FlickGym.com

"Wait for Me" A short film

Just saw this short film online.  It's a doc, and is really well done.  Enjoy and please comment.

-D

Dead Harvey Interview with yours truly

The website deadharvey.com just published an interview with yours truly about the making of "Splinter"  please check it out and comment!  Lots of detailed post information for those of you who are interested.

Cheers.

-David Michael Maurer

Max Mayer's "ADAM" coming soon

One of the best joys of the Sundance Film Festival every year is that a few films pop out of the pack that will likely make a mainstream mark.  Fox Searchlight made the wise choice to snatch up Max Mayer's "ADAM", a beautifully whimsical film about a young man Adam (Hugh Dancy) who meets a young woman Beth (Rose Byrne) after she moves in a few floors above.  After a couple of unusual encounters, Beth finds herself falling in love but confused with Adam's behavior.  Adam confesses that he has Asperger Syndrome, which is an autism spectrum disorder, and the real life challenges of a relationship take on a whole new experience.

The film could have gone the route of a sappy, tele-drama, but it doesn't.  In fact it's smart, warm, funny, and deals with the conflict in a fair way, even when conflicts get dark.  If you like Hallmark movies, you adore this film, if you hate them, I promise you'll be hooked and enjoy it.  It plays like a modern day "Say Anything" and fans of that film will likely be pleased with the upgrades.

It should be noted that Peter Gallagher and Amy Irving round out the cast as Beth's parents and are both wonderful to watch.  Frankie Faison also plays Harlen, Adam's best friend, as a wise advisor and father figure to Adam when he most need support.

If you're not familiar with Autism Spectrum Disorders, it's time to learn.  The statistics are striking and require massive research.  Every year the Walk for Autism raises money to support.  I volunteered last year in Los Angeles and had a great time.  It was one day of work and we raised millions at the Rose Bowl.  If you have a chance, check into your local chapter, drop some cash or volunteer, and if you don't know why it's so important go here and learn.  It'll make watching Adam, even more enjoyable.

Ok, here' the trailer...

Expedition Africa

Several close friends of mine recently completed work on Expedition Africa for the History Channel.  If you're not familiar, please enjoy a trailer...

It's quite cool. "The series follows four modern-day expeditionists tracing the footsteps of journalist Henry M. Stanley who was sent some 950 miles into deepest, darkest Africa of 1871 to find the missing British explorer and humanitarian, Dr. David Livingstone who disappeared into the jungle. Along the way, our 4 modern day explorers, each experts in their own right (navigator, survivalist, primatologist and CNN journalist) trek across vast unforgiving landscapes of dense swamps, rugged mountains and barren deserts, armed only with a simple magnetic compass and a few vintage maps of the period. The dangers they faced were real: Dehydration, exhaustion, wild animals, disease..."

Set your TiVo's and DVR's -- The History Channel (HD if you've got it) this Sunday, 5/31, at 10:00pm Pacific / 9:00pm Central.

IMAX follow-up

According to LA Times writer Patrick Goldstein's May 26th article, IMAX is finally coming around, this is following another off-the-cuff statement to Goldstein from IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond where the Executive insulted bloggers...

"The bottom line is: We're listening to our customers. We're commissioning a study from a Hollywood market research firm, who's going to see how big of an issue this is. Is it just a few bloggers or is there really a bigger adverse audience reaction?"

It's that last sentence that was the slip.  Mr. Gelfond, any 10 year old with a twitter account can tell that your original problem was a massive PR disaster.  You were written up in every major news source and if you did a analytic search on any major site from facebook to google, you'd see that the lack of disclosure on screen size seriously ticked off hard core IMAX fans, your core audience base.  If your topic is big enough for bloggers, especially Celebrity bloggers, it's a problem period, let alone New York Times, LA Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, MTV, and more.  It is absolutely amazing to me that a major corporation like IMAX can so blatantly and repeatedly blow off it's core audience.

Consider the following...

