Category Archives: Filmmaking

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 17, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

6 Comments

Prescreening Opportunity – Princess Cut

Princess CutPrescreening or advanced screenings have been a part of the motion picture industry since the late 1920’s. It’s a tool used by producers, directors and marketing teams to make adjustments to the film or marketing plan before it’s released to the general public. I’ve attended numerous prescreenings over the years and find them fascinating.

Director Kevin Smith sat quietly in the back of the theater when I screened Jersey Girl. He was incognito to learn if the Ben Affleck film would work with its Jennifer Lopez opening during their heated controversy. After the film, there were a series of questions that drew out the needed information for Smith to make a decision.

I was amazed at the audience’s response and realized they gave him a precious gift in how to fix the film before it failed. Unfortunately, he decided not to heed the audience’s ideas and released the film unchanged. The film flopped at the box office and didn’t come close to breaking even.

And yes, I did take time after the screening to chat with Smith about directing. I always take advantage of learning from experts in the industry whenever I can.

Unfortunately, audiences aren’t always truthful. Viewers of the Faith-Based genre are known for lying about prescreened films to avoid making the filmmaker feel bad. They feel it’s their job to encourage the filmmaker, not reveal the reality of his potential disaster. This results in the filmmaker releasing his film with confidence, followed by shock when he learns that the film failed because of something simple he could’ve changed had the prescreening audience been truthful instead of courteous.

I’ve also been to several screenings where the marketing took detailed notes that the director used to alter the film. In every case, the final film was significantly better than what the director had ever imagined. The audience is always right when it comes to their honest view of a film.

Paul MungerThis week I received an advanced screening notice for Princess Cut. It’s a film made by my friend Paul Munger. I haven’t seen it yet, nor have I read the script, but I’d like to give my readers the opportunity to attend one of the advanced screenings.

As I understand it, this screening wasn’t designed to help contour the film to the audience’s taste or perspective. It was designed to test the film with an audience to determine if it should get a general theatrical release or go straight to video. Unfortunately, I haven’t chatted with Paul yet to learn if there are other reasons for the limited screenings.

Mimi SagadinThe Chicago screening will be in Rosemont. My friend Mimi Sagadin, who played the mother, will host a Q&A after the film. You can click here to get your tickets.

For those located in other states, you can click here for screenings in your area.

When films are prescreened for adjustments or for the press, the screenings are typically free. However, screenings designed to build a grassroots movement of support for a film are charged the going rate for each theater. This positions the audience to respond to the value of the film against its out of pocket costs for viewing it – A true indicator of the film’s ability to draw a crowd and entertain.

I plan on attending the Rosemont screening and hope to see you there.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 8, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking, Leadership

Comments

Leave a comment

Controlling Kills Creativity

Control Kills CreativityWhen I was the lead carpenter for the Before Broadway Players, my director asked me to create a special effects box that looked high tech and gave the audience the sense that it was beyond this world. Having been empowered, I quickly put everything I had into the tech and the final stage prop created a great publicity buzz.

I was only able to use my ingenuity because I had a director who understood that controlling his team’s decisions would kill their creativity and force the audience to pretend the box was more than just junk parts glued in place.

There’s a fine balance between setting vision or giving a project direction, and controlling everyone involved. The latter tends to dilute creativity and drives creative types to withdraw their best efforts and replace it with something mundane.

It’s true that at certain key moments control is necessary to get things on track with market needs, but continuous control robs the team of unique successes and slaughters their inspiration for innovation in the arts. Put simply: long-term control kills the art form.

So why is it that new directors tend to control the actors and crew, rather than collaborate with them?

It might be due to insecurity. Or, maybe watching previous works demolished by the wrong choice in team or talent selection. In any case, I believe all directors can find a balance between control and collaboration by practicing three important steps.

EVALUATE YOUR ACTIONS. Most controlling leaders are not aware of their grasp on people. They make decisions based on their goal, not the person they work with. This causes them to stifle innovation from those around them, which is detrimental in all of the arts, but especially motion pictures.

To break free of control issues a director can ask himself several questions:

A. Are my ideas always the best?
B. Have my cast and crew stopped contributing?
C. Do people constantly ask questions for approval, rather than risk their creativity?
D. Have all of my projects gone flat and are no longer interesting?

If any of the answers above are yes, then the director must practice letting go.

PRACTICE LETTING GO. The word practice is critical in revealing the ongoing process for the controller. No one can throw a one time switch and suddenly turn everything into a great collaboration. It takes single daily steps to accomplish the change. There are a handful of questions a director can ask himself to move forward in letting go:

A. What responsibility can I delegate?
B. How can I measure the delegate’s success without taking over?
C. What new responsibility can I use to fill my time?
D. What new behaviors can I develop to keep my hands off the delegate’s details?

By letting go of the minutia and filling time with more important focuses, the director can empower his team to put their soul into the project.

LEARN TO EMPOWER. The best way to empower someone isn’t by understanding their ability to perform a task, but rather understand their behaviors and how they make choices. It’s the choices that determine if the individual will follow the vision or head off in a different direction.

A director, who spends a lot of time understanding people and how characters develop, can plan how behaviors can be triggered. To move in this direction, the director can ask himself the following questions to prepare:

A. What behaviors are needed to accomplish the responsibility?
B. What choices must be present to give comfort when I let go?
C. How can these behaviors be inspired or given to the person?
D. What support is required to empower the person?

Empowered individuals always out perform controlled people. Yet, it takes hard work on the director’s part to empower the people, while maintaining his vision.

Some new directors who get past the control factor shift to the opposite extreme with a mishmash of unclear activities. Empowering people does not stop the director from painting a vision and directing everyone towards it, as there is a great difference between getting buried in the minutia and inspiring everyone’s behaviors to reach the goal.

Whether you’re a film director or a manager, what do you do to empower your people?

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

July 6, 2015

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

2 Comments

Abandon the Faith-Based Label

The Passion of the ChristThe Hollywood Reporter printed a guest column by Mark Joseph. The title was “’Faith-Based’ Is Not a Film Genre” and the column opened with a quote from the author. “I’ve come to the conclusion that the label is both untrue and unhelpful, and should be abandoned.”

Joseph is a marketing expert that has worked on the development and/or marketing of 40 films including, The Passion of the Christ, The Chronicles of Narnia, and, I Am David. His article opposes his success stories being lumped together with the myriad of bad Christian movies that, based on its significant volume, created the Faith-Based label.

I understand his concern, since in Hollywood the term “Faith-Based films” is synonymous with “bad Christian movies.” When a producer approaches a distributor and presents a Faith-Based movie for consideration, the distributor immediately tells him not to expect any revenue from the limited release. The shoddy contract supports the statement.

However, Joseph’s article fails to mention that marketing must label product in order to properly promote it. This is why most Oscar winning films are genre specific, which is easier to market. It’s not possible to market a film that is “sort of this and kinda like that, with a twist and biblical message.”

The real problem isn’t that the large number of Faith-Based films forced Hollywood to group the movies into a single label that preempts the audience with its consistently bad storytelling and lack of artistic prowess. The real problem is that those making Faith-Based films actually think what they’re making is high quality and they see no reason to improve their craft.

I’ve had several opportunities for funding that required us to add a handful of elements to satisfy the religious investor, which would destroy the storyline and artistic expression of the film. Having a history of making artistic story rich shows for most of the major networks, my integrity didn’t allow me to accept the terms and I  suffered the consequences of not being funded. Several fund worthy friends had similar experiences and we’ve all scratched our heads wondering why bad films are funded and great ones are not. This made me wonder if investors don’t truly understand how great story in film impacts society.

Some producers tried to re-label their Faith-Based films for a general release, but because the investor funded elements were present, the story was destroyed and the film received the unwanted label – Forcing the film’s failure in the marketplace. Not only did the films fail as predicted, but it also positioned the producers as liars.

Today, the only way to avoid the Faith-Based label, which alerts the audience that a film is bad, is to make a universal story picture for the general public. As for the biblical message, it can be lightly salted into the theme, where based on the art form, would have the greatest impact. This will also push the film to the largest number of people in each market, placing the message before millions worldwide.

Now, I understand that there is one other way to change the Faith-Based label to something meaningful that draws a new audience, but it requires those who participate in Christian films to judge and categorize each film’s actual level of quality. Bad films have to be called bad and compared to the good films, which must be called good. And, for those few great films, they too must be called great. Then, and only then, will marketers be able to clearly articulate the differences between Faith-Based films, recreating the meaning of the label.

Since most Christians don’t want to suggest that a film carrying a message from God is bad, this will probably never happen. Instead, the funds will eventually dry up and Faith-Based films will disappear until the next generation can find a way to make the films self-sustaining. I’d wager a guess that within the next ten years a new breed of filmmakers would step into the limelight and change the definition of Faith-Based films forever.

Copyright © 2015 by CJ Powers