Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: James Fair: The butcher, the baker, the amateur filmmaker – getting the language right…

What’s in a name? A lot more than we initially suspect, frankly. We have been talking about “what is “Indie”” for decades — and probably will for decades to come. My attempt to define “Truly Free Film” has lead me to be called on the carpet more than once for not making TRULY Free Film (we can talk about that in a future post). And that discussion is just for specific monikers. What happens when we start to get poetic and delve in to the realm of metaphor?

Today’s guest post is from contributor and filmmaker James Fair, and he shows quite well how much the choice of language matters.

Christopher J. Boghosian and Mark Savage both wrote great posts recently that used analogies to identify some of the challenges that face the filmmaker (the baker and the priest respectively). Last year I wrote a post for Randy Finch about why we should be careful with the language we use to identify ourselves as filmmakers, and I want to expand upon why I think it is important here.

This community is broadly dedicated to exploring and establishing new models of cinema to replace the rapidly diminishing old models. It seeks to reflect, understand and decipher the current issues facing the filmmaker. However, I believe that one potential conflict between the past and the future is the connotations of the language that we use to describe things. As ideas and concepts change, the meaning of language changes too…

Let me give you an example. Let’s take the ‘professional/amateur’ divide. Within filmmaking the common belief is that you are professional if you are paid and make a living from it, you are amateur if you don’t. But, working in a university, I meet many people who would argue that LITTLE of the film industry is ‘professional’, because it rarely requires examinations or formal training to work in many of the roles, which means that it isn’t strictly a profession at all, it is a ‘job’. The formal training is the distinction between the two, and plenty advocate that filmmakers don’t need to be trained. Describing filmmaking as an ‘avocation’ doesn’t seem as derogatory as a ‘hobby’ because of the connotations attached to the ‘calling’, as Mark Savage pointed out. The term ‘hobbyist’ doesn’t seem appropriate because filmmaking doesn’t often result in the pleasure and relaxation associated with ‘hobbies’!

Why is this important? Ultimately, I believe it is our human nature to want to classify things and identify our position within society. It is a way of understanding both others and ourselves. I am a ‘nobody’ filmmaker creates a distinction from a ‘somebody’ filmmaker. Therefore their situations are different. I am a ‘professional’ and you are an ‘amateur’ means you are not qualified to understand me. The titles position us within society and even within this community that Ted has created. Even worse, the connotations of these titles have the potential to divide us – the ‘amateur’ thinks they makes films for the ‘love of the art’ whilst the ‘professional’ is a ‘sell-out’. Andrew Keen’s book ‘The Cult of the Amateur’ attacks amateurism for being sub-par quality, unpaid and unqualified. However, I’ve seen great quality stuff from unpaid people and I’ve seen sub-par quality stuff from qualified people. Our lives are more complex than these labels give us credit for.

Therefore, using analogies and metaphors are useful constructs when trying to explain our unusual choice of career to others within society. They help us draw parallels with others around us and help understanding. However, as the debate that followed Mark Savage’s post showed, the choice of metaphor is critical, as they too come with connotations. In the last few weeks alone we have seen filmmaking sharing similarities with the baker, the priest, the gambler and the real estate agent. Can we be all or any of these things? They have such different connotations! Describing my role like that of a priest may help me secure funding in future, describing myself as a gambler probably won’t. This would be a really great topic for discussion here… what is the best metaphor or analogy and why?

Whilst I believe is that the success of the community depends upon the diversity of people; these titles shouldn’t be barriers to our conversation. The new models of cinema haven’t been discovered yet so all constructive voices can help us through the paradigm shift. We can all make valid contributions. We should identify with our similarities as filmmakers not our differences. There are occasional voices that aren’t constructive, who prefer to hide behind the anonymity of a false name when they troll abuse. If you have belief in your conviction, put your name upon it. The falsehood discredits your argument. The language you use and the way you choose to identify yourself informs the way that everyone else will perceive you.

James is a lecturer in Film Technology at Staffordshire University in the UK. He is currently editing his feature documentary about the North African Sahara, due for release later in 2011.

