Trailers hold a unique place in a film’s development. Even though they’re usually relegated to the marketing machine, they’re the audience’s first entry point to a film storyworld. As a filmmaker, I find the trailer troublesome. In a perfect world one would want the audience to experience the story for the first time in a dark comfortable theater, with good sound and no distractions, to watch the characters unfold and go along in their journey just as planned in the screenplay. But as an audience member, I’d be hard pressed to go see a movie without first knowing what it’s about. Without first seeing a trailer.

And Hollywood has elevated the trailer to an art form. There are experienced editors who can shine the biggest turds into 2 minute masterpieces that people pay good money to go see. I’ve been duped. I’m sure most people have. “It looked good in the trailer”. But going past Hollywood marketing trickery, the trailer is still a basic requirement for any movie that hopes to gather any considerable audience. But what if a film project decided not to cut a trailer? What would you have to do as a filmmaker to sell your story to an audience without cutting the flashiest scenes together into something a music video could be jealous of?

I think one would have to start with the screenplay itself. Why couldn’t characters begin to be explored outside of the main 90-120 minute film structure? And what if instead of cutting trailers, the marketing was based on moving the narrative along in a significant way, possibly through a series of short web-friendly “free” content? If one went a step further, alternative story-related content could even continue as the “main film event” was in theaters or put out on DVD or VOD. The new content could explore secondary storylines or side characters or even another side of the film’s main protagonists, and possibly lay the groundwork for the next “main film event”. But the new content couldn’t be an afterthought or a marketing gimmick, it would have to be part of the main filmmaking process, right there on the page of the screenplay itself. If done well it could actually elevate the storytelling to another level, something that no trailer, for incredibly good that it may be, could pull off.

I think the writer in me would be partly horrified of this scenario. “So now it’s not enough to write a kick-ass screenplay, but I have to come up with all these other “alternative contents” to go along with the movie? How do you even go about organizing all this? I’m confused.”  But who said traditional film structure has to stay the same for another 100 years? The partly horrified writer in me would then shut up and give way to the audience member in me. “Impress me. I dare you.” View Comments

Traditional film storytelling is a beautiful thing. A film well told will suck you in and take you for a ride. You will almost believe you are experiencing what the characters are going through. But there will always be a wall between the story and the spectator. The story is what happens inside the frame, for a set period of time. The spectator's only task is to give his full attention. To stare at the screen. And to be entertained.

That wall between the film and the spectator is something that has traditionally been meticulously guarded by filmmakers. A film doesn't refer to itself as a film or make reference that somebody is actually watching it. Actors have to be careful when their eye lines cross the camera so as not to look straight into it, the difference between an intimate moment and an uncomfortable stare to the center of the camera's lens, the audience, could be millimeters. One wouldn't want to break the illusion.

And it's that simple illusion, the suspension of the spectator's belief, that defines the film experience. Filmmaking is all about working within a set of rules, inside the frame, to entertain spectators. But what happens if you get rid of all those rules, if you get rid of the frame itself and you break down the wall that separates the story and the audience? Madness? Where would you even start?

The beautiful thing about the craft of film are the rules themselves. After all, they're there for a reason. A storyteller needs a framework to tell his story. And film is the ultimate storytelling framework. But what if the madness worked? What if one broke film's frame and told a story in multiple screens across multiple mediums? What if one broke film's time limit and told a story that varied in length in each individual viewing? And what if one broke film's wall of illusion and literally involved the audience in the story? Could it work? And most importantly... Could it be easy to follow and not be terribly cheesy?

"It" would have to have it's own set of rules. "It" would have to create it's own unique wall of illusion. "It" would have to create a new storytelling framework that could be repeated. Then... Maybe.

Here's the challenge:

• Tell a story that happens in more than one "screen".
• Tell a story that takes place in a "non-standard" time length.
• Tell a story that directly involves the audience in some aspect of the storytelling.
• Tell a story that is easy to understand and to follow.

What are the tools? Everything.

Shit...

View Comments

Every year, thousands of independent filmmakers scam their friends & families, sell their bodies, trade with the devil or con unsuspecting investors into giving them just enough money to make a feature film (over 9,000 entries in Sundance Film Festival 09!). Never mind the quality of all those films, think about the stories they tell: even though many may coincidentally share similar themes, every single one of those films tells a unique story with unique characters.

Why?

Does the world really need that many examples of filmmakers personal visions? (Over 9,000! for how many slots? And of those selected, the handful that are nominated for some award, or even win, may not be guaranteed the most basic of theatrical distribution and have a hell of a time paying back investors)

Here's the stupid idea: imagine that all those movies, all 9,000 of them, were not just unique stories with unique characters, but were linked to each other. Maybe in groups of 3, 5 or 10. What if each one of those groups of films not only shared production resources, but shared a story. What if characters moved back and forth between projects and stories continued beyond each individual film? A film wouldn't be just a film anymore, it would be part of something bigger, a story world. Indie film would be more like... TV. Yes, TV at it's best. And it would no longer be "independent", but "collaborative". And more importantly, it would have a product with a distinct edge in the marketplace.

Wouldn't that be f****** cool?

View Comments

I keep hearing talk of how the future of film is 3D. I'm sure technology will soon get to the point where 3D cameras become commonplace and 3D projectors & TV sets are the norm (could those 3D glasses be any sillier?). But is this really the future? What does it actually do to elevate a film's narrative? Yes, the effect is pretty cool (and I'll probably stand in line to see "Avatar"), but if this was the future, it would be a very boring one.

I believe that film is stuck. It's been doing the same thing for so long that it thinks the only progress to be had is in making the images bigger, better & with more tricks so it can compete with file-sharing or other formats of entertainment. I don't think film is really trying. All it has to do is look around: video games, the internet, social media. The landscape has changed around film. And the best it can do is 3D?

So what's the future for film? I think the difference is as drastic as comparing a vintage rotary telephone(film) and an iPhone (the future). True, they both make calls, but the similarities end there. And to make my case I present my son, Axel. He's 2 and he can surf YouTube on my iPhone. You show him one video he likes and he can scroll through all the "related videos" and pick the one he wants to see next. Axel might be slightly impressed with 3D but I think he will expect another sort of entertainment, something that film is definitely not delivering right now.

What's the next step in the evolution? I'm looking into concepts like hypermedia, transmedia storytelling and alternate reality games. I think that's a start.

Axel surfs YouTube (YouTube)

View Comments

60 Minutes had a piece on Tyler Perry last Sunday that I can't seem to get out of my head. I'm no big Tyler Perry fan, I only sat through "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" recently because I was researching some crew that worked on it, and I can't say it was my cup of tea. But still, it's a movie that I will probably never forget. And that puts it above most of the films, TV shows or web content that I consume.

• Tyler Perry most definitely has a style (even though it may not be my favorite)
• Tyler Perry most definitely has an audience (even though it might not be me)

How many filmmakers can actually say they've achieved a style and an audience? And how many filmmakers can actually say they've created a model around their particular vision, which guarantees them steady work and in which they are in complete control? It's because of this that I am a huge Tyler Perry fan.

I think Perry represents an ideal very much fitting the times. When production seems stagnant and industry veterans have trouble enough finding work, what is a young filmmaker's place? To keep doing his damnedest to break-in the system? Or to break-out?

Tyler Perry, the guy who wrote, produced and put on prosthetic breasts to star in "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" and the string of films and TV shows that followed, is my filmmaking hero.

Watch full 60 Minutes segment (CBS News)

View Comments