Guitarchitecture.org

Today I took a little break and checked out an indie film on Amazon movies on demand (works AWESOME with the ROKU) called of darkness.  There was a lot about this film that blew me away and a lot of implications for musicians to consider as well.

The online rental experience

Video stores should be crapping themselves.  Between Netflix streaming (I don’t even care about the dvds that come – I just stream everything I want to watch to my tv) and new releases being able to stream for $1.99 to $3.99 instantly with no dvds to return – that makes going to the video store to look through all the videos and then pay more than that for a dvd a hassle.  But even more importantly – some people have gotten smart and started streaming pre-theatrical releases like [rec 2] and George Romero’s Survival of the dead for $9.99 and $6.99 respectively.  I keep hearing idiotic arguments from the film industry about why new theatrical release can’t be streamed.  Mostly it’s a fear of lost revenue.  For example – If you spend $10 renting [rec 2] and have 4 friends over to watch it – in the entertainment industries’ eyes – you lost $30 instead of gaining $10.

Where the industry is being myopic is – Survival of the Dead was available online 3 months ago.  For each viewing of the film – revenue to the film industry –  $0.  Revenue to Romero  - $0.  My guess is that most people would have rather spent $7 and watched a crisp cut of the film without bandwidtch delays at home.  Also Survival of the Dead got such a crap distribution that the only way for most people to see it will be on some version of online.

Using the example above, the 3 people the entertainment industry thinks they lost money on – never would have gone to the theater to see the movie anyway.  Even if it was playing in their market they were not, in all likelihood, going to pay for parking, $10 a ticket and $20 on refreshments to see the film.  They would have waited for it on video.

[rec 2] is the best horror film I’ve seen in a while.  Better than the original, the plot is very interesting, the acting and effects are superb.  Oh, and it has a proper ending –  not one that’s just tacked on.  If people ask me what film they should see – I’ll probably point them to that one.  If 3 other people in a room all have the same experience I do, they will tell their friends the same thing and their friends will be more likely to rent it as well.

Word of mouth marketing is the most powerful.

So why is the industry resistance so strong to this idea?  Because Hollywood can’t make a film under $40 million dollars.  If there’s any kind of name actor associated with it – I’m guessing that it’s at least $100 million.  And any film that gets a major release will have to have tens of millions of dollars of promotion behind it as well (if not more).  Then video production costs and additional marketing means that every film is a $100 million dollar film.  And when you have a $100 million dollars wrapped up in a product – you can believe that every resource at your disposal will be utilized in tracking the revenue associated with that product.  So to Hollywood – it’s all about short turn return on the investment – because there’s another 10-11 $100 million dollar widgets (er films ( interesting point – none of these are actually shot on film anymore and video has a nasty vhs connotation with it in regards to quality so what will the appropriate term be if not “film”? )) waiting in the wings they need that money now.

Does this sound familiar?  I seem to recall another industry that had individual companies spend millions of dollars promoting 10-12 artists a year with the idea that if the revenue from those sales were enough then that would float the losses from all of the other widgets (er cds – remember them?) that the company sold.  It’s sad that this myopia is not just limited to the music industry (formerly know as the “record” industry but focuses so little on music that that too is a misnomer – it should probably be the “Sonic Cult of Personality” industry instead), but eventually they’ll have to come around – just as the “Sonic Cult of Personality” industry finally realized that online revenue might be the only revenue that came in on a particular product.

I’ll spare you a crap analogy with the film industry and the video store comment – but I believe that the home viewing experience for films (independent and otherwise) will definitively be the primary distribution model of the future.

For those musicians who are still reading this at this point – this counts double for live performances.  To paraphrase an earlier quote in this posting; even if it was playing in their neighborhood people are not, in all likelihood, going to pay for parking, $10-$20 a ticket and $30 on beer to see a decent band in their mp3 collection (much less an iffy band in a crap club on a Tuesday night).  Unless it’s a special event – where they already have tickets they’ll probably rent (or stream) a movie .

