Jump to content


Photo

I Sent a film to Cannes!


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 07 March 2006 - 07:59 PM

Of course, I don't expect it to get picked as an official entry, but if the Brown Bunny can make the cut, ANY movie can. I figure, for thirty bucks, it's work the risk, and I can forever say I sent a feature film to Cannes. Fingers Crossed. Anyone out there shot or played a role in a film that made it to Cannes? Would love to hear your experience!
Best
Brian Rose
  • 0

#2 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:49 PM

Of course, I don't expect it to get picked as an official entry, but if the Brown Bunny can make the cut, ANY movie can. I figure, for thirty bucks, it's work the risk, and I can forever say I sent a feature film to Cannes. Fingers Crossed. Anyone out there shot or played a role in a film that made it to Cannes? Would love to hear your experience!
Best
Brian Rose




I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'.


Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage?

~Shawn
  • 0

#3 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 07 March 2006 - 08:54 PM

I've never seen Brown Bunny, but I have read many of the reviews, critiques, and praise, so I have to ask, are you using Brown Bunny as your lowest common denominator because you honestly believe Gallo is a poor filmmaker/storyteller? Or is it because the subject matter and his approach to filmmaking/storytelling isn't to your liking? There's a big difference between poor filmmaking/storytelling/cinematography/editing/ etc and styles of filmmaking, indeed there are many films that I just don't find interesting, some of the classic European "masters" as a matter of fact, but I would never suggest that they are "bad" films or not worthy of Cannes or and festival, they're just not my 'cup of tea'.
Good luck on your entry and do you have a link to some footage?

~Shawn


I'm rather mixed on Vincent Gallo. I definitely don't think he should have shown the film at Cannes as it was at the time. Seemingly endless takes of nothing, followed by an explicit sex scene. I don't know, maybe the selection committee saw something in it, but I though it was just plain bad.
  • 0

#4 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:02 PM

I'm rather mixed on Vincent Gallo. I definitely don't think he should have shown the film at Cannes as it was at the time. Seemingly endless takes of nothing, followed by an explicit sex scene. I don't know, maybe the selection committee saw something in it, but I though it was just plain bad.




...do you have a link to some footage from your entry?
  • 0

#5 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:33 PM

Sorry, I forgot your other question. The answer is, I could, but I don't have a website, and I'm a little fuzzy on streaming to the web. The only copies I have of my movie are DVDs and the original on Premiere. If you could suggest a way I might get some of it out on the web...I'd be glad to oblige.
Best,
Brian Rose
  • 0

#6 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:41 PM

Sorry, I forgot your other question. The answer is, I could, but I don't have a website, and I'm a little fuzzy on streaming to the web. The only copies I have of my movie are DVDs and the original on Premiere. If you could suggest a way I might get some of it out on the web...I'd be glad to oblige.
Best,
Brian Rose

]


Do you have a trailer? If so there are number of places I can recommend for posting/hosting the file, but the entire movie without significant compression is far too large for streaming, what's the running time?
  • 0

#7 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 07 March 2006 - 09:55 PM

Running time is approx. 85 minutes. I do have a trailer, and I shall work on getting a new version that I can upload. I would love to see some of those video sites you mentioned!
Best,
Brian Rose
  • 0

#8 Sidney King

Sidney King
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Director

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:17 PM

Hi Brian-Best of luck with your feature submission to Cannes; just keep in mind they accept very, very, very few American features. Most of the ones they do accept are from the major directors (Lynch, Woody Allen, even the recent Star Wars films). But you're right, it's always worth a shot, and you make a great point about "Brown Bunny."

Good luck, and keep us informed.
  • 0

#9 C.L. Washington Jr.

C.L. Washington Jr.
  • Guests

Posted 07 March 2006 - 11:21 PM

God Speed and God Bless......................hope this is the first of many to go to Cannes!!!!!

C.L.
  • 0

#10 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 08 March 2006 - 12:10 AM

Running time is approx. 85 minutes. I do have a trailer, and I shall work on getting a new version that I can upload. I would love to see some of those video sites you mentioned!
Best,
Brian Rose




http://www.putfile.com/

http://video.google.com/

http://www.youtube.com/

http://www.zippyvideos.com/

http://www.internetv...oHosting102.htm
  • 0

#11 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 08 March 2006 - 12:39 AM

...and you make a great point about "Brown Bunny."