First, they rolled out screens without disclosing to IMAX fans that not all of the screens were traditional size and charged a premium on the new screens.

Then, when their core audience started complaining, the company reaction was of complete arrogance and denial instead of simply addressing the problem, it could have been wrapped up in one news cycle.  Clearly Gelfond, wasn't thinking with his business cap on and took Aziz Ansari's rants personally.

Then after realizing there was a mistake, the Gelfond suggests that they are going to conduct a survey to make sure it's an actual problem?  Seriously? 

That's just plain stupid or at least stubborn.  Know your core audience dude.  (Eye roll.)

During a followup lunch mentioned in the same article, Gelfond returned and changed his position...

"I want to be clear," he said. "We're going to do something about disclosing information. Period. The market research survey is really just to help figure out what to do, not if we should do something. We are going to give people more information -- it's just a matter of how and where."

Whew.  Thank goodness, looks like somebody finally got through to him.

Writing Tip: Calling Behavior

For several years I worked with an exceptional acting coach in Los Angeles, Andrew Benne (website here) who teaches a Meisner based acting technique.  Andrew coaches consistently working actors and as a filmmaker, I wanted to dial myself in to the rhythms and voice of an actor.  The result has been nothing but helpful in my editing career, directing craft, and storytelling ability.  If you are a filmmaker, I highly recommend working with a coach like Andrew.  It will help you see great performances in your actors and give you skills to help guide those performance when an actor is struggling with moment to moment work.  Also for editors in non-fiction, this is very helpful in building dramatic scenes.

One of the basics of Andrew's technique that can be extremely helpful to a screenwriter, is "calling behavior".  When you're working on dialogue, a great way to stimulate conflict is to write dialogue that calls the behavior of another character.  An extremely simple example: Say two people are sitting across from each other at a dinner table, the mood is sour...

CHARLES
Stop it.

MELANIE
Leave me alone.

CHARLES
You're making that face again.

MELANIE
It's just how I look.

CHARLES
Well I hate it when you do that.  It's like you're hiding something.

MELANIE
Quit judging.  You're the one that called me.

Charles is calling the behavior of Melanie by accusing her of making a sour face.  He's calling her behavior.  She's calling his behavior and acknowledging his action by directing him to stop accusing her.  He gets more specific and she's put on the defence.  He offers point of view "I hate it when you do that" and calls her behavior again this time accusing her of hiding something.  She calls his behavior "quit judging" and gives us some more exposition.

It's a very simple scene but has a ton of conflict.  Every time a character calls behavior, the conflict escalates.  It's an effective technique if you need to punch up a scene.  If you saw the movie I edited "Splinter"  the word "firecracker" comes up between the characters Dennis and Polly.  Dennis is calling his impression of the behavior of Polly.  It instantly escalates the argument.

It's important to note that it doesn't have to be a serious scene either, you can call behavior in comedy or sad scenes.  Friends can be sarcastic, worried, empathetic, or any number of emotional states and still call behavior.  Give it a try on your next script.

For more information on Andrew Benne visit http://www.andrewbenne.com/

ReelClever.com a new site.

Just discovered ReelClever.com through Twitter.  (Thanks for following!)  It's a cool site that allows you to upload a show reel and manage media projects with clients over the internet.

You can build a profile and design your own area with media, photos, and a bio as well as network with other filmmakers and find new projects to work on.

Quite cool.

Check it out.  Tell me what you think.

Editing Tip of the Day: Breaking down dailies in Non-Fiction

For the beginning filmmaker, finding the best take can be a reel challenge.  Here's some tips on how to simplify your editorial process.

1. View your dailies and pulls relevant selects.

Start by creating two sequences.  One sequence is for story beats.  The second sequence is for reaction shots.

In your first sequence, pull any language that contains words or actions of conflict, or story set-up.  This could be any behavior that says "No", it could be passive aggressive behavior, this could be dialogue of concern or dissent, this could be bites or interviews that support conflict for the scene.  Also pull any specific emotional moments, crying, shouting, laughter etc.  You'll also need any basic setup and point of view.

