In the case of Things to Do the cast came first. Ted and Mike wrote the script, and near the end of that process Mike had been considered for the lead, and then Daniel. They knew each other and had starred in our first real short out of college, The Putting Edge, plus they had collaborated on Mike Stasko's short while in school "The Show". Their chemistry made the film real for us and in many ways I am not sure I would want anyone else doing the roles, because I felt they were just great together. The money came next; because these friends of ours were not box office names, we did have many hurdles in raising the money, but it came together. The crew came last and was a mix and match of our previous films, they were a very big part of the process during production, because we all had relations in the past, it was a project we all looked forward to making. There were no real big problems, and any that might have appeared were expelled rather quickly due to great attitudes. Because of this atmosphere I would repeat the working experience with the people for sure. However, the business side of it must change. The financing process, which I will not get into was very interesting to say the least. I learned a great deal about making films in Canada and in general.

 

 

 

The soundtrack began by Ted selecting the music with which he thought would be appropriate for his tastes as the writer and director. I must say I listen to this soundtrack regularly and I think we were very lucky to get such great talent to let us use the music in the film. Quite simply we just asked the labels/publishers if we could use the music, in some case we sent along a script, and even a teaser for the film. In other cases we spoke over the phone and the deal was done. Alot of the music is from indie artists, with big talent, and they seem to be open to the idea of being supportive. Without them we would have had to make our own music, which we did in some cases. Eric Schiller, who was also our Director of Photography, along with Mike Stasko made some of the music to replace songs from bigger artists, they worked hard and fast to get us replacement songs for those songs we had placed but were eventually not allowed to use; so big thanks to them. In terms of financials we did have to agree to pay for the music, it is not free, however we have deals in place that allow us to use the music, but once there is money coming in from distribution we have to pay the fees, which we are more than happy to pay, given this is one of the biggest compliments to the film by critics and or fans of the film.

 

 

I am still plodding through the Withoutabox lists looking at the different fests and their offerings, so I do not think my opinion is worth gold, but I will tell you what I think because you are asking. Festival exposure comes when you make a good film, if it is really good than you shouldn't have trouble getting into the festival of your choice. There is a caveat to this, in that, what is good in your eyes is not necessarily good as seen through the eyes of festival programmers or anyone for that matter. They have mandates and criteria for selecting films, most often you will not know what the criteria is, so my best advice to gain festival exposure is to stick to making films you feel very confident in making. Know your concept and with some luck your film will be good and perhaps if you were thorough in your execution of every step from script to completion you may get the attention of the festival programmers. I think it is smart however to plan your festival strategy around the type of film you have made. There are festivals that are larger in size catering to professionals with clout and there are those that cater to smaller projects with varying tastes. Know your film and where it belongs and perhaps shoot for the right home. You stand a better chance by targeting the film. Don't submit your film to all festivals aimlessly; you are wasting your money. As for which fests are best for Indies, I think they are all good for Indies, but some festivals are geared to bigger films and others are not, so there again it depends on your film. Smaller doesn't mean worse, bigger doesn't mean better, I think you need to look at your film and find the right home. When you get into a festival congratulate yourself and then go to work on the promo strategy, you don't get into a festival everyday so enjoy it and make it work as best you can.

 

I don't have a favourite festival yet as I have not experienced enough of them to offer an opinion.

 

 

I am not a loyalist of either one of these formats. I am a producer first, so if I can get similar results cheaper I could be persuaded to go one way or the other. I do appreciate the benefits film can provide versus HD or otherwise. From what I have been reading about 4K technology that is now here and being used by Hollywood heavyweights such as Peter Jackson, who shot the short film "Crossing the Line" with the Red Camera, is that workflow models are changing due to the technology and as a result the benefits are changing also. I did a demonstration video with the Dalsa Origin 4K prototype in 2003 where we examined the power and intense resolution of this new technology. I was very impressed by the results and the new abilities in the workflow that are created. For me though, I think that success is found in the balance of economics, technology and the creative intentions of the creators. If the priority is financial I will go with the model that suits this end, and the same for otherwise. Each project and format decision will always require intense research of the benefits versus the costs. In the end I can see the possibility for technology to catch up to the organic nature of film, if it hasn't already.

---

LINK THIS ARTICLE