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: Hadrian Belove: “all great directors must sacrifice some aspect of filmmaking to achieve something brilliant”

Today’s guest post is from LA’s CineFamily‘s very own Hadrian Belove. Hadrian & CineFamily made my list of Brave Thinkers 2010 for their brilliant programming. If you live in LA and you are not a member of CineFamily, I don’t believe you love cinema. Or maybe you have yet to prove it. Well here’s your chance.

Not only does Hadrian & Co. love cinema, show fantastic programming, they also write well about it. Passionately too. Hadrian’s post comes from Cinefamily’s newsletter. He does a pretty damn good job at showing why you want to attend their series this month on John Cassavetes.

I want to talk with you about John Cassavetes for a moment.

In preparation for our month-long retrospective, I’ve been steeping myself in the subject of Cassavetes: reading interviews and biographies, watching documentaries, and most of all, viewing his films. Like many a film lover before me, I’m going down the rabbit hole, because the more deeply you go down, the more rewarding it is. And I’m having a blast. In fact, it’s only by doing this that I’m just now I’m realizing what we’ve done here at Cinefamily, and why I think you should really participate this month: this retrospective is a kind of “master class” in the work of one of America’s most fascinating directors.

To start with, I think Cassavetes himself would appreciate my honesty when I say I’ve always had mixed feelings about his work before now; there are scenes and moments that destroy me (in a good way), and other moments that feel false, bombastic, or just seemed sloppy. I had trouble grasping the films as a whole, and long chunks would consequently bore me as I floated adrift on the sea of emotion, until some undeniably explosively awesome moment would happen. But the films always haunted me. What I see now is how his films improve over repeated viewings — from seeing them consecutively, getting on his wavelength, and learning to speak his language. These films are like people, interesting and complicated people. You don’t always understand them at first, but as you get to know them, all of their quirks make more and more sense. They reveal themselves.

Rewatching his films, I often have an epiphanous moment when the code cracks, and suddenly the whole crazy experience falls into place. I immediately want to see the whole movie again, or at least revisit it in my mind, now that I know how it’s all working. His films are like relatives; my feelings towards them change as I get older, and as I understand them better. I may still hate the way my mother screams like she’s witnessed a murder just because she drops something in the kitchen, but more and more it becomes inextricably interwoven with my deeper understanding of who she is, and why I love her.

If I had to sum up one thing I’ve gotten out of all this, it’s a knowledge of the incredible focus Cassavetes had. Truffaut once said that all great directors must sacrifice some aspect of filmmaking to achieve something brilliant — in essence, the bedsheet never covers the whole bed. And no one has worked harder to go as deep as possible exploring the complexity of human interrelationships than Cassavetes, and while he did love other aspects of film, he would give up anything — the framing, the editing, the continuity, the smoothness of the story, paradoxically even his own understanding of the characters — to reach a certain ecstatic emotional depth. He wanted you to feel as intensely and thoughtfully about his films as you did about your own life, and sometimes (perhaps by definition all the time) that means you can’t fully understand them.

As I said before, here’s your chance to have a “masters class” in John Cassavetes. We’re showing not just every film he directed, but films he starred in, his rare television work, and even films made with people he just worked closely with — ’cause we know what it’s like when you get obsessed: everything and everyone he touched takes on a certain interest. We’ve got restored prints from UCLA, rare trailers, and lectures. We’ve got sidebar tributes to Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel and Gena Rowlands — all appearing in person — where we’ll tour through their own careers as actors. We’ve rounded up virtually every guest that could be had. This is the best chance you’ll ever have to do this right.

This series is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
— Hadrian Belove

Check out CineFamily now.

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: Eyad Zahra: WHAT INDIE FILMMAKERS CAN LEARN FROM THE REVOLUTIONS IN THE MIDDLE-EAST

Art and revolution both allow us to recognize that tomorrow does not have to replicate today. They offer us hope for change. Both art and revolution begin with the same word: “no”. And each is always a model for what may next be offered.

