales have fallen off tremendously.

Even though DVD sales are slow, they’re not quite dead yet.  And an Indie or NoLo entity has the luxury of printing small runs of DVDs as needed, an option which is too cumbersome within the pipeline of a large distribuor.  And especially for films with very limited or no theatrical release, landing a rental exclusive deal with Netflix or Blockbuster is a particularly a good means of distribution since those companies will then do some promotion of your title to their customers.

And in a noble attempt to try to save theatrical exhibition for non-tentpole releases, an exciting possibility is being explored by a few start-up distributors, along side digital cinema projection system providers, to deliver on-demand movies to cinemas. The idea here is to allow theaters to continue to provide the big screen, big crowd theater experience but have a more varied slate of films available without the expense (to both distributor and exhibitor) of shipping and holding prints.

Indie-friendly distributors emerging in this “digital distribution to the exhibitor” sphere promote the idea that this helps smaller audience films find a bigger audience by making it easier for exhibitors to offer longer runs (perhaps with fewer days each week) that can allow these films to “platform” over several weeks or months rather than trying to force Indies to make an opening weekend splash that their marketing budgets usually can not support. This seems quite interesting and exciting to me, but it is a relatively untested approach (some but not most arthouse and second run theaters juggle schedules in this way already, even with prints). Like any new approach, it may take some getting used to (and may not survive the start-up period, though I personally hope it does).

Even though the world of distribution online is still a mixture of user-centric chaos and the usual dominance by deep-pocketed players, it is not to be overlooked considering how difficult it is to get theatrical distribution at this time. Other aspects of the Internet are not to be overlooked, either: fundraising, publicity, and merchandising potential.

On the fundraising front, great sites like Kickstarter are creating platforms for Independent artists to bring project pitches to the general Internet public. A number of projects have been funded through Kickstarter, though naturally the majority of these are very small budget productions — I’ve yet to hear of even a $50,000 film funded entirely via nontraditional means, never mind a $5millon one.  But for your early micro-budget projects, things like Kickstarter can be great.

Merchandising opportunities run the gamut. At one end is producing your own materials through a place like PsPrint, Discmakers, CustomInk, etc. and selling them through your own website (using PayPal, Yahoo! Stores, or any other shopping cart and/or credit card processing provider). On the other is on-demand services like CafePress, Zazzle, Printfection, Spreadshirt, etc.  The advantage of on-demand is the low up-front costs, though what percentage of the sales price you get to keep varies from place to place, and your profits on merch sold through these sites can be very poor — so research the options and choose carefully.

Online publicity is the subject of many books, and I’ll do a round-up review posting of those at some point, but some of the opportunities here are obvious: blogging, participating in forums relevant to your film’s subject and/or target audience, purchasing ads on relevant other sites, link exchanges with other sites relevant to your target audience, and mailing lists (opt-in only, please).

Though there is some doom and gloom looming when digital copies of the films you slogged away to create are floating around the Internet, there are actually plenty of people out there willing to pay for content (and to help the little guy) if you give them interesting content for a reasonable price that is easy for them to receive and play back in some format that looks good and works with the player they already have. And with the lower startup costs offered by some online merchandising options, and services like Kickstarter, you might even be able to partially subsidize your next project.

Most “no-budget” filmmakers are able to work “no-budget” because they have access to equipment through a school, work, or local film/video coalition that loans out gear. True “no-budget” shooters can work with an under $1000 consumer camcorder that has paltry imaging control settings and use only available light. But once you grow tired of just how awful ninety percent of your footage looks when shooting that way, then it’s time to invest in some decent gear. Renting, of course, is also an option. It depends on how much you shoot.

So if the filmmaker in your life is active enough to use their equipment so often it’d be cheaper to buy than rent, here’s some gear to consider:

(read more “below the fold”)

Cameras

HD video cameras under $5000 are pretty good these days. Though I am still a Canon XL-1 owner, I have a hard time recommending its HD successors because of the lack of 24/1080p (it does 24F/1080i instead). I wish I could heartily recommend the XH-A1S, as all my other camera gear is Canon, but I can’t. Instead, any of these three cameras are good options.

