More women behind the camera means more money at the box office

By now, all of us know the Bechdel test inside and out. The Bechdel test asks if a fiction film features at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. Using this test, FiveThirtyEight analyzed thousands of films to determine whether the presence (and importance) of women had an effect on a film's box office. Here is part of their analysis:

We did a statistical analysis of films to test two claims: first, that films that pass the Bechdel test — featuring women in stronger roles — see a lower return on investment, and second, that they see lower gross profits. We found no evidence to support either claim.

On the first test, we ran a regression to find out if passing the Bechdel test corresponded to lower return on investment. Controlling for the movie’s budget, which has a negative and significant relationship to a film’s return on investment, passing the Bechdel test had no effect on the film’s return on investment. In other words, adding women to a film’s cast didn’t hurt its investors’ returns, contrary to what Hollywood investors seem to believe.

The total median gross return on investment for a film that passed the Bechdel test was $2.68 for each dollar spent. The total median gross return on investment for films that failed was only $2.45 for each dollar spent.

So why is it that movies that pass the Bechdel test have a better return-on-investment, but filmmakers of these films are given less money? FiveThirtyEight also discovered that when more women were involved in the production of a film, it was more likely to have female cast members. In other words, when one gender dominates the creative process for a picture, that shows on the screen. Under-representation behind the camera results in under-representation in front of the camera.

So here's an equation for you:

More women behind the camera = more women on screen = more money made at the box office

It's a win-win situation.

My Rode Reel: A Competition of Shorts

    Making a film for a festival is intimidating. For me, I didn't know where to start. And unfortunately, this meant that I ended up trapping myself into a corner. What I did was go backwards. I started with the question: what would a film festival want? And while it's not a bad thing to ask yourself, it shouldn't be the reason you decide to write anything. Because then your writing isn't yours, it's what you think other people want it to be.
    And then there was the issue of "ten minutes." Ten minutes was the hypothetical limit. To me, that was not nearly enough time to express a whole story. But I suppose that's why it makes the perfect challenge. Ten minutes. Ten minutes to tell an entire story. To the unexperienced, that seems impossible. To the foolish, that seems too easy. But to the truly skilled, that was just enough.

   My Rode Reel was a competition set up in partnership with the Rode microphone company. The rules dictated a short film, that had to use one of their branded mics, and a behind the scenes video. They had nine winners, all who received an insanely decked out cinema package. The categories stood as: Judges' choice, People's choice, Behind the Scenes, Cinematography, Soundtrack, Documentary,  Sound Design, Non-English, and Location. The film above is the Judge's pick.
   But the reason I point any of this out is because of the content that came out from this challenge. Hundreds of entries popped up from all around the world: all of which told a story in under ten minutes. Just when you thought you saw something you were positive would win, another video pushed its way to the front.
    And that why you should check out these films from the website. Because these are people who can tell a story. It doesn't take a lot to add things, but it takes a lot to know what needs to scrapped. The above movie, The Tale of Benjamin Sawyer is a perfect example of this practice. While it's not perfect, and relies heavily on exposition to get its story through the backstory (something arguably needed), it shows that even five minutes can begin and end and entire story. The behind the scenes themselves show just the process that its director, Ronnie Bingaman, had to go through to do this. And his is not the only film that should be looked at. All of the winner's have a remarkable twist on storytelling that begs to ask the question: if they can do it, can you? And hopefully that answer is yes.

   Te minutes used to seem like too little. But regardless of whether our stories go beyond or below, it's a limit that shouldn't be looked at lightly. Ten minutes is more than enough to tell a story. If anything, it's an art.

Practical Effects: The Real Magic Tricks of Filmmaking

Special effects in filmmaking could be summed up into two different styles: visual effects, and practical effects. Visual effects usually involve editing the footage in post-production, while practical effects are done live in front of the camera. Visual effects can have a really cool effect when used effectively, like in this summer's blockbuster film, "Maleficent". Of course everything you see is fake and created on a computer, but the movement of the camera makes the scene very compelling.

So. Visual effects can be pretty cool. But I'm here to talk about why practical effects are way cooler.

Why are they way cooler?

Well, many reasons. For one the shot is going to have a timeless effect and will look real 100 years from now because, well, it is real. Visual effects however are very time sensitive. These magical, awe-inspiring scenes we see now will look laughable in a few years. But that's how technology works.

Check out these two scenes below...

The first one is from Terminator 3, where they flipped a massive construction vehicle using computer-generated visual effects. The second one is from the Dark Knight, where they do almost the same stunt except they actually flip the truck.