The revolutions occurring in the Middle East and Africa will be inspiring in many different ways. I’ve been eager to find how they filter down and influence indie & truly free filmmaking. Eyad Zahra has stepped forward to get this conversation started, providing us a guest post on what effect all this social & political change has meant to his process. What do these changing times mean to you?

The recent events in the Middle-East have inspired me to readdress the way I do things, and reexamine my own uses of various social media networks. If Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube can aid in overthrowing tyrant dictators, then they can truly be used for any nobel cause the world my have. The brave civilians in the Middle-East are showing us all how robust our social networking tools really are. The ability to share information and connect people on a mass scale has exponentially grown in the past few years, more then we could have ever imagined.

It’s about time we indie filmmakers pick-up on this. We need to go beyond simply acknowledging our social media campaign tools… we need to really start using them aggressively and creatively. They must become a top priority.

No matter what size of a production, studio or ultra-indie, social media campaigns are climbing high up in the ranks of any film’s long-term marketing strategy. There is a true democracy at hand here, as these tools are available for anyone and everyone, at the cost of nothing.

For the longest time, I (along with many other filmmakers) thought that using social media wouldn’t have that big of an effect. It was an afterthought to the main focus at hand, the film itself. We found it awkward to be our own cheerleader, and ask friends, and friends of friends, to join our fan pages and twitters. We found every excuse imaginable to not take on social media as serious as we should have, and we would delay using it until we absolutely had to.

It’s time to think past those kind of self-imposed barriers. Developing a social media campaign should be about, more then anything, a filmmakers’ sincere interest in connecting with their fan base. That’s who you are making the film for anyway, right? If you focus on that with your social media campaign, all the bonuses of having one will come about naturally.

With all that said, here are a few points that I have written down to remind myself for the next time around:

1) I need to start my social media campaign, as soon as I possibly can. As it may take years to make my next film, why not build my social campaign during this process? When it’s time to launch my film, I won’t have to scramble to connect with my audience, and educate them on my project.

2) A strong Facebook presence is a must. Everybody is on Facebook, and it’s not going anywhere. Facebook truly is becoming a virtual replica of the real world. A Facebook fan page is one of the the strongest, if not the strongest way, for me to mutually connect with a wide-scale audience.

Unlike email lists and the the older Facebook groups, the new Facebook fan pages are incredibly accurate in presenting forth what kind of fan base I actually have. All those annoying changes Facebook made were for the better. For people to like my film means something. It means they are willing to put my film’s logo on their profile, share information about themselves to me, and in most cases, it means they are willing to stay tuned to the film’s news feed. That’s a huge deal, and that kind of fan dedication will most likely amount to those people supporting the film down the line.

Facebook fan page analytics are special numbers to have. The fact that I can track down my fans by city, countries, and language is incredible. What might have cost me thousands of dollars in survey studies before, I can now get for free from my Facebook fan page. Who knows what kind of information I will have access to in the future

Distributors and movie theaters are taking Facebook fan page numbers very seriously (as seen with Mooz-lum). Having a high Facebook fan page count is very attractive to these businesses. It’s a tangible asset to have thousands of fans already in my support.

3) My social media campaign is an extension of my film, and should be considered an art in and of itself. Tweeting should not be a chore, but rather it should be a fun and creative process that gives people a taste of what the experience of my film will be like. Twitter and Facebook don’t have to be boring, we can transform them into artistic expressions that make us excited to use them.

4) Social Media Campaigns tap into the golden ticket to a film’s success : word-of-mouth promotion. When people are taking initiative and reposting and re-tweeting my film’s posts, that’s genuine word-of-mouth, the most valuable kind of publicity you can ever get. When a friend posts something in their news feed about my film, it means more to others then if a mass-scale aggregator like the Huffington Post does.

5) My social media outreach will last for as long as I want it to. As my audience grows overtime, I will always be in touch with them. When I need to inform them about special screenings, or inform them about the dvd releases of my film, my social media campaign will play a crucial role in distributing important information. Even when my film is in a dormant phase, I can turn my Facebook fan page into a forum of discussion by posting trending news items that pertain to the issues or themes of my film. By doing this, I will keep my fans engaged about my film in a genuine and sincere manner.