The Panasonic HVX200 has become something of a standard among NoLo filmmakers, mainly because it arrived on the scene first. It does true 24/1080p, and accessories for it are very common. I’ve been involved with three or four shorts shot using this camera, and it looks pretty good (but gets a bit noisy in low light situations). My main complaint is that the P2 storage is very expensive.

I have also shot with the Sony FX1, the non-24p brother of the Z7U (which can do 24/1080p). Image quality is great, and you can get Sony brand HDV tape for as little as $6 for a 63 minute tape. Another good thing about the Z7U is that it has XLR audio inputs, though squeezing your audio signal onto mini-DV tape isn’t necessarily optimal.

The only camera on the list I haven’t used (or used its predecessor) is the JVC, but I’ve read a couple of articles praising its low light capabilities and am sufficiently excited that I intend to rent and test one. Also, 32GB SDHC cards are about $100 as opposed to about $1000 for a 32GB P2 card.

HDSLRs are also gaining popularity with NoLo filmmakers. Though Nikon was first out the gate with a viable option, I am a Canon owner and am more impressed with Canon’s offerings in this area.

The $1700 Canon EOS 7D is an amazing value for 24p with interchangeable lenses, but it’s not a full-frame sensor (which means a 1.6x multiplier on standard lenses, among other things).

Though it doesn’t have 24p yet (a firmware upgrade has been promised for the first half of 2010), the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is a full-frame sensor camera, available body-only or with an excellent 24-105mm L-series lens. If the filmmaker in your life can tolerate shooting 30p until mid-2010, then this may be the camera for them (especially if they already have a lot of Canon glass).

Lenses

Quality lenses are the foundation of a shooting kit. I’d rather have a collection of lenses than cameras, because HDSLR and HDV camera technology is changing rapidly enough that three year old cameras may seem obsolescent, but if you know what you’re doing you can still make good use of even 50 year old lenses.

Primes

Primes are lenses that have only one focal length. They tend to also be “faster” (which means they have a lower f-stop number, which means their aperture is larger), which means the lens is capable of both shallower depth of field and capturing an image with less light.

All the primes listed above in the 14mm-100mm range constitute a standard kit of primes (the most likely to get left off a list of “standard” primes is the 14mm). Those six lenses will cover the vast majority of shooting situations.

The two exotic and rather expensive primes, the 200mm and 400mm, are mainly for specialty situations such as shooting sports or wildlife footage.

Zooms

Zooms are lenses that have a range of focal lengths (and sometimes a range of largest apertures). What they lack in depth of field and low-light capability they make up for in versatility. One zoom lens can cover the focal length range of as many as five common primes. Zoom lenses tend to be slightly less crisp than primes, but these days, only slightly so.

The most versatile of the zooms listed is the 24-105mm. That covers the entire range of common primes, albeit at f4 (rather than f1.2–2.8 range the primes all fall in). For longer focal lengths, 70-200mm at f2.8 is also quite an appealing lens. I have the 16-35mm (actually the 17-35mm predecessor) and 100-400mm, and they are quite good for the specialty situations they cover. All these Canon L-series lenses are optically excellent, so it’s just a matter of picking what’s right for a given shooter’s needs.

Redrock: Lens Adapters, Rails & Matte Boxes

Rails and Matte Boxes are common camera accessories that provide support for the camera body, lens, and accessories (rail systems) and facilitate blocking stray light and housing filters (matte boxes). A common accessory to mount to a rail system is a follow-focus rig, which allows one to more easily rack focus under the moving camera conditions found in cinematography.

Lens Adapters allow lenses for one kind of camera to be used for another. Mount adapters are very common in the world of SLRs, but what is presented here is a system in which the lens mounts onto a backplane that is subsequently rephotographed by the video camera’s taking lens. With such a system, SLR (or Arri PL, given the right system) lenses can be used with video cameras, even with ones that don’t have interchangeable lenses (which is most of the inexpensive ones).

Many companies make such systems, but fellow Bay Area residents Redrock Micro are a favorite of many Bay Area NoLo shooters.