In your second scene, pull reaction shots, every reaction shot.  Any shot where a person isn't talking, you'll edit it into this sequence.  You want everything because you'll take this sequence and organize it later by character.  When it comes time for a close-up, you'll go to this sequence and find the absolute best reaction to the moment at hand.  It's a tool box.

2. After you've formed your sequences, start to structure your story.

Every scene requires a beginning, a turn, and an end.  Start your scene by starting us in the middle of the real life action, not the beginning.  If your first sequence contains hours of entrances into a room, and lots of formal "how do you dos", duplicate your sequence and cut them out.  Start the scene someone where the action has already begun.  We the audience are "entering the meeting" late.  Let the people involved state their case, these are opposing views and conflict based behavior which you should have already saved in sequence one.

In non-fiction, you are using your selects to create a "radio cut" initially.  The pictures are almost irrelevant as long as the dialogue we're hearing represents the actual events in an honest and dramatic way, you should be able to turn off the picture track and understand most of the story.  Later, you can fix the picture to be finished, but in the early stages of non-fiction editing, you are writing the story with the audio.

3. Use bites to comment, not direct the story.

A very talented editor and friend of mine once said that the interview bite is the window to the soul of a non-fiction character.  Your first instinct should be to resist the temptation to lead with an interview bite.  If anything, the bite should comment or provide point of view on what is already happening dramatically in the vérité footage.  When the bites lead, there are no surprises.  Use your bites to provide information to what we don't already clearly understand from your documentary footage.  A bite can reveal far more exposition in an interesting way if it is delayed in scene.  Wait for the last possible second to comment on a scene with a bite.  The more you do this, you'll start to notice that you don't really need very many bites to clearly tell the story, and because a great deal of the story is being told through vérité, the audience will be far more actively engaged in your story.  Take a look at the highest rated reality shows on television.  The very top tier networks programs all use this structure.  Their ratings reflect a deeply connected audience based on scenes that reveal vs. guide.

4. Cover for drama.

Once you have structured your narrative properly, your timeline may sound pretty but will likely have picture that looks like a mess.  Look through your second sequence and pull appropriate close-up shots to engage the audience further based on the style of your project.  You'll notice that you likely have some awesome choices for looks, perhaps from other scenes even.  Remember that if a person is outside, they can generally be anywhere and have a close-up that will work.  If a person is in an office building, as long as the clothing matches, you can use a shot from any office building, anywhere during production, a white wall is a white wall is a white wall, offices all look the same to the general audience member.  Find the absolute best moment/reaction based on your radio cut, use this opportunity to enhance your scene.  It's not just about covering bad edits.  Reactions can make the difference between and average audience experience and something unforgettable.  This part of the process is really something that comes from the world of traditional scripted filmmaking.  You can tell so much about a character through their eyes and reactions.  You have the power in editorial to focus your characters and clearly demonstrate their desires, even with just a look.  It's magic when it all works together.

5. Polish, polish, polish.

In non-fiction, the images and sound were not necessarily shot to work together in a natural way.  When you're done with your story structure and reaction pass, go into your sequence and finish it out.  Make sure you've filled your audio with room tone.  Pan your audio tracks as needed, don't just let the editing system randomly drop the sound in for you, it's never right.  Look out for eye blinks (if you don't know what I'm referring to, you should read Walter Murch's book "In the Blink of an Eye").  The polish in the offline editorial makes all of the difference in the world.

Hope that helps.  Please comment or ask questions if you'd like.

5 Scene Tips for Screenwriters

Here's today's 5 tips for screenwriters on scene structure.  When rewriting your scenes, ask yourself the following questions...

1. What is this scene about?

When two people have a conflict in real life, they're rarely fighting about what they're actually talking about.  Are your characters fighting for power?  Respect?  Are they trying to convince someone of something?  Are they seeking approval?  Or lust or love?  Seduction or avoidance?  As a screenwriter, if you don't know what the scene is about thematically, think it over.  If you can't find something specific and active, you probably don't have a strong scene.  Try rewriting through a simple theme and see how a scene changes.  You might discover something stronger.