6) If I plan to self-distribute my next feature film, a strong social media campaign might play the biggest role in how I connect to an audience. Self-distribution becomes a viable possibility only if I actually have an audience to deliver the film too, and I know who they are.

All in all, I’m really not saying anything new here, but rather, simply trying to reaffirm things for myself, and others. We filmmakers need to gain more confidence with our social medial tools, and we need to become masters of them, just as much as we need to become masters of filmmaking.

The next time around, I am going to learn from my mistakes and do things better. I’m going to think about my social media campaign from the get go. As soon as I am ready to go on my next project, I will step back and think what kind of social media strategy will suit it best.

Those are my thoughts, and I hope they can help. Long live the indie-film revolution.

— Eyad Zahra

Eyad Zahra worked with Visit Films and Strand Releasing to release his first feature film The Taqwacores last Fall. The Taqwacores will be available on DVD on April 5th, 2011 in the USA. Eyad is an advocate of DIY cinema, and has given workshops on the subject at University of Southern California and the Abu Dhabi Film Festival.

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: Mark Savage: Passion & Action: The Fuel & The Fire Of The Truly Free

I ran a post awhile back questioning whether Indie Filmmaking best be thought of as a hobby culture now. It stimulated an interesting conversation. Among those to respond was filmmaker Mark Savage and I asked if he’d be interested in expanding his thoughts into a guest post. Mark knows what it takes to make things happen. He has heard the calling.

Priesthood is often described as a vocation. It’s more than just a job. It’s a commitment to a lifestyle and all that that entails. Men and women of the cloth answer a calling to become a Soldier of Christ. They dedicate themselves to this calling.

True filmmakers – writers, directors, producers – have a lot in common with priests. They, too, have responded to a calling, a creative one.

After a short life in which I lived and learned and sucked in a million influences, I was ready to synthesize it all onto film – it was Super-8 film in my case, and I had stories to tell that were mine.

The desire to make these films was equal to murderous passion, and I responded to that passion with action. My weekends were filled with filmmaking, and nothing else equaled the giddy joy of the process. I became a filmmaker because I was making films regularly. That’s the thermometer of authenticity.

If I’d picked up a golf club all those years ago and were still swinging it today, I’d be happy to call myself a golfer. But if I suddenly found myself watching Greg Norman’s golf videos all day instead of swinging that two iron or chipping balls onto a green, I wouldn’t call myself a golfer anymore. If I did, who would I really be kidding?
There’s a lot of noise around filmmaking that has nothing to do with making films. Some of this Noise is helpful (Ted Hope’s website, for example), but much of it is distracting because it feeds a fear that pure filmmaking is not possible on your resources, and it distracts you from the original creative call.

Most of us are forced to become adults at some stage – yes, even filmmakers! With adulthood comes responsibility, and at the core of most responsibility is the need to generate income. For the filmmaker who got the creative call before adulthood (I’m one of them), there are some matters to reconcile.

I financed my early Super-8 movies by squirting special sauce onto Big Macs and collecting and selling the empty beer bottles of neighborhood alcoholics. My McDonald’s income and beer money enabled my filmmaking. From day one, I was pragmatic about the process, despite pragmatism not often being associated with creativity. It was clear to me that filmmaking didn’t run on ideas alone. It also ran on resources. Hell, without resources, the train wasn’t leaving the station. What I knew for sure in those days, and still know, is that nothing would stop me from making films. Nothing would derail my passion. Well, nothing except one thing. Me.

Ted Hope wrote a fascinating blog recently in which he threw an idea out there that indie filmmaking might be best approached as a hobby. With returns on investment in the doldrums (for the majority of movies) and money hard to squeeze out of shell-shocked investors, it was a fair question. It also made me consider the positive connotation of hobbies. Are they not passions?