I don't mean to belabor this point, but I really want to encourage well articulated constructive criticism and commentary of films, cinematography, editing, etc., and as such I hope we all discourage generalizations like "I don't like this", "this film is bad", etc.

..most of the time what is deemed "good" or "bad" is subjective, and when someone critiques our work we might find it useful if they speak specifically about what they did or didn't like, and why.

So, are you saying that you also felt that there were "Seemingly endless takes of nothing", and this is why you believe the committee should have passed on the film?

I look forward to seeing the film and finding out for myself it it's a just case of stylistic aesthetics or perhaps I might find it altogether annoying or boring, but at what point can I honestly say it was so "bad" that it shouldn't have made it into a festival? (I ask sincerely)

Edited by Shawn Murphy, 08 March 2006 - 12:39 AM.

  • 0

#12 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 08 March 2006 - 12:55 AM

I just found it to be incredibly unremarkable. My understanding is that the cut shown at Cannes was a rough cut, from which forty minutes (correct me if I'm wrong) were excised afterward. So, essentially, Cannes accepted a rough cut. I have to think that either they did not view the film, and accepted it on Vincent Gallo's name recognition alone, or that they must have seen something special about it. I guess what I meant by my comment on Brown Bunny was that if the Cannes organizers saw something special about that film that allowed them to overcome all the other problems it had and give it a shot, it certainly gives hope to other filmmakers who are just getting started.
  • 0

#13 Shawn Murphy

Shawn Murphy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Seattle

Posted 08 March 2006 - 01:07 AM

I just found it to be incredibly unremarkable. My understanding is that the cut shown at Cannes was a rough cut, from which forty minutes (correct me if I'm wrong) were excised afterward. So, essentially, Cannes accepted a rough cut. I have to think that either they did not view the film, and accepted it on Vincent Gallo's name recognition alone, or that they must have seen something special about it. I guess what I meant by my comment on Brown Bunny was that if the Cannes organizers saw something special about that film that allowed them to overcome all the other problems it had and give it a shot, it certainly gives hope to other filmmakers who are just getting started.



Thanks for the follow up, greatly appreciated info.

I guess whenever you have a group of people making these kinds of decisions (festival entries, Oscars, etc), there are always elements of politics and "other factors" that come into play. For example, I'm watching the featurette on the making of Brazil that deals specifically with all the troubles Gilliam had getting his cut released in the states, and as many know, he showed eventually showed his cut to the LA Film Critics who then gave Brazil top honors, while the NY critics basically panned it. Regardless, it's always nice to hear opinions expressed intelligently and descriptively.

Thanks again.
  • 0

#14 Jeremy

Jeremy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 March 2006 - 05:07 PM

Have you seen the movie, or are you just going off of what you've read in the press? I haven't seen the original cut of Brown Bunny, but the one that was released on DVD is definitely worth watching. It is by no means a "hard core sex scene" as some reviewers have stated. What is actually taking place is anything but erotic.

The prestige of the festival is nothing for gauging what they will show. I've seen some of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life at Sundance.

Best of luck on entering your feature. The only way for people to see your movie is to get it out there, and to as many hands as you can! What's it about?

As a side note, here's what Ebert who famously called The Brown Bunny the worst movie in the history of Cannes has to say about it now:

http://rogerebert.su.../409020301/1023
  • 0

#15 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 08 March 2006 - 05:17 PM

The Brown Bunny certainly poses a unique quandary about good versus bad films. You gotta admit, Ebert's series of exchanges with Gallo were pretty darn funny! In regards to my comments, I think I poorly phrased them. I was not impugning Gallos' film, so much as praising Cannes' open mindedness. Many were turned off by The Brown Bunny, yet Canne saw something special about it that made them give it a shot. I figure it gives us all hope. Regarding your question about my film, it is a story about eight strangers and casual acquaintances who together experience the attacks of September 11. As much as it is an examination of that day and the confusion of it, it is also a commentary on gen y. I believe that 9/11 was a watershed for my generation, and that's what this film deals with. It's pretty simplistic plot wise, but instead focuses on character development (I hope), and utilizes many film techniques I've played with. This is my first feature, and as such, is sort of one I decided to have fun with. I use multiple stocks and mediums (ala JFK and NBK), and shot the film as a silent, with intertitles and classical music as the soundtrack. Whether it is good or bad waits to be seen (It premieres on my campus in April) but I believe it will at least be something different. I hope it will be something new. I'm working on getting a trailer of it online, but if you'd like a copy, I'm sure we could work something out.
Best,
Brian R. Rose
  • 0

#16 santo

santo
  • Guests

Posted 08 March 2006 - 05:31 PM

I'm reading this thread and thinking to myself: "If these guys knew how the selection of features work in a major film festival, there wouldn't be any question about why Brown Bunny was in the festival."