The “Encore Indie Bundle” systems above are lens adapters for HDV cameras, providing either Canon or Nikon lens mounts. The “Field Cinema” and “Captain Stubling” kits are rail systems for DSLR cameras, whereas the matte box works with both kits, and the support rails work with the matte box if you don’t have one of the other kits. A lot more info, and many more kit options, are available at the Redrock Micro site.

Lighting Instruments

Cinema lighting comes in three main types: tungsten, HMI, and flourescent. Tungsten is still both the most common and least expensive. You may think that available light is sufficient for filmmaking, but it rarely is. It’s generally either too dim or too bright, and almost always either too evenly distributed or falling in the wrong place. Color balancing with available light can also be tricky (especially household and industrial flourescents).

The two main types of lighting instruments are floodlights (wide beam) and spotlights (narrow beam). Fresnels are a common type of cinema spotlight that is focusable (the beam can be made narrower or wider), while open-face lights are a common type of spotlight. Some fresnels also allow you to swing aside the fresnel lens and use the light open-faced.

Even a single lighting instrument in a dark room can give you more control, and a more interesting lighting result, than available light. Arri and Lowel are two makers of tungsten (and HMI) lighting whose gear is frequently found on NoLo sets.

The Arri kits listed are both open face and fresnel (the first kit, which includes a “softbox” diffuser), only fresnel (the second kit), or only open face (the third kit). All include barndoors for the lights. The Lowel kits do not include any fresnel lights, but the Omnis are somewhat focusable, and they do include more diffusion. Most of the Lowel lights are lower wattage than the Arris listed here, which can be a good thing when shooting DV.

Either of the first two Arri kits are, in my opinion, the best basic kits, and adding one of the Lowel kits would give some lower wattage, small footprint lights to use for fills and other “light sculpting” purposes.

Support and Monitoring

As boring as it may seem, a good tripod, tripod head, and offboard monitor can make all the difference in the world between a good shoot and a miserable one. I’ve shot a bunch of stuff with the Manfrotto tripod and head listed here, and love it. Add a matching tripod dolly to it and life is even better.

Monitoring is also essential. This particular Marshall monitor comes recommended from several sites, and I intend to get one soon. Shooting without an offboard monitor, especially considering how mediocre so many on-camera viewfinders are these days, is no longer a sensible option.

A Steadicam system is used for stabilizing the camera while walking around with it. If your shooter does a lot of “handheld” then a Steadicam can make their lives a lot easier (note, though, the low end model listed here only carries up to 10 pounds of camera and lens — maybe ok for an HDSLR, but not a HDV camera with a Redrock rig). You can build a pseudo-Steadicam for next to nothing, but the real thing is better balanced and includes a built-in video monitor.

Any one of these items would make the NoLo shooter in your life very happy (though, of course, if you’re going to buy SLR lenses or camera bodies, make sure they match the camera bodies or lenses your shooter already has).

This is the best holiday film ever made, in my opinion. A Christmas Story captures both the joy and chaos of the holiday season, and is one of the most accurate depictions of both family dynamics and the mind of a kid I’ve seen. The style and cadence of the writing, directing, and editing is brilliant, creating an homage to the classic Christmas movies of the old studio system, yet at the same time it takes the piss out of them with a much more realistic (and ultimately much more charming) view of the holiday. Even though I’ve seen this film probably a hundred times, it still makes me laugh.

Bad Santa is a good study in how to make a seemingly despicable character likable, or at least empathizable. It’s got a very clear character arc, and the juxtaposition of Christmas and the very inappropriate behavior of the main character is absolutely hilarious. It’s both heartwarming and incredibly obnoxious — a combination I can appreciate.

Scrooged is my favorite adaptation of Dickens’ classic story, one which is quite unfaithful to the letter of the original but very faithful to the spirit. Everyone already knows the story, so the success of this film is based on how well it was adapted to modern sensibilities, and great performances (the most memorable being Carol Kane as the Ghost of Christmas Present).

