Web Exclusives Load & Play RSS Feed

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

This piece by filmmaker Barbara Schock appeared in our Summer, 2005 issue.

The phenomenal painter, teacher and film critic Manny Farber called his film class “A Hard Look at the Movies.” It was the first upper-division college class I took. I’d transferred from a small college in the Midwest to the University of California at San Diego, and I’d never seen a foreign film, unless you count the Sergio Leone westerns. We watched the following films in a 10-week period, and it turned the way I looked at movies upside down: Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Max Ophuls’s The Earrings of Madame de…, Jacques Tourneur’s Out of the Past, Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity, Werner Herzog’s Aguirre: the Wrath of God, Joseph Lewis’s Gun Crazy, Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout, Roberto Rossellini’s Voyage to Italy, Werner Schroeter’s The Death of Maria Malibran, Jean-Luc Godard’s Pierrot le fou and Les Carabiniers, John Boorman’s Point Blank, Eric Rohmer’s La Collectionneuse, Joseph Losey’s Accident, Robert Aldrich’s The Grissom Gang, Luis Buñuel’s Diary of a Chambermaid, Frank Borzage’s Man’s Castle, Nagisa Oshima’s Diary of a Shinjuku Burglar, Jean Cocteau and Jean-Pierre Melville’s Les Enfants terribles and several Buster Keaton films.

The first class I attended was packed and there was a circusy feeling in the air. It was rumored to be the last film class Manny would ever teach. People said he’d grown increasingly disillusioned with teaching film, that he preferred teaching his smaller painting classes. Manny was cranky — the story was he’d recently quit drinking. Supposedly in the old days he drank scotch up in the projection booth with the student projectionists.

Manny had a somewhat adversarial relationship with his film students. He didn’t want the class to be like basket weaving, something you took to satisfy your visual-arts requirement. Partly to thwart those looking for entertainment, he never showed a film straight through, a practice that annoyed many. Instead he’d screen one or two reels of the films in the weekly class, often out of order, sometimes stopping the film to replay a part. If you wanted to see the whole film you could watch it in the sections run by his teaching assistants, which was time-consuming if you had a full class load. Manny would get disgusted if anyone was talking in class, abruptly end his lecture and throw up a reel.

But most of us were enrapt because Manny’s lectures were mesmerizing. Considered by many to have reinvented film criticism with his brilliant, electric prose, Manny had a similarly inventive — and tremendously entertaining — manner of speaking. In vivid, staccato sentences (sounding like a cerebral Edward G. Robinson), he took a run at films. He was terse but rhapsodic; non-academic but deeply analytic. Drawing on a vast range of references to other art forms and with his keen grasp of the times, Manny always got at the guts of a film.

It was fundamentally the painter in Manny who urged us to “look hard at the frame.” He contended that a filmmaker, much like a painter, disclosed himself in a single frame. Manny had us focus on everything in the frame but the subject of the shot — what he termed the “negative space” — like the color and lighting, the scenery, the dialogue, the camera angles, where the character entered the frame, how the camera moved to pick up the smallest detail. Manny favored what he called “termite” artists, filmmakers who aimed not at product but who were interested in the activity of “burrowing into their media.” He wanted us to be termite critics, to burrow into the corners of the frame, where much would be revealed about the filmmaker’s intent.

Being a painter, he analyzed a film as though it were a moving collage of many elements, and those elements interested him more than the story the filmmaker was trying to tell. Sometimes he would run a scene backward and without sound so that we could discuss its visual components. But that surface examination was only part of his approach. While Manny wasn’t much interested in analyzing a film’s plot, he did want us to consider the cultural, historical and artistic impulses behind it. (Of course, it would have been pretty hard for us to analyze a film’s narrative without having seen the whole film.) Manny taught me more about film than anyone.

He called Double Indemnity a “low-down movie,” he talked about how singular and brilliant Wilder and Raymond Chandler’s dialogue was, how it kept cheapness and corruption in its focus at all times — he said the film had a “diseased attitude about disease.”

He described Out of the Past as a nasty middle-class tragedy with a melodramatic sense of light and dark: it was “chiaroscuro with a vengeance.” He explained that The Earrings of Madame de… was a social documentary about the bourgeois that caught its characters in a “dappling of life.” He said that Fassbinder had an eye for domesticity and that he used an “apartheid” effect in his interracial love story Ali: Fear Eats the Soul to “pin the characters with lighting.”