When a kid filmmaker (a creative hobbyist) crosses over into adulthood, he (or she) brings the hobby with them. What needs to be reconciled is the hobby and the need to generate income. The two don’t go hand in hand. If you’ve been called by the creative gods, you’ll find yourself being pulled in two or more directions at this juncture. You want to spend all your time making movies, but how can you do that when mom and dad aren’t financing your food and pillows anymore? Eight hours a week at McDoodle’s ain’t gonna cut checks in the real world.

And there’s the rub. You’re now in the real world. Lip to lip with reality. And you know what – it’s breath stinks. It stinks for a long time because it takes a lot of getting used to. It doesn’t give a crap about you or your movies or your dreams. Why should it? Like you, it has its own set of problems. It’s not lacking for immediate concerns. It’s already juggling a shitload. And its first concern is getting you out of its friggin’ face.

When you’ve landed on your butt after reality shoves you and you’re alone again, it should become obvious that nobody cares as much about your vocation as you. You got the calling. You’re carrying the creative uranium. You’re the engine driver.

So drive.

Block out the Noise first. Ignore the shrill voice that insists on telling you that there is an established way to make movies and distribute them. Find the adult equivalent of a McDonald’s weekend job and call that your Financier. Or “Sir”. Write a script that can be produced for the meager money that you have. Pick locations that instantly add production value by virtue of their dynamic nature. Cast by strenuously auditioning until you’re satisfied you have the right actor for the role. Cast actors you connect with creatively. Treasure actors who take your characters into places even you haven’t gone yet. Best to go with non-union at this stage because you can’t afford union. Negotiate fair compensation in cash, food, rare trinkets, or soft sexual favors. Treat these actors like gold. Understand that the better the role you give them, the better they make you look, and the better it is for their careers. They’ve gotten the calling, too, remember?

Then make your movie.

Applying this less-than-stellar approach, I’ve made eight little feature films (with three currently in post), several hundred commercials, and financed my vocation with a dozen variations on the McDonald’s weekend jobs and a second career as a doco and reality TV DP. Because I like to know how things function at the grease and ball bearing level, I‘ve also worked for three film distributors — Orion Pictures, Village Roadshow, and Absurda) – and learned editing, a little about raising finance, and a lot about the reality of the film business.

Do I survive purely on my creative pursuits? Yes. Making feature films? No. Perhaps 0.01 % of all feature film directors in the world survive purely on directing features only.

But it is the ongoing activity of film production that directly expresses the passion and sharpens the craft, and I believe that it is essential for the filmmaker to find ways and means to keep the fires continuously stoked.

If this vocation is a hobby, it is one of the toughest and most rewarding hobbies in the world. It also has its corpses. Like true love, it can bring us enormous pain and take us to untold plateaus of pleasure.

Passion is the element that enables the hobby to take flight when money is scarce or non-existent. It is the passion that gets the script written before financing is sought. It is the passion that drives the project when money is not forthcoming. It is also the passion that is tested when the stinking breath of reality is being burped into our faces.

Filmmakers who have not been through the process of producing and distributing their celluloid child often live in a state of high delusion. They’re under the impression that filmmaking will and should sustain them.

Under what law?

I’ve seen the reality of returns versus costs from a distributor’s point of view – and the sums aren’t often pretty. On top of that, we now have a market that is paying substantially less — if anything at all — for traditionally made films that are costing more than ever.

Production costs have not dropped to accommodate returns.

This situation has demoralized many in the business, but there is an upside if you face the reality, digest it, and take your mind back to why you answered the creative call in the first place. It was not to make a million bucks.

“Free film” , to me, has many roads out as well as in. The costs of producing films/digital stories well outside the traditional system — within a “hobby” framework — have plunged. This change has closed the gap between the financed filmmaker and the door knocker for whom the probability of making the next film often feels less substantial than belly button fluff.

You can buy an exceptionally good digital camera, sound gear, lighting, and edit suite for under $20K. If you work with passionate hobbyists (small crew, actors, editors, composers) whose sole desire is to make good work with the upfront understanding that there will not be substantial money to be had, the possibilities are endless.