Most people don’t think of Die Hard as a Holiday movie, but it does take place during Christmas, and there is an undercurrent of redemption and reconciliation beneath the action film veneer. It’s also one of the most compelling action films ever made, due in large part to the personality Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman put into their characters (and their great on-screen rivalry).

The Ron Howard / Jim Carrey version of The Grinch is a mistake that filmmakers should learn from: the canonical remake rule is that you should take something that had a good idea at its core, but wasn’t excellent in its execution, and make it better. You shouldn’t take a beloved holiday classic and turn it into a smartass version of itself that relies on visual advances made since the original was produced, and cheap gags.

The original is only 26 minutes long and made for TV, but it’s narrated by Boris Karloff and the animation helmed by Chuck Jones, for Pete’s sake. Nothing was gained by making the story longer and goofier, and the short 1966 TV version is the one worth watching. It’s a great holiday classic, one set in the amusingly surrealistic world of Dr. Seuss, that’s neither too saccharine nor too silly.

The Nightmare Before Christmas is a musical fairy tale told in a classical style, but with the surrealistic twist found in all films by Tim Burton and/or Henry Selick. It’s ultimately a film about learning to love oneself and not be jealous of others, like The Grinch. In addition to a simple, albeit compelling and enjoyable story, it also has great set pieces and character design.

Finally, I wish there were some good non-Christmas Holiday movies out there to put on this list, but I just couldn’t think of any. If you know of a very good or better movie about the Winter Solstice, Chanukkah, Kwanzaa, Eid al-Adha, or any other December Holiday, post a comment.

But all of the films listed above are quite secular in nature, which suits a non-religious person like me just fine, and should also be enjoyable for anyone of any religious background who isn’t a judgmental zealot.

36 Stairs

Check out the trailer, and donate to help get it finished, if you can.

And not too long ago my friends Tomek Baginski (director) and Marcin Kobylecki (producer), the guys behind the award winning shorts Cathedral (which was also Academy Award nominated) and Fallen Art, released a new short called The Kinematograph (the trailer is on that site).

The Kinematograph

Another great short from a great animation director.

Making friends with fellow filmmakers not only gives you someone to talk to who understands what you’re going on about all the time, but it’s also a source of inspiration, a kick in the butt to see your friends doing things when you’re dragging your feet because some project just isn’t working right and you’re letting it get to you, and — if you don’t take advantage of people, and are yourself generous with  assistance — a fellowship of likeminded folks who will be there with relevant knowledge, skills and contacts to help you when you most need it.

So support your friends, because they’re the only ones who are even going to consider supporting you when you’re just getting started.  If you look at everyone around you as nothing but competition, in a collaborative medium like filmmaking, you’re going to have a very rough go of it.

For starters, don’t ask Josh Olson for notes.  In fact, don’t ask anyone for notes that is unlikely to give them to you (especially if they’re prone to ranting at you).  That category includes everyone you’ve ever heard of in the business, unless either (1) they explicitly ask you to send them a copy of your script or film cut, or (2) you are somebody (i.e. a peer) in the business.  Even if the well known person is an actual friend, it’s usually best to wait for them to ask to read or view something you’re working on based on your telling them about what the project is.  (This is called pitching, and it’s the primary way many scripts get read and films get funded or picked-up — by generating active interest in the story via a short synopsis.)  If you pester someone into giving you feedback, expect the harshest criticism since they didn’t want to do it in the first place and will therefore be sensitive to every flaw in your work.

Getting feedback, however, is not that hard if you know how to go about it.  From the suggestions below, you want to cast about for note givers whose notes you respect and can learn from, until you find a pool of people large enough that you can ask about five of them for notes on any given project (how many people that means depends on how prolific you are — don’t ask any one person for notes more than once every 2–3 months, unless you’ve got a very long term friendship or a very close working relationship with them).

Ask your friends

Some of them are going to be too nice to you, others too harsh out of jealousy, but you might as well ask for notes from the one or two of your friends that you think can be the most straightforward.  The idea that asking your friends for feedback is a bad idea because they may not be experts has one clear flaw: Your friends are your audience.  Most people who go see moves do not know how to write or make them, yet they are going to critique your work anyway.  It’s not a bad idea to get some feedback from people like that up-front.  You will have to guide them, and you’ll probably get a lot of terrible notes from your friends, but hearing about where they are bored or confused is especially helpful since that’s where a general audience may also be bored or confused.  Just don’t take your friends notes too seriously, they are indeed biased, after all.

