The State of Indy film, Pt 1.

As many folks have observed, the concept of "independent film" has become nearly meaningless. However, the beginnings were clear enough...

Once upon a time (e.g. the era of Easy Rider), independent film referred to the films that were made outside of (...independent of...) the established and all-powerful Hollywood studio system. Traditionally, the studio system worked because most films were shot on sound stages (as opposed to on location), and the equipment only had to move around the studio lot--increasing efficiency by cutting travel time and cost. This equipment was expensive, difficult to use, and most of all... heavy.

A Mitchell BNC(R) 35mm film camera - used by Hitchcock, for instance - weighed 135 lbs and was broken down into 7 separate cases. It was usually mounted on a rolling studio dolly because conventional tripods could not practical or safe. Taking this camera out of the studio and on location was a major ordeal. Even if you could afford this camera, it was painful to use outside of the studios.

It wasn't until the advent of smaller cameras that independent film was possible, using cameras such as the popular Arriflex 16 BL. It still was heavy and expensive compared to today's HD camcorders - but it was light and cheap compared to the studio-only cameras. This allowed films like Easy Rider to be made...

I mention this film because it played a role in Hollywood's early awareness of having to cater to the diversity of audiences - rather than expect them to gobble up whatever films the produced (because they had no alternatives, really...)

Just before Easy Rider came out, the 1967 musical version of "Doctor Dolittle" was released by 20th Century Fox; it was an expensive and elaborate film, intended to be the film of the year for that studio (or any other). When it flopped, it was an painful financial loss for the studio, and a clear indication that they were totally out of touch with what modern (particularly young adult) audiences were looking for. And in 1969, when Easy Rider came out - this crappy looking, shocking, tragic and somewhat bizarre film was resonating with the youth in ways the studio system could never have anticipated.

The studios did not regard independent film as a serious threat (or opportunity) at this time, but it did get their attention, and pave the way for other brave folks to try other films outside of the physical and intellectual domain of Hollywood.

Filmmakers want in on the video game racket

A recent article in the LA Times partially explores the recent fad of major film talent dabbling in the world of video game development by interviewing Gore Verbinski, who has declared his intentions towards gaming with gems such as this:

When we design a game here, my mantra is "gameplay first." We start on a game with the way controlling it feels in your hands.

I suppose this was intended to demonstrate that he "gets" gaming and will not attempt to re-create the early cinematic-based games from the early 90s. A classic example of why this doesn't work has been embedded below for your, uh, edification?



Although I am glad that Gore recognizes that games revolve around gameplay... is that something to boast about if you want to be taken seriously? That's the most obvious possible thing about making games. That's like a game developer starting a band and saying, "When we record an album here, our mantra is, 'music first." No kidding?

I do not mean to imply that Gore's efforts are doomed, or that he is not capable of making a kickass game. But there's quite a lot more to making a good game than the mere recognition of the importance basic mechanics. It's true that even professional game developers get those wrong sometimes... but then again, professional filmmakers also occasionally get the basic mechanics of visual storytelling wrong. (Perhaps Gore's third Pirate film was an example of this, smashing storylines together until you could care less.)

While Gore focuses on his own games, he's also backing away from an actual film based on an extremely cinematic video game: Bioshock. This game is positively lousy with atmosphere and story - and might be one of the few games that could be simply recorded while played, edited, and shown as a film.



The official word is that Universal put the brakes on rather than face massive cost overruns, and would only do it overseas with a smaller budget.

Given the increasing cultural (and $$$) prominence of video games it's not surprising that a segment of folks from other industries would become interested. Film folks might appear to be the most natural fit, given the technical complexity, long time lines, and huge budgets both industries have in common. That said, I'm not so certain that the skill sets are that easily translatable. They are vastly different arts, on vastly different platforms. While they might correctly assume that many gamers are the same people that watch their films - they may not realize the very different expectations a single person might have towards the two different mediums. You may have captured their hearts and minds with a film, but to do the same with a game is an entirely different affair.

This desire to crossover is nothing new, and is actually a wonderful thing in terms of generating new ideas and maturing both artforms. However, biology thoughtfully reminds us that the hybrid offspring of two different species is often sterile. We may learn a lot about each art by trying to combine them, but will probably not end up with a new species.

I hope Gore and the other gaming dilettantes prove me wrong and bring gameplay AND storytelling to new heights. Until then, I'm just irritated that it is delaying the premiere of a film version Bioshock... I think Gore would do a fantastic job of that.