2. What do the characters want?

Characters should have clear, simple, opposing desires.  That's the basis of conflict for a screenwriter.  They don't have to be earth shattering, just opposing.  Characters who know each other well like family members or close friends likely have expectations for how the other behaves.  Those expectations can be used to create conflict.  So and so "always" does this.  Those expectations can be debunked for a nice surprise.  They can feed a conflict if one character does what they always do.  If characters have clear wants, clear desires, singular desires, they fight for their position based on that and you have a good scene.  If not, you should figure out what they want and rewrite to sharpen these positions.  Without it, your scene will likely be quite flat.

3. What is the "turn"?

If two characters go into a scene expecting something, when we leave the scene something should change for them.  A good scene starts one way, and exits exactly opposite.  Take a simple example, Johnny wants to buy milk for his kid but he has no money.  Carol has money but in the past, Johnny has borrowed from her and spent it on a bad gambling habit.  Johnny expects to get money from Carol since she's been helpful in the past, Carol expects to Johnny to ask, perhaps lie and say no.  If the scene is written from Johnny's perspective the turn could be Carol saying no; he expects her to say yes, she says no.  If it's written from Carol's perspective, Johnny would need to ask, Carol likely says no, but Johnny convinces her- the turn would be the moment she accepts his plea and hands him the money.  EVERY SCENE REQUIRES A TURN.  If you don't have a solid turn, it is not a scene.  It's an idea, a moment, a slice of life.  It's not a scene.  You the screenwriter must have a turn, or create a turn in every scene.  Even if the turn is as slight as a character changing their perspective, like in a drama, that's enough of a turn to hold up.  You must have a turn in every scene or it's not a scene.  Also remember, we the audience love a good surprise.

4. What does this scene contrast?

In theory, your scenes should stack in contrast, the existing scene could end big, the start of a new scene starts small and quiet or vise versa.  By building contrast, your script will develop peaks and valleys.  The valleys provide relief, the peaks build the tension.  We love the roller-coaster of a great movie.  An action movie might have high level, life or death, peaks and valleys.  A drama might focus its moments on character transitions.  Someone's frustration might build and cause them to act in a way that causes conflict that builds then resolves.  Build contrast between your characters, build contrast between your emotional moments.  It's the pulse of your movies.  The beat keeps us engaged.

5. Is it a duplicate?

Look at your scenes, is this scene a duplicate scene?  Do you have two scenes about convincing someone to do something?  It's extremely common.  Every scene must be unique and necessary.  If there is a duplicate scene or a similar scene in your script, you must cut one of them out.  When I say duplicate, I don't mean literally duplicate.  A duplicate scene could have completely different characters involved, in a different location, saying different things, but if the scenes thematically are similar, the audience will feel it and get bored.  A lot of folks can't put their finger on this phenomenon but when you feel it, that's what is happening.  Know what your scenes are about, not what happens in the scene, but thematically what the scenes are about, and what makes them different.  Screenwriters, you must edit out your duplicate scenes or rewrite them to be about something unique to make them necessary and you'll have a stronger script.  If you don't cut them out on the page, I promise a good editor will do it in post when large quantities of money have been spend on shooting them.  Cut them out on the page, and you'll have more time making necessary scenes shine in production.

Happy writing.

IMAX Responds to FlickGym...

Today I received a letter in response to the FlickGym blog entry which you can read here.

Here's their side to the story...

"Your movie-going experience is our top priority and we want you to know that we listen closely to the concerns expressed to us by our customers. You should know that we care deeply about our guests, and we value your input. We are very sorry that you feel your recent experience with the AMC IMAX Theatre was not consistent with the high-quality experience that we are known for and are committed to delivering to our guests.