As time goes on, you’ll make friends with other writers or directors, professional readers, producers, and other industry professionals and well trained aspirants who will both be your friends and also be excellent sources of knowledable notes. These are likely to be your most consistently available source of actually helpful notes, provided you return the favor for them when needed.  But keep at least one reader in your pool who isn’t a pro, because knowing how the average person responds is helpful, even through all the bad notes you’ll get.  (NOTE: Your non-pro friends being a poor audience is mainly true of screenplays, anyway, as those can be confusing and difficult to read for non-experts.  Those friends who aren’t pros are actually a great audience for edits of actual films, because they’re the closest you’re going to get to a public test audience without paying for one.)

Take classes

Even some very experienced writers and filmmakers (usually ones who haven’t broken into the A-list yet) still take workshop classes like those offered by the UCLA Professional Program, or labs like CineStory or Sundance.   Classes serve three major purposes: (1) providing you with deadlines, (2) providing you with a group of people who are obligated to give you notes, and (3) meeting people with whom you may later exchange notes and perhaps even collaborate with on projects.  Classes are the best way to meet people and build relationships that may go from exchanging notes to something more concrete later on.

You may get some terrible notes from classmates, but you’ll also get some very good notes if you pick classes that are at serious places for serious people. Since UCLA offers online classes, there’s no reason to stay in an awful class, but don’t completely discount local courses (especially those at city and state colleges).  Be cautious when considering for-profit adult education programs.  They rarely offer anything that city and state colleges don’t, and are often overpriced for the quality of teachers and students you’ll be working with.

Getting an MFA is also a way to get a lot of critique of your work.  In the U.S., there are the Big Three film schools (UCLA, USC, NYU) and the AFI.  But if you can’t go to any of those, there are also other decent programs out there like Columbia, UT, and various others.  In the UK, there is NFTS, and other countries have major film schools as well.

Join a writing and/or filmmaking group

Many writing and filmmaking critique groups form out of class or retreat relationships, so the two suggestions are compatible.  But even if you haven’t taken any classes, you may find a group in your area through friends, a local college or library, or an online message board.  Some regions may also have film organizations (like San Francisco’s now defunct Film Arts Foundation) that have bulletin boards where you can post looking for a group, and which also host events where you can go meet in-person and try to form a group that way.

There are also online sites which function as virtual critique groups.  Some are just bulletin board forums, such as those at Save The Cat, where you can discuss craft, meet people virtually,  and post requests for critique.  But there are also a couple sites, Trigger Street and Zoetrope, which are specifically critique communities in which you must give critiques in order to receive them.  The whole purpose of those sites is to have users give each other notes, both to help each other, and so that the highest reviewed projects on the sites can be considered by production companies.  Since Trigger Street and Zoetrope are organized forums for exchanging notes, if you give notes, you will also get them.

Only under very particular circumstances — pay someone

Sometimes you’d like notes from a professional reader — the very sort of person who may read your work for a company you sendit to.  Surprisingly, this is quite difficult to find, and even more difficult to find at a fair price.  The only paid notes I’ve found thus far that are worth the price is Scott The Reader’s $60 notes offer, and sometimes the notes I get back from Wildsound and Austin Film Festival.  My general rule is that I will not pay more than about $80 for notes (not consulting, mind you, but a single read and one-time delivery of a packet of notes), unless they are exceptionally amazing and detailed notes.  And I’ve not yet found a notes giver that I’d pay more than $80 for.  Honestly, in terms of disinterested third-party readers that give decent or better notes, I’ve only found the three mentioned above at all.

