Showing posts with label online release. Show all posts
Showing posts with label online release. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Daniel Coffeen Reviews "10 Commandments of Chloe"


Here is one of the best reviews we've read for our feature The 10 Commandments of Chloe, directed by Princeton Holt and co-produced by & starring our own Naama Kates. Check it out after the jump!


 At first, this seems like a familiar — if quite beautiful — indie film in the mumblecore vein. Young hip artist types drinking, smoking pot. Casual, realistic dialogue. And our heroine, overcoming obstacles, realizing things about herself.

But this will never have been that movie. All the familiar trappings swirl around Chloe, trying to bring her into that movie, into that life. But neither Princeton Holt, the director, nor Chloe, the character, are having any of it. They divert and toss aside cliché with a deft hand.

In many ways, this is a film about the temptation of cliché. Throughout the film, both Princeton Holt and Chloe ask: Is this a story of all too human interests — life, love, self discovery? Or is all that, as she suggests in one scene, irrelevant? Are there other forces — of music, of life, of the landscape — that are more interesting, vital, engaging? Just as Chloe can never remember anyone's name, Princeton Holt can't seem to focus on the banality of human beings for very long, his camera voraciously relishing the scenery.

These may be the 10 commandments of Chloe, as if she were the one in control. And while she may well be a formidable force, there are forces that exceed her. Her troubles and relationships vie for the focus of this film just as they vie for her attention. But other forces keep pushing her — not out of the frame but into the intense, and intensive, landscape of Nashville's musical swirl.

For this is a film, first and foremost, of the landscape. Indeed, it opens with an homage to Woody Allen's Manhattan, giving us monolithic, mostly black and white shots of Nashville. Chloe is nowhere to be found. When these give way, we are greeted with the first commandment: Assimilate. And that is what this film gives us: Chloe's overcoming of herself to assimilate into the landscape of Nashville, an assimilation that does not mean her oblivion but, on the contrary, her becoming herself.

After this tell tale commandment, we are confronted with a sumptuous blur of Nashville at night. Blur can be so powerful, so beautiful, effacing the strict borders of form; blur is the image of movement, of flow, effacing the strictures of form. Throughout this film, the image hovers between blur and focus, forms becoming flow, flow taking form before being torn asunder once again. Such is the tension of this film: the movement between form and flow, human concerns and indifferent landscape, focus and blur.

As the image begins to come into focus, we hear an older woman addressing a younger one — yes, Chloe. But it's as if the camera is trying to focus on her but keeps being drawn to the surrounding city. When the frame finally comes into focus, we see Chloe at the periphery, her back to us, walking across the frame and out of sight, the city still holding the camera's attention.

The camera does not track her, not at first. We see her go in and out of clubs trying to get gigs as a musician. The camera does not follow her in but hovers at the door, eavesdropping on her conversations. She is part of something bigger, a system of gigs and musicians and audiences and histories and relationships and club owners that exceed her. She is not the force that takes them by storm; she is trying to join the maelstrom of which they are a part.

And this, alas, is the tension for both the film and Chloe: Focus on the form of Chloe, be human, all too human and dally in the concerns of people — family, life, love, work, relationships. Or overcome human concerns, blur them into the landscape, and discover the affective force and flow of music and life. Just as the film itself moves between having Chloe and Nashville at the center of the film, Chloe herself moves between being a woman with the familiar trappings of a boyfriend and being a musical force that ruptures and breaks such bourgeois ties.

Even in the most romantic, humanistic scenes between Chloe and Brandon, her would-be boyfriend, the landscape of Nashville looms large as if threatening to topple down on them, the Parthenon's columns less a support than a threat. He wants her to focus on him, on him and her, and talks of getting out of there. But she diverts his focus and insists on being in Nashville. She will not be clear with him. He is form and she, alas, is in the act of becoming blur — an image of flow, a force in motion seeking out the seething of Nashville.

In a sly move, the film keeps us thinking that this might be a movie about Chloe and how she finds herself in this new city. But it keeps blurring that vision, literally and figuratively. When she meets new people, she can never remember anyone's name — and doesn't seem to care, as if she had no time for such nonsense, as if she were of another dimension, as if she were moving and they would always be static. She is elusive towards her new boyfriend who is constantly revealing himself and demanding that she do the same.

At first, perhaps, we are tempted to side with him. What's wrong with her? we wonder. She is so guarded and indifferent, as if hiding from love and life. But, in an incredible scene about two-thirds into the film, he confronts her and their dynamic shifts: I've told you things about myself, like about my family, my mom...I want you to know who I am...apparently you don't want me to know who you are because you hide every single thing. I mean, who is Chloe? I don't even know.

Read the rest of this great piece here!

- Lena

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Reshaping Media distribution to fit internet culture.