How is this achieved?

You work with people who are also deriving income from multiple sources. Working on your feature in a key role is their opportunity to tackle work denied to them by current economic situations and/or a lack of industry credits. You gather a passionate group and they work with you when they can. You deliberately make films with short shooting schedules so the time spent on them doesn’t conflict with income-producing work. Most importantly, you treat these folk as the wonderful, generous, exceptional people they are, and may you roast in a pizza oven if you don’t.

Although I have made films with healthy indie budgets, I will die before I let lack of funds stop me from making films.

My solution has been to make three films this way in the past two years while pursuing finance and producing partners for larger projects that I cannot make under a “hobby” structure.
The reality is that these three films may never recoup the funds I have spent on them; I accept that and carry on regardless because I love filmmaking.

I make movies because I have no choice.

What I do have a choice in is whether or not I decide to ignore the Noise that tells me there is one way suck filmmaking eggs and that’s the way the Noise does it.

We filmmakers have much in common with the priest. His faith gets tested, and so does ours. His dedication can waver, and so can ours. But because the calling is so strong, our vocation is a deep part of us (for better or worse).

It courses through our blood.

It’s our creative heart.

Answer the call with action. Expect to waver now and then. But don’t listen to the Noise. It doesn’t care about your project. So why care about it?

— Mark Savage

Mark Savage has been a seriously entrenched indie filmmaker for a couple decades and will die doing the same. He’s dug deeper into the business by also working for various distributors (mainstream and alternative) and happily moonlighting as (sometime) DP on his own features and web series, and the docs and reality work of energetic others. He does what he does because he has no choice and thrives in a creative hive with equally passionate collaborators. Mark shares his many passions at http://phantomofpulp.blogspot.com

Samples of work at: http://www.youtube.com/savagesinema

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: James Fair: The Path To The New Model: Share Our Failures

Yesterday, James Fair guest posted here on “The Path To The New Model: Join The Community”. Today he returns with an important recommendation for all us to share not just what works, but what doesn’t. We can get beyond the repetitive culture of remakes of yesterday’s hits. We can find new stories, new formats, and new ways of working, but it takes the willingness to be both FAIL and SHARE the experience.

Perhaps the barrier to a successful ‘revolution’ is our own inability to share our failures. We are always keen to promote our successes to others but we rarely want to admit to the mistakes we’ve made. However, the mistakes are arguably more valuable if we can learn from them. Ideally we should all share our mistakes so that we can all collectively learn from them, but it goes against our conditioning. We don’t want to appear unsuccessful. We don’t want to admit to failure, yet it is a fundamental component of the scientific method. This method emphasises the construction of a hypothesis, and then a process of trial and error testing followed by conclusions from the findings, good or bad. Encouraging mistakes, understanding their causes. This then indicates progress, and a move forward.

Placing an emphasis upon success means that filmmaking gets locked into a process of repeatability – namely ‘hit’ culture – whereby filmmakers are always under pressure to repeat the success of something that went before. There is very little emphasis upon encouraging or understanding failings; there tends to be a rejection of anyone who fails to deliver the success. How do you deliver such success? The easiest way is to use the tried and tested model. And then we get into a situation where we have lots of movie remakes and sequels.

The ‘slow-climb up the hierarchy’ model, or the ‘fantastic short director who then gets discovered’ model result in one shared outcome – a filmmaker who finds themselves making a feature for the first time, with pressure and expectation on their shoulders. There have been very few steps established within industry that actually encourage new filmmakers to experiment with their filmmaking, and stay with them until they establish a ‘voice’. This may be why critics feel that conventional cinema is becoming so homogenous and boring, because the pressure is there to deliver a solid performance from the beginning. Little room for manoeuvre, little room for mistakes.

Digital technology has made amateur experimentation affordable, but it is only when we share the experiences (the good and the bad) that we collectively feel the benefit. It is an Open Source project in search of a new model – Truly Free Film – the same way that Linux is an operating system that benefits from collective contributions. I personally benefitted a great deal from reading posts upon this website when making a feature in 72 hours in Australia last year. In turn I contributed a series of posts about the experiences to complete the loop. These are the ways we can collectively move forward. Sharing the failures is contributing to a cumulative success.