No sarcasm or sour grapes involved, but at least half the films selected in a festival like Cannes don't even have a selection process. That Gallo guy had associations with all the right people and all the right "trendy indie cred" and it's as simple as that.

I went for lunch with a producer last year and then was invited impromptu for a viewing of a short film he was producing that was nearly done (a final polish and colour correction I was told) for some feedback. So we went over to the director's house and had a look. Simply amazingly bad. Incredible. I tried to be as polite as possible, though. Before I left the producer and the director discussed getting it in to the Toronto festival (the deadline had passed weeks ago) and the producer said he had talked to so and so and they can get it in. The producer had previous work appear at TIFF. So they did and it played.

Now, that does not mean all films going to major festivals through the official process are wasting their time. Not at all -- it could and does happen that they get in. But be aware that probably half of the films making it into the majors are those that are in the festival without a pre-selction process, put there by "insiders". So rationalizing that "well, Brown Bunny was poop and it got in" doesn't really mean anything. It's like saying that "Battle Field Earth was hopelessly bad, so my feature script which is better (and anything would be, probably) should find no problem getting made."
  • 0

#17 Sean Azze

Sean Azze
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts
  • P.A.

Posted 08 March 2006 - 05:41 PM

I use multiple stocks and mediums (ala JFK and NBK), and shot the film as a silent, with intertitles and classical music as the soundtrack.



A silent film in 2006? That is ballsy. But hey, maybe that quality will pique interest and give you a shot at getting into Cannes.

You just never know with these festivals. I have a short film I sent out to roughly 30 film fests (here's a link to the trailer - Sacramento Film Fest) and it only got accepted by 7 (the largest one being the Queens International film fest). It always sort of perplexed me that it did so poorly because all of my peers and past professors really seemed to enjoy it. I saw it with an audience at the Williamstown film fest in Massachusetts, and people wouldn't stop coming up to me telling me how much they loved it. (a couple of people told me they felt it was the best one of the fest -unfortunately it was only an exhibition, so I couldn't bring a piece of hardware home if that was indeed true.)

So anyway, I guess there's no way of telling what your chances are. I will say that Cannes is quite a lofty goal though. Whereas Sundance, being the Mercedes of film fests, is typically the ideal place that young filmmakers try to get their stuff shown, your aiming for the Testarossa!

Best of luck.

Edited by sean126, 08 March 2006 - 05:44 PM.

  • 0

#18 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 08 March 2006 - 05:56 PM

"A silent film in 2006? That is ballsy."

Tell me about it. Call me crazy, but I think silent films and the likes are the future of film. We're getting to the point where ANYTHING is possible on film, thanks to CGI (ugh). I think the next step is a return to the basics, a return to what Hitchcock called "pure cinema." Even if I'm wrong, at least I'll have some unique films to show for my cockamamy theory. Any yes, it might picque enough interests in circles to get the film out in public.
Best,
Brian Rose
  • 0

#19 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 March 2006 - 06:10 PM

2 years ago Wong Kar-Wai arrived the day before the screening with a print of '2046' which he just finished, so you can bet that Gilles Jacob must have seen only a rough verison (if at all) of the film while selecting it. If you look at the directors chosen for the 'Official Selection' you will notice that there are several regulars (Wong, Hanecke, von Trier, Wenders) who have pretty much an automatic selection, independently of the quality of their films. Younger and less known directors tend to get picked for the 'Quainzaine' et 'Semaine de la Critique'
  • 0

#20 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 08 March 2006 - 06:29 PM

You raise an excellent point. But, newbies DO get in. There's always a chance, albeit miniscule. And I'll take anything I can get!
Best,
Brian Rose
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Opal

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Opal

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC