Was recently flipping through some photos with this girl I've had a thing for since all the way back to my days in San Francisco. Before LA.
She still lives up there. Hasn't changed.
Long hair, hoop earrings. Not surprised she still glows.
I laughed at her because I noticed she had the same three looks in every photo. 1) Drunk with her tongue out. 2) Mouth wide open, innocent eyes peering up at the sky. 3) Standard but stunning ear to ear smile.
But also noticed that as her expressions in the foreground remained constant, the people and places in the background always changed. Suggestions of far-off adventures and wanderings.
Maybe she's just more snapshot-happy than me, but I started wondering about all the memories I was maybe missing.
This is her:
I cropped out her fiancé.
Been testing out Facebook ads for Mr. Sadman in the Middle East to see what does and doesn't work. I never click on ads, but I understand it's part of how Facebook tries to make money.
A few things that I've gleaned after a week and a half. These may be obvious, but it's always good to test out the low-risk basics first, and thankfully Facebook allows you to set your daily balances pretty low.
1) No one else really clicks on Facebook ads. This is true for internet advertising in general, so I wasn't too shocked to see the percentages. Then again, it only takes a few buyers to make it worth the cost. Click-through rates may also have to do with our particular ad creative, of course, so that's something to constantly review.
2) It's hard to separate people from their money. Tough times all around the globe, so you'll have to do a lot more than just get them curious because in the end they'll easily forget and start watching porn or YouTube panda videos instead.
3) Relatedly, it's even more difficult to get people to spend their money on a feature film they've never heard of before, no matter what the hook. The price may not be anything exorbitant, but in the Netflix/BitTorrent-era there's a mental value quotient in terms of paying for one individual film ("I just spent X on this single random movie") and time ("I will have to spend 85 minutes of my life watching this single random movie just to make it feel like it was worth it"). Most people have their fingers off their impulse-buy triggers in this economic climate.
These were expected and may point to that one inevitable result, but for now it's time to mess around some more.
Stay tuned.
I remember seeing this video for Death Cab for Cutie's "A Movie Script Ending" a bunch of times a few years before shooting Mr. Sadman and liking it. Then I came across it again after shooting and was like, "Wait a second, I know that dude."
I've always enjoyed this song.
My friend Joel Quizon posted a list on his blog a few weeks back on "How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Asian American Independent Films". It's pretty funny, kinda sad and very true. The list should probably be much longer. Volumes, perhaps.
I have some problems with the term "Asian American film" as I do with the term "independent film" (they're both outdated and each is too small of an umbrella to cover everything that people hope to push under it; I could go on for a while). My biggest pet peeve with "Asian American independent film", though, is the fact that no one seems to do their homework. Why isn't there greater breadth in films made by Asian Americans? Why is everything seemingly about the same topics: internment, immigration, identity, food, etc.?
I don't think a lot of filmmakers take the time to see what's been addressed before they write their mini-masterpieces. If they did, then maybe they could gain some insight, stand on the shoulders of those earlier films and build upon the discourse. Move the conversation forward instead of wallowing in self-important, thinly-veiled autobiography.
If people care about what's left of Asian American cinema, then shouldn't films be challenging one another? Shouldn't we be raising the bar (however you may define it) for both art and entertainment and calling each other out, instead of holding our hands over our ears and chanting the same tired cries over and over again to people who long ago stopped listening?
You can't just keep top rockin. It's true for short and feature films, the ethnic-specific and the mainstream. Eventually, if you want to get noticed, you're going to have to step in the arena and do something fresh.
I haven't posted anything on this blog since last summer.
Have figured out how to put all videos and clips on one page for now, so took down most of the previous video posts due to redundancy and to speed up load time.
While I'm at it, though, I'd better get some branding out of the way:
Ted Hope, Ira Deutchman, Tilda Swinton and others are part of a new independent film production company called DF Indie Studios. Here's a link to the indiewire.com and Variety articles. Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why the venture might or might not work.
Might:
- Reputation of all those involved
- Implied vertical integration of "guaranteed distribution"
- Collaborating on a studio-style slate allows a single hit film to offset losses if other films tank
- Fills the void of Indiewood speciality studio arms that have closed down.
Might not:
- Guaranteed distribution doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed audiences
- Guaranteed distribution doesn't necessarily mean guaranteed return
- What does "guaranteed distribution" mean anyway?
- How will they solve or embrace the issues of piracy and file sharing?
- Those Indiewood studios shut down for a reason.
With the names attached, I'm expecting the company will be more in tune with the technological and social changes happening in media than Hollywood has been, so I definitely look forward to what comes of this.
No doubt, it's still a tough sell, especially in these times, but I've always been a fan of independent slates and vertical integration from production to distribution (and even exhibition). If DFIS succeeds, watch the imitators come out of the woodwork.
Additional reading: Anthony Kaufman wonders what kinds of "independent" fare this new studio will produce.
UPDATE: More reactions here and here.
From Ted Hope's twitter feed. Industry executive Barry Diller talks about charging for online content.
An excerpt:
"Anything of any value…is going to get paid for" online, Diller said during the event, which was co-hosted by Internet juggernaut IAC and Digital Hollywood.
Diller said the switch to more paid offers is "absolutely inevitable" in order for content producers to survive and the change is already underway. News Corp. and other media biggies have recently signaled they are gearing up efforts to charge for more digital content.
Diller said he expects micro payments to be one pay model on the Web once billing systems become simpler, and he described the success of iPhone applications as a clear sign where things are headed.
"People will pay for content," he said. "They always have."
He may be right, but unless he has some new take on these models or the meaning of "value", he's probably wrong. This illustrates the exact kind of thinking I referred to in my last post that relies too much on the past rather than looking at the present for changes affecting the future. It's the dangerously closed-minded perspective that ignores cultural shifts, which will result in further problems for media companies of all sizes.
Watch Mr. Sadman
Poll
Loading ...