Do you think there’s room in the amateur movie scene for a movie that not only portrays the hacker subculture, (and by ‘hackers’ we mean ‘really experienced computer users’ not just the ‘evil’ ones) but literally swims in it, twisting and turning around it, weaving in and out of it, wrapping itself around it and being wrapped inside it, like a Klein bottle? I mean, there’s a market for it, yes, but the market consists of, well, people like us. Could a technical movie be a success on film festivals? And what advice would you give us? (Other than “get a life and do something useful.")

--Elmer

Yes, Elver, yes. There is definitely room in the film universe for a uber-geek movie, be it a thriller, a drama, a comedy or whatever. Film festivals would love it, and even if your film didn’t cross over to become a giant mainstream movie, who cares?

Let me offer proof by way of comparison. Take Jim Taylor and Alexander Payne’s excellent Sideways, which is overwhelmingly obsessed with wine in ways that no normal audience member could hope to fathom. Even though we don’t really understand the intricacies of what they’re discussing – I dare you to find a topic less cinematic than pinot noir grapes – we believe the characters know what they’re talking about, and that helps make it fascinating. Sideways is a wine-geek movie, and if it hadn’t been brilliant on all its other levels, it still would have had a following among oenophiles.

An even closer comparison is Shane Carruth’s Primer. Although it only progressed slightly beyond the festival circuit, it’s certain to do great on DVD. Like Pi before it, Primer consists of geeky people saying a lot of ponderous gibberish without any nod to audience understanding. I loved it.

So by all means, make your geek movie. Hell, shoot it in Tallinn. Just make sure that while you’re being accurate and honest with all the techie details, you’re also being accurate and honest with the human emotions in the story. Do it right, do it well, and I’ll be the first in line.

I have just been finishing my first feature film, which has been entered now to Cannes. I have written, cast, produced and directed this project, and had about six nervous breakdowns in the editing room (having never touched Final Cut before probably didn't help.) As a first-time film-maker, I couldn't secure financing, and so I had to take on all departments myself, and spent a year putting every hour into "Windup" (www.windupmovie.com)

My question is this: Having expended so much energy and resources, and feeling the lows inherent in such an undertaking, how does one reach far enough inside themselves to keep up the fight? How do I get some financial "push" to keep the ball rolling? What was your experience with your first Feature?

-David

Thank you for asking this question as I find it important on quite a few levels. You appear to be in the same position as a lot of other filmmakers with a finished film that seems to have taken so much of your energy, effort and spirit and you are asking yourself, “Where do I go from here?” Unfortunately your predicament is not unique to young and relatively inexperienced filmmakers: it is happening to a great many of us.

So many people send me DVD’s of their recently made features (many of which are quite impressive) and are baffled by how they will ever get them seen and how they will ever repay their investors. That is why it is crucial to know and understand the commitment you are making when you begin a movie. You have “spent a year putting every hour” into your film. By normal standards, that is quite short. When I made We Sold Our Souls for Rock ‘n Roll in 1999, I put over four years into the effort of shooting, cutting (I ended up with 285 hours of digital and High-Def), post-production and the fruitless effort of clearing music and getting distribution. To this day, it has not been distributed so basically I wasted my time because I worked for no money. I learned a lot about how to shoot and post High-Def, but when I weigh the plusses and minuses I must conclude I wish I would not have done that movie (even though I perceive it as the best documentary I have ever made.) It’s a heartbreaker, but a situation that is not at all uncommon. I always say that the one of the reasons I made my way in this movie business is because of my tenacity, that unwillingness to ever give up.

However, that was THEN and this is NOW. The landscape for production and distribution is drastically different today than it was in the Seventies when I was starting out. The Decline of Western Civilization cost $120,000 and was the most written about movie of 1980. It stood out in the crowd because there was no crowd. The reviews and articles served as the advertising (the feature writers were spinning in an effort to understand what the hell punk rock was!) and we four-walled (rented) a theater. Because of present day technology there is a glut of films out there and because marketing, advertising, and exhibition costs now exceed the production costs, to get them seen is next to a miracle. To make money on them really is a miracle. I hesitate to paint too dark a picture because yes, there is that small chance that the brilliant new director will bring forth that genius work, but I sincerely worry about all the others who will have given their hearts and souls and fortunes for nil. In terms of the "financial push" you might be able to get some foreign or television sales in place that you could conceivably use for the theatrical distribution or the domestic DVD release. So, since you have done this film, you should obviously put forth the effort to allow it to have its best shot, but don’t let it suck your soul because no movie is worth that.

And those of you who are embarking on a new project, read this young man’s question carefully because he is telling it like it is. There’s a phrase I always use that my friends like to throw back at me: Welcome to Hollywood.

I just watched Blow Up and was struck by the vivid colors and sharp contrast of the film. The films made in the last couple of decades do not have the same "look and feel."

If I wanted to reproduce this look, what would I need? Are there similar film stocks sold today? Would I also need to use vintage equipment?

-George

This kind of question always makes me feel like an idiot because there is no real answer as to how to “reproduce the look” of a particular movie.

Movies are of their own time and the number of factors that go into “the look” are many. Here are some of them:

1. Lenses
2. Filters
3. Film Stock and format
4. Lab processes
5. Production Design/Locations
6. Costume Design
7. Actors/Actresses and the way they are made up.
8. Shooting Style
9. Editing

And last, but definitely not least, the manner in which you view the film (TV, VHS, DVD, Cinema etc etc.)

So having answered the question by not answering it, I’ll say a couple of obvious things about the particular factors you mentioned “vivid colours and sharp contrast”.

Vivid colours definitely had a period during the Technicolor 3 strip process (check out the yellow/gold in the Wizard of Oz) but this period was over by the 1960’s, when Technicolor sold all the equipment to China. (An excellent history of this system is at http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm).

In The Aviator, an attempt was made to simulate the look via DI processes: it won the Oscar last year so I guess a lot of people liked it! In the last 30 years the stocks from Kodak have altered quite a bit, mainly less grain, less contrast and sharper. At any given moment, not only will the above factors contribute to “the look”, but also the particular choices made by the Cinematographer at the time with relation to lab processes and all the other factors.

Print stocks have also changed a lot. There used to be many choices, then there were 3 (Kodak, Fuji, Agfa) then there were 2 (Kodak, Fuji) and now there are 3 again (Kodak x 2, Fuji). Every year there are subtle changes in both the shooting and printing stocks and sometimes I wish they would just go on holiday for 5 years or so while we get used to the new one!

As far as using vintage equipment is concerned, you could choose older lenses which have more flare (less contrast) and less sharpness. The camera won’t make any difference so use a modern one: it’s better, easier, lighter, quieter etc.

John August's screenwriting credits include Go, Big Fish, Titan A.E. and both Charlie's Angels movies. His current projects include Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Tarzan, and Corpse Bride. He also maintains a screenwriting-oriented website at johnaugust.com.

Born and raised in Boulder, Colorado, John earned a degree in journalism from Drake University in Iowa, and an MFA in film production from the Peter Stark program at the University of Southern California. He lives in Los Angeles.

Got a question about screenwriting? Send it to Ask a Writer.

Got a question about directing? Send it to Ask a Director.

If you are considering working in the movie industry, Oliver Stapleton has written a brief guide available at www.cineman.co.uk.

Got a question about cinematography? Send it to Ask a Cinematographer.