Also, many people selling note services are not professional readers, they’re professional consultants.  Most professional readers only resell their services outside the studios through festivals (I’ve only found one so far that offers direct service — Scott).  Consultants can occasionally be worth working with — even some A-listers work with story and script consultants — if you have developed a personal relationship with them.  Most of the successful writers who work with a consultant at all usually work with someone that was a professor or mentor of theirs in their MFA or professional program, or at a retreat, workshop or festival.  It’s meeting the person and hitting it off with them that’s most important, though vetting their credits and credentials is also important (con artistry works because those people seem nice and helpful at first, so do your homework when meeting someone new).

For example I always take classes with, and get script notes from, the same professor: Tim Albaugh.  I wouldn’t have worked with him as a consultant, though, if I’d just stumbled upon his website.  It’s the personal relationship that’s important, because otherwise your chances of feeling ripped-off by a consultant are very high (because many — perhaps most — of them are worse than useless, and those that are good can seem terrible if your styles are incompatible).

Get representation and/or work with a producer

All of these recommendations are especially relevant before you manage to get a manager or develop a relationship with a producer who wants to take an active role in developing you and/or some of your work.  Once you do manage to secure one or both of those relationships, your primary notes will come from your manager and/or producer.  Most producers and managers will give you excellent, detailed notes and work with you to see your way through implementing them.  Their notes will be geared towards making your work sellable by them, and may conflict with your vision for the project.  Your job will be to persuade them to stay as close to your vision as possible, while recognizing the issues they’re raising with your material and addressing them in a way that gets at the core underlying problems which may genuinely cause problems for an audience.  That’s your job as a writer or director — to understand the material, and address issues with it in order to make it the best implementation of that material possible.

Working with a manager and/or producer will take your notes to the next level — but you’ll also still want to get notes from about five people for each major draft of each project.  So keep those friends, mentors and hired readers handy, because you’ll always want a group of people you can trust who will give you notes about your work that are as agenda-free as humanly possible.

Also, while notes sessions are different from on-set direction (which will be discussed in other posts), there are similarities, and many of these principles apply to direction: be polite, clear and concise, give the kind of direction you’d like to receive, etc.

Be professional and polite

Successful critiques are ones that are phrased in such a way that you describe the flaws in the work that need correcting in a way that is as positive as you can be without “blowing smoke” and coming off as a phony.  Genuine positive reinforcement in a notes session is easy to come by if you let yourself recognize the hard work that already went in to the work, and acknowledge it even as you observe flaws and make recommendations for improvements.

Nobody likes to be told that they are stupid, or that their work sucks, and hearing that in those terms will cause the note recipient to ignore the notes.  Giving unnecessarily harsh notes is counterproductive.  If you think the person is beyond help simply decline to give them feedback, and if they’re working under you on a production, terminate them.  There is never a good reason to belittle or degrade a colleague or subordinate.

Yes, there are assholes in the industry.  But most of the ones who are successful are not successful because they are assholes, but in spite of it.  Filmmaking is an industry of relationships, and you have to be quite amazing at what you do (or a marketing commodity, i.e. a “star”) for people to be willing to have a relationship with you even though you’re a jerk.  Even then, those who are professionals get the best results from people.  I know a number of prominent directors, writers, and producers through my work, professional associations, and the festivals and conferences circuit, and very few of them are assholes.

Give notes you’d want to receive

When giving notes, even if the person doesn’t ask, give them the notes you’d ask for if you wanted their feedback.  Be as brief as you can with each particular note, while still conveying the point you want to get across.  And give as many details as you feel the recipient deserves.  For example, when I give notes on friends’ feature screenplays, I usually give about four to ten pages of notes (unless they’re pretty far along, and don’t need it), all of them as precise as I can make them, organized more or less follows:

General Notes

• Overall feeling about the piece
• What I think the theme is, what I think the plot is, and whether or not they are coming together successfully
• Overall feeling about the main character, and what I think his or her arc is, and whether or not its working
• 1–3 major moments of confusion, if any
• Any points of confusion that run through the whole script
• 1–3 major moments of boredom / being less interested, if any
• Any boring elements that run through the whole script
• Fix suggestions for any of the above

Page-by-page notes

• What I think the scene is about, or should be about, and whether or not it’s working
• Anything in the scene that’s especially confusing
• Anything in the scene that’s especially boring
• Anything in the scene that’s just not working for me (even if it’s not confusing or boring)
• Fix suggestions for any of the above

That structure of note giving — general overview of what works and what doesn’t, followed by specific critiques on each element scene-by-scene — can also apply to notes to directors from producers, notes to editors from directors, and so on.  And it applies just as well to shorts, TV shows, and even stage plays as it does to feature film work.