James is a lecturer at in Film Technology at Staffordshire University. His latest feature, The Ballad of Des & Mo, was shot and edited in 72 hours at the Melbourne International Film Festival 2010 and was in the Audience Top Ten. The film screens this weekend (Saturday 12th Feb) alongside the Berlinale Film Festival – people interested in going along can register here or email james@hellocamera.ie

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: Chuck Wendig “Where Storytelling And Gaming Collide”

Saturday, DIY DAYS comes to NYC, bringing with it filmmakers, game designers, techies, designers, and entrepreneurs — but mostly it brings a tremendous community that collides where stories begin, are discovered, and get shared. Chuck Wendig speaks so well of why we needs this crash point, it’s safe to bet that a full day of such immersion will be nothing short of mindblowing. Hell, why settle for inspiration. Chuck shares after the break.

My Dad used to play softball. I still have his jersey, still have the newspaper clippings.

But the newspaper clippings never told the whole story, and the jersey is just a trophy, just a marker of times past. The real stories came out at the bar afterward. The whole team would head out to a drinking hole called the Buttonwood. They’d bring their families. And for hours they’d drink and recreate the game in a way that went beyond the RBIs, the stolen bases, the errors.

Every player on the team had his own piece of the story to add to the pile because each had different vantage points, different experiences. The way one batter flipped my Dad off as he pitched. The way a ball stung a glove or the wall it rolled along the foul line like a marble along a table’s edge. Was one player drunk? Another, sick? Maybe the team was a rival team, like Kelly’s bar. Maybe the win was sweeter for that, or the loss a bigger tragedy.

The team drank, told their stories. Sometimes I listened. Other times, I went over to the video games and played Arkanoid with my sister, or played a round of pinball. Even there, we had stories to tell: “The ball got stuck in the upper corner of the table.” Or, “I just beat a total stranger’s high score.” Little stories, but they felt epic in their own way. Herculean triumphs. Sisyphean shortfalls.

When we read a book or watch a movie, we’re gathering around the firelight and letting a storyteller tell us his or her story. It’s their world; we’re just looking in. It isn’t our story that matters, and that’s okay.

But with games, it’s our story that matters. And every game affords us the opportunity to experience a new story. Chess is a game that has no overt narrative and yet in every match, a new narrative is born: the ebb-and-flow, the peaks-and-valleys, the two factions warring for dominance over what might be a game board, but what might also be two nations, or two sides of an issue, or two halves of the heart.

In every game we play, we are in some sense the protagonists. Doesn’t matter if the protagonist-as-written is someone else (the Monopoly Scotty, Pac-Man, Halo’s Master Chief): what we experience isn’t their story but ultimately and intimately our own. How we move through a game world and how we conquer the challenges presented within are paths as unique as the maze on a fingerprint.

Traditional storytelling seeks to tell the story of the author, the director, the creator.

But storytelling in games is about empowering the player to experience and tell her own narrative.

What a crazy, wonderful thing. The notion that we each see something different, each undergo our own mini-myths and little legends, offers powerful engagement. It puts us at the core of it. And when you see that, you start to realize that games have the power to be more than just time-killers and fun-machines. Games can show us things from unseen perspectives. Games can teach us things we never thought we’d want to learn. Games can even help reflect and affect social change. (Imagine a game that puts us in the midst of the Egypt revolution, or lets us hack our way through the Wisconsin red tape to see the truth.)

Games don’t just shine a light on these stories; they give us the torch and let us see for ourselves.