What remains consistent in all IMAX theatres regardless of location, is the commitment to deliver the highest quality, most immersive movie presentation available.  This is achieved by much more than just screen-size or any one individual characteristic or feature. It is made possible through the combination of the world's sharpest and brightest images, the clearest and most accurate sound and customized theatre geometry that includes a larger and slightly curved screen positioned closer to the audience, providing angles that improve the movie-going experience.

Before IMAX launched its digital projection system, independent research firm Millward Brown tested the new IMAX digital theatres with consumers and more than 90 percent of those tested said that our these new theatres delivered the same high-quality IMAX Experience they'd had in the past and that they would want to see more Hollywood films in the multiplex environment.

It's clear that some people are very passionate about some of the features IMAX have been know for thus far, so we are continuing to explore the best way to meet every consumer's deservedly high expectations of the IMAX Experience."

It seems that although IMAX is concerned with a quality customer experience, they still fail to address the main issue, there is no rebranding in place to differentiate for consumers that a new system at a local theater may not be a similar size as the older, larger theaters that many have grown to understand as IMAX.  We love our IMAX, giant screens with total emersion.  In fact they claimed it was an old issue at a press event earlier today as reported by the Hollywood Reporter.

The introduction of IMAX digital is a wonderful direction for the company, however there is still much work to be done to educate and inform average consumers that the company is shifting direction.

Rebrand IMAX, so it's clear when you pay for the ticket.  For now, I'm going to avoid spending the extra dollars until I know what I'm getting from this company.

Stay tuned...

The IMAX Mistake...

This week, with the opening of Star Trek (which is a must see by the way) IMAX rolled out newer, smaller IMAX screens across the US.  The fee?  An extra $5 to see an IMAX version of the movie, which according to the company means a higher quality picture and sound.  Now when most people think of IMAX, they don't think of higher quality picture and sound, they think of a really really big screen, which is exactly what started the debate.

NBC "Parks and Recreation" star Aziz Ansari blogged this week about his frustrations of going to a theater that was marketed as an IMAX screening, only to discover he was in a tiny theater with higher quality picture and sound.  The blog started a web debate between Ansari and IMAX Chief Executive Richard Gelfond.  Gelfond contends that the IMAX brand represents high quality picture and sound, telling Reuter's news that they have no intention to rebrand because "Imax is Imax."

"Does American Airlines brand a (Boeing) 767 (flight) differently than a 727? We wouldn't put our name on it unless it lived up to the 'Wow!' factor and to the Imax brand," he said.

It is in this blogger's opinion that Richard Gelfond is out of touch with the public perception of his company.  IMAX as a brand does not equal high quality picture in sound (even though technically it does) to the average movie watcher, IMAX=BIG SCREENS.  That's it.  When that brand is attached to a movie, you expect a big screen.

A perfect example of quality branding is THX, DTS, and DOLBY.  These brands, when we see them, mean that the picture and/or sound has been certified to a quality level.  The IMAX is not one of those for the average joe.

My advice to IMAX.  RE-BRAND.  If you're going to go and start a business model on smaller screens, let us know before we pay for the ticket.  It could be IMAX Certified, or something that indicates that we as a movie going public are not viewing the picture on a giant screen, we're just seeing something of quality, IMAX quality.  In fact, letting us know ahead of time may actually help viewers appreciate the IMAX quality and enhance the public perception of the IMAX brand.

Instead, IMAX has gone ahead and disregarded the complaints of movie goers by defending it's position which in the long haul is probably a bad choice.  It has certainly weakened the brand and now we the public can't trust them when we see that logo on Moviefone.  It's worth noting that Mr Ansari was not questioning the quality of the projection or sound, only the size of the screen which IMAX's response completely seems to ignore.

Mr. Gelfond, remember when Apple released a cheaper faster iPhone?  Steve Jobs went on record and apologized to it's customers for its mistake and offered a rebate to those dedicated enough to purchase the first generation units.  Perhaps instead of defending how great your product is, you should consider acknowledging your disgruntled fans like Ansari in an appreciative way, and work to clarify your brand for the future?

Stay tuned to see where it all goes.