The severe up and down angles in Losey’s Accident made the scenes “prying and covert,” turning a story about social conscience into a thriller, a film whose characters chopped away at each other in fragmented sentences, in “mutilated, savage acrimony.” The characters in Boorman’s Point Blank were not people but puppets in a languid, sensual plastic world “engulfed by the decor.” Aldrich’s movies contained “marred” people, and Aldrich cluttered up his frames of The Grissom Gang with garbage so that the characters were forced to “knife through shit” and live life at a “cesspool level.” Losey, Boorman and Aldrich made “entertaining, degenerate” films about “self-serving, greedy people” who didn’t have much affection for one another “unless it was perverted.”

Manny’s language was hard-boiled — sometimes it felt as if he were going to get into a fistfight with the film he was critiquing. You never really knew where he came down on the films, it wasn’t a “thumbs-up, thumbs-down” kind of criticism, although there were directors he seemed to love, like Buñuel. He said that Buñuel’s films were haunting and forbidden, something inexpressible and private, like your favorite pornographic novel.

Manny loved the actors too, especially the “bit” players, but he rarely talked about how well they played the role or how they sought an emotional truth. He focused on the actors’ gestures, how they occupied the frame, the “psychological space” the actors inhabited. In Les Enfants terribles, Melville and Cocteau’s story of a doomed brother-sister relationship, a high angle on the siblings in their “dyspeptic, gloomy, dun-colored” bedroom made them seem like “chess pieces in a hopeless drama viewed by God.” Manny was interested in the actor as a living piece of the whole production design.

In his insightful preface to Manny’s book of film criticism Negative Space, Robert Walsh writes that Manny was a “seer about the relations between film and its historical moment” — which is very true, and was part of his genius as a teacher of film.

In one of his most brilliant lectures, Manny described Walkabout as being “sinister and perverse” and emblematic of the films of the 1970s. He talked about the voluptuousness of the 1970s, about how one thing led to another and “things just happened, man.” Manny said that Roeg’s endless dreams, focus changes, off-angles, his going from macro to micro shots in Walkabout showed the multiplicity of choices for the human being in that decade.

Manny talked about the grand sense of terrain in Aguirre, the Wrath of God and said that even when a Herzog shot was standing still, it still had a “whoosh.” He mainly used Aguirre to talk about the director’s subversion of narrative form, as he did with Godard and Oshima. Manny explained that most films try to impersonate life but that Godard mocked and picked on life “like a sniper.” Oshima was a collage artist who “at all costs wants to deny you a plot.” While Herzog was a more compassionate filmmaker, he inhabited an “irrational movie area” where there was no space for human relationships. Herzog seemed to have a soft spot for “demented people,” but he treated actors as pictorial ideas rather than actual people who needed “feeding, or anything.” All three filmmakers rejected old-fashioned, “boxed-in” drama and relied instead on other art forms to create their films, challenging us to find their motivations, which were “well worth digging for.”

Manny said there was a certain sexual sadism to be found in the long takes in Gun Crazy (I understand that better now than I did at age 19). He helped us understand why we can frequently rewatch Eric Rohmer’s movies even though they appear to be simple. He said Rohmer has an ability to sustain natural talk and keep the viewer intensely involved in what’s said, because thoughts, not actions, are important in his films. That Rohmer’s naturalistic dialogue and lighting style (a feeling of “nature caving in from sunlight”) stemmed from Rohmer’s belief that any passage of time reveals a person — it doesn’t have to be a big moment. He also called Rohmer a voyeur and a “soft-porn artist.”

Manny’s final lecture that year was on Buster Keaton. He talked about Keaton’s subtle, quiet, profound grace, his feeling for other people and sense of environmental proportion. I think he taught Keaton as a kind of respite from the other filmmakers. Keaton’s camera wasn’t “parasitic” — it didn’t chase the characters when they exited the frame; it held on the lovely outdoor scenery until someone else came along, giving the films a “comfortable, luxurious” feeling.