I wanted to offer a different side to the one presented in this earlier (and very informative) blog:
http://onewaytv.blogspot.com/2009/07/concept-of-free-movies-gets-no-free.html
-Note: I think their is important, valid points from both sides of the debate.

I see the economics of free being slightly different. I think we could show indie films online, and gain even greater exposure than a small festival run, and create a demand, increasing the value of the products we already sell outside of the online release.This allows all of the online content to remain free and accessible. This is an important element for the exposure of the films and to the culture of online media.
We can adopt the same strategy (and could work along side) as a film fest run. We aren't in the business of making money at festivals, there isn't a viable business model set up for that yet---we are in the business of creating value and demand on a product that we are going to offer. Look at the disposable razor example from this article---he did whatever he could to get the product in the hands of the consumer, creating a demand. Most importantly, influencing a cultural shift in the world of a specific task. He made his product something people wanted to have, and were willing to adjust the way they were used to doing things. I see this as the cultural shift in the way we view media...the web. The statistics show that the consumer/audience is willing to spend more time viewing media online and even when their attention span runs out, they are still willing to spend money on mediums that are suitable for their old ways of doing things. Studies are showing that the consumer, on average, is watching 15 minutes of a film online, then considers purchasing the dvd.
Look at The Really Cool Show for example, no budget, limited marketing and still 8 million views and growing. We did a season three, because there was a demand for season three. Here is where we can learn from the mistakes. The Really Cool Show didn't start with a strategical marketing plan nor a full team to utilize that opportunity. We also didn't have a business model, so now we are forced to work backwards and figure out a way to monetize on our past. The really cool show has made its money from merchandise sales (hats, pins) and producer donations, and a tiny amount from Ad share revenue from blip.tv. Now, with that being said, we've created a process of working that allows the shows production cost to remain low and it's online presentation is totally free to produce and to watch.
If a team of filmmakers conceived a day and date release for their films to go online (maybe even at the same time?!), imagine the kind of buzz it could create. Also---is there any independent company that has releases its entire catalog online, and selling the dvd?! I don't think so. It could make history!
As for the technology, there are no longer any gate keepers! We can present our films, in their entirety in HD or in the case of 24p dv, full quality! Of course, I understand their is a debate about which online video site to use---as a filmmaker, I much prefer Vimeo. It offers full HD html embedding, which means you can post your entire film anywhere you want, including: facebook, myspace, twitter, tumblr and blog spot. It's easy to share. I feel that youtube is crowded with corporate owned content, and home videos. What I've learned, from three seasons of The Really Cool Show is that you can re-direct your audience to see your work anywhere---as long as you consider exclusivity and create demand. It doesn't always happen over night, but with time, it's totally possible.
The most important aspect of the economics of free, is that not only do you present your media free of charge, but the cost to do so is very close to zero and growing closer by the day.

Think of it as a theatrical run, or festival run---except cut the costs to do either of those, and you have the control of the release.
Now of course, if a film has the opportunity to do any of those two things, then by all means, that's the right thing to do. I'm just thinking of ways to increase revenue streams and to create a larger demand and exposure range for the film.
If a distribution company is interested in the film---and they know that the audience has already been 10 million world wide---I can imagine they would want to jump on, and be the ones to put out the dvd with loaded special features. And if they don't, we have the option, as filmmakers, to do a strong self release and maximize our potential to benefit from our hard work and offer the opportunity for your collaborators to do that same.

So we have the culture of media shifting, and the tools to adjust our work to be presented in that growing format---but what about the audience? They watch films on personal dvd players, ipods, and on airplanes but they don't know if they want to watch films on lap tops? They don't mind hours of facebook, twitter, tumblr, myspace, youtube---but we aren't ready to watch feature films online? I just don't think companys like Netflix, Amazon, Itunes, Hulu and media rights pioneers Cinetic, are making a blind gamble. I think the audience is there. I don't think the media is. As a consumer, I would like to see more independent and festival films have online distribution for FREE, PAY-WHAT-YOU-WANT or basic Download Fee (such as what Itunes offers)---this is where media is going, the audience is there but the films aren't.

Now, it's important to note---the fear of NO AUDIENCE is a legitimate one.
An online release of an indie film would need to work strategically with an audience building method, significant buzz and a strong grass roots effort. The internet is wide and their are so many directions to go---the audience needs to know where to go. So we can't guarantee it's going to be an over night success--we can at least give the audience the option to decide.

The economics free in relation to arts, from my angle, is this: Independent art in its creation and presentation is moving closer and closer to free, so why can't its consumption be the same? If we create a media outlet in which art is free to make, and free to experience/watch, then a cultural shift will take place. That cultural shift in the way we view media, will create a demand this creating value--and with value comes the option of monetary return.

At the core of this "business" proposal, is the reliance on the artist to make good, honest work. The audience is waiting.