At DIY Days in New York – this Saturday, March 5th – I’m going to sit down and have a fireside chat with fellow game designer Greg Trefry (of Gigantic Mechanic) about the intersection of game design and storytelling. We’ll take a look at how designers can think about putting the tools in the hands of the players (like giving them a big bucket of LEGO blocks) to put together the stories and experiences they want to tell. Come by the chat.

http://nyc.diydays.com/

— Chuck Wendig

Chuck Wendig is a novelist, a screenwriter, and a freelance penmonkey. He is represented by Stacia Decker of the Donald Maass Literary Agency. www.terribleminds.com

Categories
Truly Free Film

Guest Post: James Fair: The Path To The New Model: Join The Community

It is easy to speak and to write of community, but how do we actually work together to make it better? We are dispersed across the globe, some professional, some amateur, but all driven by passion for a more diverse and ambitious film culture. We have the tools. We have the know how, but we still have a long road before us. Stepping down the path requires us to put one foot in front of the other, and make some progress, even if it might be in the wrong direction. Today’s guest post is from filmmaker and lecturer James Fair, a regular contributor to this blog and discussion.

The web is full of amateurs that can collectively fail a whole number of times until a pattern of success can be accumulated from the collective mass. A website like HopeForFilm/TrulyFreeFilm charts the various different experiments that people are taking and enables us to benefit from the cumulative thought. Can this be the path to a new model for Truly Free Film?

I don’t believe that this process is entirely new or exclusive to the Internet. History is full of examples where many people simultaneously chased identical goals, often experimenting along similar lines until circumstances played a big part of what technologies and processes were kept. For example, the history of the film camera has a variety of notable pioneers (Muybridge, Dickson, Edison, Lumiere to name a few), each influencing one another in processes of refinement and standardization until we arrived with many of the specifications that we have continued to use to this day (gauges, frame rates etc.). History has a tendency of simplifying the past with the fallacy of narrative. We forget the turbulence of emerging trends and technologies and formulate a neat recollection of how and when things appeared. Let’s look at playback technology alone; did you buy Betamax or VHS? Did you buy laser-disc or wait for DVD? Were you Blu-Ray at the start or did you gamble on HD-DVD first? If you bought into the wrong one of these technologies you made a costly mistake; such is the price of being at the cutting edge!

I have written a few times upon TFF about the ‘paradigm shift’ and the fact that we are encountering new ways of thinking about every aspect of filmmaking: production, distribution and exhibition. The most exciting and simultaneously daunting factor about these new ways of thinking are that the methods are not yet fixed and established. When the ‘digital revolution’ was being heralded at the end of the last millennium and the disintegration of traditional models began, few envisaged that it would take a lot longer to establish new protocols and procedures. We seem to have been left with the ‘age of uncertainty’.

In many ways, digital technology has developed an affordable culture of trial and error. Many people like myself are just shooting our features and seeing what sticks and works. This is the ‘amateur’ way, driven on passion and enthusiasm. Marshall McLuhan argued that this ‘amateur’ way led to some important discoveries that ‘professionals’ and ‘experts’ never envisaged because they had fixed modes of thinking that prevented them questioning the ground rules. McLuhan used Michael Faraday as an example of a scientist who made great scientific discoveries, because of, not despite of his lack of formal education. McLuhan included The Beatles as a further example of young pioneers who pushed boundaries, not because of any great formal knowledge of what they were doing, but because they were empowered to explore all music without limitation.

The unique benefit of the Internet is that these experiments are not taking place in isolation anymore. We have the cumulative effect of many minds all addressing the problems that we face. Critics, like Andrew Keen, argue that the ‘wisdom of crowds’ is not very valuable if everyone is unknowledgeable in the first place. But here on Truly Free Film/ Hope For Film it appears Ted fosters a broad cross-section of filmmakers, all in a perpetual state of interaction so that good practice can be shared and understanding accelerated.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how sharing our failure can lead to our mutual success.

James is a lecturer at in Film Technology at Staffordshire University. His latest feature, The Ballad of Des & Mo, was shot and edited in 72 hours at the Melbourne International Film Festival 2010 and was in the Audience Top Ten. The film screened last month (Saturday 12th Feb) alongside the Berlinale Film Festival – people interested in future screenings & bookings can email{encode=” james@hellocamera.ie” title=” james@hellocamera.ie”}