Now to be fair some might jump up and say the Terminator version is better because the truck is seen crunched in to the ground, tires flying through the air, and of course a nice big explosion to finish.

But sorry, you're wrong.

Consider this analogy....

The Dark Knight's effect is like a gourmet selection from that restaurant down the street...

...and The Terminator's visual effect is like a #2 from Panda Express with extra meat.

But consider this analogy for a second. Even though Panda Express is of less quality, overall it's a better deal. You're getting a lot more food for a lot less money. There's plenty like about it... but little to appreciate. You will not eat Panda Express in small bites and appreciate the amount of work it took to create such a masterpiece. It's just something that will make you happy in that moment. And minus the painful poo afterwords, that's exactly what the Terminator 3 effect is. It's just a cheap audience pleaser. 

I hope a few of these behind-the-scenes videos below will help convince you:

First off, The Dark Knight flip:

 Come on... that's just FRIGGIN COOL.

For any of you that have seen Inception, you may remember the scene when Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in a fist fight whilst flying all across a room because of changing gravity. How do you create the effect of a room rapidly changing gravity? How about RAPIDLY CHANGING THE GRAVITY?

This next video is from "Edge of Tomorrow", a film I expected to be a horrible flop. Tom Cruise stuck reliving to same war scene day after day? Sounded to me like an excuse for big explosions and no story at all. But the reviews came out and they were actually really positive. I couldn't believe it. I had to see what all the huff was about, and I was indeed pleasantly surprised by the engaging story. The story does of course include several explosions and battle scenes, but I remember thinking that they were acted out very well. That is, the actors seemed to be reacting to their environment quite realistically. After watching this video, I realized why. This video features several small clips, but the most impressive clip is at 2:58. It's truly incredible and I don't think many actors could pull it off besides Tom Cruise. 

Of course there are many other notable films that are famous for their use of practical effects, but I hope this gives you an introduction to the fine art and precise skill of these types of effects. They are dangerous, expensive, and difficult, but that's why they deserve so much appreciation.

Crave that gourmet shit.

American Horror Story: Behind the Scenes

One great thing about this multimedia era of television shows is that viewers are offered a glimpse into behind the scenes videos on a show's youtube channel. Some shows release a behind the scenes look at every episode throughout a season. This inside look at the making of the season premiere of American Horror Story tells us a bit about the storyboarding and research process that went into making the episode. Vigorous research goes into each season, since each season is a separate chapter and storyline. The creative team must research the time period, topic, and creative influences that they decide to pay homage to. American Horror Story is largely based off of paying homage to classic horror films and stories. Each sequence in a given episode takes extensive research before storyboarding begins. The director, Alfonso Gomez-Rejon, chose to open the Coven chapter with a shot of a black horse's eyes as a way to set the tone of the season. They use a separate iris that they place in front of the camera that they close up to focus on a specific character in a crowded scene. Many shots are characterized by crooked angles and wide lenses using a 6 mm lens, which began as a method to appropriately visualize a scene, but grew into a signature aesthetic style of the show. This behind the scenes video teaches about how everyone on the creative team must work together to make the visual elements compliment the elements of the story, and how closely the director and director of photography work together, as shown in the relationship between Alfonso and Michael Goi. 

Camera Movement in "Children of Men"

If you have ever gotten the chance to see the film Children of Men, directed by Alfonso Cuaron, then you are well aware of how few cuts there are in regards to each scene. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki has received worldly acclaim for his work with this movie. Each shot is extremely well choreographed, and rather long, but not in a negative way at all. One scene that struck me as incredible in particular is the infamous car scene. Words cannot describe it, so I have posted it above.

The first thing I wondered was how in the world did they film something like that? Regardless of the timing and special effects that were used, I was intrigued on finding out how they were able to film inside the car during the whole scene even while it is moving. It turns out that there was way more thought put into the scene than I could ever imagine. To give you an example, this is the rig that was created just for that single shot.

This not only allowed them to be tracked throughout the whole shot, but also allowed the cinematographer to capture things happening inside and outside of the car at the same time. What took me by surprise even more was that there was another rig which you can see on top of the camera which peered into the car from above. As the camera swung around to shoot different actors, the others would have to pull the seats down all of the way, which allowed the camera to swing over them without hitting them. The amount of effort that was put into this shot really spoke to me in the sense that if you have a particular vision on how you want something to look, then you shouldn't accept anything less than what you have in mind, even if it means building something like this.