Thankfully, my first class with Manny turned out not to be his last. He taught for another decade, continuing to expose his learners to the latest European filmmakers, such as Wim Wenders, Marco Bellocchio, Marguerite Duras and Jean-Marie Straub, and continuing his love affair with the American “B” directors he’d been an early champion of, like Howard Hawks, Nicholas Ray and Raoul Walsh. Sometimes I think Manny read too much into avant-garde filmmakers like Straub and Duras, while giving short shrift to more established European filmmakers like Fellini. But he took risks in teaching and championing both emerging and forgotten filmmakers like Fassbinder, Borzage and Aldrich. As a result his students were steeped in dynamic European and classic underground American cinema.

With remarkable wit, feeling and insight, Manny introduced us neophyte film students to grown-up, sophisticated ideas about the artistic process, pop culture, the human psyche and even sex. To those of us fortunate enough to study with him — people like novelist Rex Pickett, critic Carrie Rickey and filmmaker Michael Almereyda — it is wonderful news that he is still around, painting beautifully and creating film series (for P.S.1/MoMA and the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, which both also recently showed retrospectives of his paintings).

Most of my friends think I am too critical of films, and so I tell them about Manny. He didn’t merely give me the license to criticize but the means. As a filmmaker living in Hollywood, I find it easy to get distracted by the commerce, by what Manny called the “hard-sell”; Manny puts me back in the dark, watching the films unfold and learning from that human, pleasurable experience. In a time when what is hip is marketed to us in more sophisticated ways than ever, Manny points us to the real outsiders in the way they approach the film frame. Like Edward G. Robinson in Double Indemnity, I feel I’ve got a little man inside me, with a voice a lot like Manny’s, who helps me identify a fake. While Manny can be a curmudgeon about films, he is also generous and inspiring, and he’s not a snob. He loves comedies, Laurel & Hardy, gangster films — all that’s unpretentious in the “movies.” I think about him at least once a week and about the great influence he’s had on how I view film art.


# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 8/19/2008 02:18:00 PM Comments (1)

Friday, August 15, 2008

This article, written by Bergen Swanson, originally appeared in our Winter, 2002 issue

YOU'VE DONE IT! The screenplay you've been slaving over for months has finally been optioned by an edgy production company noted for offbeat films. Or, the movie that has consumed your life for the past two years has been picked up by a noted distributor. Emptying out your savings, selling your comic book collection, sleeping on friends' couches - it's all been worth it. But then the unthinkable happens. The company that bought your film or script files for bankruptcy, and your project gets thrown into legal limbo, possibly never to see the light of day.

A far-fetched scenario? The sudden demise of companies like The Shooting Gallery and, most recently Propaganda Films, the noted commercial and film production house and home for filmmakers like Spike Jonze, reminds us all of the financial instability of independent film. And although ex-executives and lawyers are reluctant to comment on record, these companies -- and the scores of lesser known ones that have been cratered during this entertainment industry recession -- controlled dozens of projects, whether they be acquired books, optioned screenplays or produced or acquired films. The acquisitions or production executives, the "friends of the filmmaker," who brought those projects into their companies and have been pink-slipped away, and anxious independents have now been left to bargain with bankers and court appointed trustees in order to regain the rights to their material.

Although it can be difficult to disentangle one's work once a company has entered bankruptcy, by understanding bankruptcy and its legal workings when first negotiating his or her deal, a filmmaker can obtain some degree or protection should a production or distribution company go belly up.

There are two types of bankruptcy that affect a filmmaker: chapter 11 and chapter 7. In chapter 11 bankruptcy, a company is reorganized so that it will continue to operate. In this scenario, those that are owed financial compensation "line up" with everyone else in that same situation. As profits are generated from the company's operations, then the creditors, which may include you if your project previously generated revenue which you have yet not received, are paid off.

In chapter 7 bankruptcy the company ceases to operate and its assets - not only its real estate, computers and copy machine but also your screenplay or movie - are liquidated to pay off debts, which may include everything from bank loans to distribution overages. A recent example of this situation concerns Julie Johnson, a film starring Lili Taylor, Courtney Love and Spalding Gray. The Shooting Gallery financed the project from a Wendy Hammond play for Bob Gosse to direct. It has played in several key festivals, including Sundance and Berlin, and picked up some awards. But as an arrangement with Universal Focus, part of The Shooting Gallery's overall output deal, for an October release was being worked out, things went sour. Serious financial issues caught up to The Shooting Gallery, and the company was forced to file bankruptcy.