Why of darkness blew my socks off

This film got everything right.

It’s 21 minutes long.  Too short for a widespread theatrical release – but short enough to make it into film festivals and get widespread audiences, press and reviews.  21 minutes is about what a sitcom is in length so it’s perfect for short attention spans as well.

The script was excellent.  Very lean story telling.  Some kids find a book in their grandfather’s things that causes all sorts of Hell to be raised when opened.

It’s character driven.  Excellent cast that sold the story – which is even harder to pull off because there are almost no adult characters in the cast – but it still works.

It’s not CGI driven.  The primary protagonist in the film?  Darkness.  No CGI.  Only one or two special effects as such.  Mostly lights turning off which creates real tension in the piece.

I have no idea about the budget – but it only used 2 locations – a house and a school.  SMART!  and cost effective

The film looked and sounded really good.  No mumblecore production crap here.  This looked great for being shot on video.  And a lot of times indie films have really terrible sounds and this just sounded great.   Everything about this film looked pro.

All this means that the film was made on little money.  No 100 million dollar budget here.  The catering was done by the director’s parents.

The tone was also very reminiscent of 80′s horror films – which I think was really smart in terms of both aesthetic and accessibility.

Production notes here.

Why musicians should care

This is a great template to use when pursuing your artistic projects.

Have a solid idea.  All the window dressing in the world won’t save a crappy idea.

Be passionate about that idea.  When you’re passionate about something – there’s typically an attention to detail – that other’s pick up on as well.

Understand the best way to convey that idea.  In this case it’s 21 minutes.  In general, leave people wanting more.

Use limitations as strengths.  The use of “darkness” as a bad guy is brilliant and more importantly effective.  By using a script that used only 6 actors (outside of the school scene) and 1 location the director could put more attention on the technical aspects of the story telling and make the work as seemless as possible.

Be professional.  People don’t want to see something they think they could have shot themselves (unless it involves groin injuries on a skateboard).  They want to hear things that not only resonate with them but is something that they would be unable (or if egomaniacal “unwilling”) to create themselves.

Put it somewhere where people will really be exposed to it.  Films are unique because when they see one in a theater, they are essentially strapping themselves into a mental amusement park ride for 90 minutes or so.  This means that the movies have a better shot of getting their undivided attention than 1 of 10 million mp3s streaming randomly on a web site will have.  This is where word of mouth comes into play again.  Your friends friends friends friend’s tastes are more likely to be influenced by passionate exposure from people they know than from random exposure.

What to be wary of

1.  The film is actually 16 minutes long and the credits are 4 minutes long.  This despite the fact that the film was directed and edited by 1 person (Gary Irwin – who did a great job with both things) and only had 1 writing credit.  The crew listing was approximately 67 people.

This might seem huge but realize that this is a microscopic crew by many standards – but there is an important lesson here.  It took a lot of talented people for the film to work on the level it did.

It’s important as an artist to know what your limitations are and seek out experts when possible.

For example – I can sequence a beat enough to pull of a demo – but If I was recording my own music – I would get a professional drummer to play the parts – because he or she is going to play the part better than I ever would.

This advice goes double for CD artwork, triple for engineering and quadruple for mastering.

2.  Some things are not for everyone.  Some people would balk at $1.99 for a 7 day rental of a 21 minute (really a 16 minute) film.  To put it in perspective – A coffee will cost you $2, minimum and it’s out of your system in a couple of hours.  1/2 a day later and it’s like you were never exposed to it at all.

I bring all of this up, because people are fond of discussing the level playing field that technology offers, and this is simply not true.

You could not make of darkness with 4 of your buddies and a $150 video camera.

Your cd will not sound like Bob Ludwig mastered it just because you have some Waves Plug ins.

It’s important to realize that even doing it “on the cheap” means that it’s going to cost some money to get the work to a pro level.

While the odds are definitely better than they were before, independent artists are going to have to be as cagey and flexible as possible to be able to outmaneuver the bigger teams.

See you next time!  Thanks for reading!