Make your comments clear and concise

When giving notes you should be as precise as possible while still saying what you need to say.  Don’t bog down your point with unnecessary details, don’t make tangential comparisons, and don’t make suggestions that are so antithetical to what the writer or filmmaker is trying to do that they’ll just shut it out.

Make the exact point you’re trying to make, even if it seems too direct.  Usually clear and concise is not only more useful, but also less painful to the notes recipient than dancing around something thinking you’re trying to soften the blow.  Rambling notes often wind up sounding like you think the person is soft or an idiot and couldn’t deal with it if you just made your point, which is insulting.

And definitely use correct filmmaking terminology whenever appropriate — technical language is a shorthand that lets experts exchange ideas about a topic more clearly.

A note like:

The protagonist’s character arc is unfulfilled.  You set up his flaw as needing to grow up, but he is just as immature at the end as at the beginning.  It may also be hard for an audience to empathize with him, as he never makes amends to the people he’s hurt with his childish stunts.

Is much better than one like:

You set up your protagonist as this whiny, immature dude who’s always messing around with chicks and getting high.  I hate people like that.  It remind me of my ex-boyfriend, who is a total loser douchebag, and nobody would ever in a million years like a character that’s like that.  I mean, come on.  He’s like that the whole film.  Nothing but weed and chicks the whole time, and he never learns anything about anything.  He treats all these girls like they’re nothing but hoes, and in the end, he still treats them like hoes and is high all the time.  What a total jerk.  Guys like that are just gross.  Why’d you have to make it like that, anyway?  Who’s going to want to see that kind of crap, where some guy is just acting like a teenager the whole time and we’re supposed to like this twit and what’s that all about?  I’d make him a choir boy, who loves puppies and is a complete gentleman tea-totaler, and then people will like him better than the creep you’ve got now.

(Yes, I’ve received notes like that — and even much, much worse ones — but not from professionals.)

Rambling (and, in the example above, unprofessional) notes are going to do two things: confuse and/or bore the notes recipient, and make them think you don’t know what you’re talking about since someone who can’t give coherent notes is unlikely to be seen as someone who can help make the work better.  With notes, it’s not about how many things you say, but how relevant each thing is to helping the writer or filmmaker achieve the goals they set out to.  As Robert Browning said, “less is more”.

Get the notes back as quickly as possible

The person receiving the notes from you is likely continuing to work, and also receiving notes from others, while you wait to get back to them with notes.  This is even true if the person is someone working for you on a project that you’re producing or directing.  The longer you wait, the more obsolete your notes may become, and if it’s your project, the more you may be spending to have someone go in a direction you don’t want.

When you’re giving notes as a favor, it can be more difficult to convince yourself to be quick.  But you said you’d do it, and being timely does get the responsibility off your plate sooner.

Leave on a positive note

End your notes, whether it’s a written set of notes or an in-person notes session, on something positive.  Often the easiest way to get out is a general platitude such as: “great work so far, looking forward to seeing how you make it even better” or “finishing a draft or cut is the beginning of the journey, and we’ve all been there before, so don’t sweat the notes just make them your own and you’ll find your way to a great draft or cut”.

Those will suffice, but even better is to mention something specific you actually liked about the script — a particular character or story point, the writers’ voice, the director’s vision, the editor’s style, whatever it may be — and say that once the bits you’ve given your notes on are as awesome as that, the work will be great.

Giving notes isn’t your opportunity to seem brilliant at someone else’s expense.  Rather, it’s your opportunity to seem brilliant by impressing someone with both your insights and your professionalism.  Properly given notes will further a “I’ll help you, and you’ll help me” relationship.  Improperly given notes can ruin one.