Amy Nickin, a lawyer currently of Barnes, Morris, Klein, Mark & Yorn who formerly ran business affairs for the entertainment division of The Shooting Gallery, explains: " Julie Johnson was never actually released. What will happen [to that film] is that people in the film community will go to the bank, or in this case the [court-appointed] receiver, and the receiver will determine what a fair market value is for that project, and people will negotiate. Basically, they'll get a deal on buying that film" "But in practice that's not what is going on," Gosse claims. "I don't know if [the receiver] just hasn't gotten to it yet, which is entirely possible. I'm sure it's a tiny piece of paper on a desk. We've had bids on Julie Johnson from Strand (Releasing), Home Box Office and Showtime. Why wouldn't they want to liquidate the [companies] assets, even if it's just pennies on the dollar?"

Although Gosse was paid his director's salary, he still isn't comfortable with the situation. "it's horrible. It's very disappointing because it's a good film. I'm very proud of it." Yet, the hope is still there, when he adds, "Maybe it'll still come out."

But Gosse also understand the nature of the business. "I have no claim to [the film], because who am I?" he says. "I just wrote it and directed it. They paid me and [said], "'Thank you and goodbye.'"

Philosophically, he adds, "The business has changed so much since The Shooting Gallery started. These kind of events, these consolidations and bankruptcies, are an inevitable part of the shifts in the business."

To anticipate the risks, and to prevent one's material from being tied up in a bankruptcy court, there are precautions a film maker can take. "Obviously, investigate and research the reputation of the company," advises Nickin. "Determine how the companies finances their development, how they generally finance production. Is it through private investors or bank investors? What you're tying to do is determine who is going to own these rights at the end of the day. If everything fails in the company, where are the right going to end up? Indeed, filmmakers who have signed a deal with a Vans-wearing CEO may really discover that their rights are really controlled by a bunch of investment bankers in the midwest. (Something similar happened to Propaganda Films when the Pennsylvania investment group that bought the company abruptly decided to pull the plug.)

Another strategy would be to include a "key man" clause in an option or purchase agreement. This basically states that a particular project or element is tied to a particular person remaining at that company. If that person is no longer at the company then the owner of the company has a contractual right to terminate the agreement. But this negotiation point is usually very difficult to earn because it goes against the broader corporate interests of the studio or production company the contract is with.

Also important is the length of the option or license period. For the filmmaker in all cases, shorter is better. Nickin cites a recent example. "Everyone knew [a certain company] was in trouble because they weren't paying writers. So, now would not be the time to enter into a deal with them. But if you were going to enter into one, then you would do a short option period. You could be assured if something were to happen [with your project] it would happen sooner rather than later when the entire company fell apart.

"Really pay attention to the reversion and turnaround," Nickin continues. Applying to mostly screenplay deals, "reversion" means that if, after a certain period of time, the company does nothing with the project, the rights to it revert back to the whomever originally controlled it. Or, filmmakers can ask for a "progress to production" clause, which obligates the company to steadily to move the project along (by hiring casting directors, making offers to actors, etc.) or else have the project revert back to its original rights holder. A "turnaround" clause ensures that, if the project is "abandoned" by the acquiring company, the filmmaker or the original rights holder is able to shop it around to other companies who can then acquire it by reimbursing, in some form, development costs. "Turnaround should always be negotiated for if you have the ability," Nickin advises.

Andrew Hurwitz, an entertainment attorney with Epstein, Levinsohn, Bodine, Hurwitz & Weinstein, adds that there is one key concept filmmakers should keep in mind when trying to protect themselves from a future bankruptcy. " A lot of filmmakers are advised to add language to the contract saying that in the event of bankruptcy it's terminable," he notes. "And that's basically unenforceable because the courts will not allow you to terminate contracts because of financial condition of the debtor. For example , add the language that says, ' In the event you cease to distribute the film or you don't distribute the film in 25 markets or you don't pay x amount of P&A....' If they don't meet those things you can go to the bankruptcy court and ask to have license terminated by arguing that they breached contract, and not because their financial condition is such that you need relief. That's very important distinction for people to be aware of."


# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 8/15/2008 12:10:00 AM Comments (2)

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?




Current Posts
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009