Janet Grillo thinks that the relationship between visual storytelling art and technology is integral. The technology informs the art. The art informs the technology.
“Think for a minute about the evolution of movies,” says Janet. Back in the day, they used very big, clunky, huge cameras. You couldn’t move them very quickly. You couldn’t move them in the space. You had to position them in one spot and construct an environment to capture the imagery and the sound around it, explains Janet.
You would have created a soundstage. The environment, the lighting, and the sound could all be controlled. And you had this monstrous piece of equipment flat in the middle.
Janet says soundstages dictated the way that stories were told. You had very formal settings. You were basically moving from theater into film, so film was highly theatrical. The film tradition came from a spoken, executed tradition of the theater and the theater’s proscenium arch stage, in Janet’s view.
You can see that in the very stylized work of Alfred Hitchcock. He grew up in that system of studio filmmaking where it’s highly formal and very structured, Janet notes. And you can see it in how the actors are moving in and out of the frame and their movements are blocked. It’s almost like a stage play.
This is an excerpt from the Alfred Hitchcock film Vertigo (1958) which demonstrates Hitchcock’s theatrical style of filmmaking:
GALVIN ELSTER: I asked you to come up here Scottie, knowing that you’d quit detective work. But I wondered whether you would go back on the job as a special favor to me. I want you to follow my wife. No, it’s not that. We’re very happily married.
SCOTTIE FERGUSON: Well, then-
GALVIN ELSTER: I’m afraid some harm may come to her.
SCOTTIE FERGUSON: From whom?
GALVIN ELSTER: Someone dead.
[Please embed: https://unsplash.com/photos/tBlYM_VcIkE]

To understand the process behind creating and filming episodic television, director Harry Winer had to see the “rhythm” behind it.

“What happens is that directors are hired on a week-to-week basis. You come in and direct one episode. You leave. Another director comes in and directs an episode.” Winer says. “For a television series that goes on for years, the actors themselves are the ones that are running the show because they know their characters.”

When Winer came into doing his first TV series, Hart to Hart, he had no idea how television worked, so he treated it as if he was making a movie: “I go in and start setting up these elaborate shots.”

“So I get called into Leonard Goldberg’s office [at 20th Century Fox], and I’m sort of intimidated,” Winer recalls. “And he says to me, thank you. You directed a beautiful movie, and maybe one day we’ll get a chance to actually make a movie together. But right now I’d like you to direct Hart to Hart.”

That was one of Winer’s biggest moments of education. “I had no idea what he was talking about,” Winer says, “but subsequently came to learn that in that era, episodic television was a product.”

There is a standardization of the product — of television — and there are certain rhythms and ways in which a series is filmed that is the emblematic style of that particular episode. And subsequently when I recognized that, I started playing ball and would make several more Hart to Harts.

After directing his seventh episode of Hart to Hart, Winer realized that it was indistinguishable from every other episode of Hart to Hart. “That was the goal that they had set for me to achieve.”

That led him to discover an important lesson in the TV industry. “I realized that in serious television, there was a choice of being a really good series television director and implementing the style that others had created versus sharpening my skills of original creativity that originating a television series would allow.”

[Please embed: https://pixabay.com/photos/lens-equipment-movie-digital-camera-3143893/]

The lexicon of filmmaking started with editing, according to Alrick Brown. “In the early 1900s, this film thing became real,” Alrick says. “And after people started telling some amazing stories, the next big innovation was editing.”

Over time, editing evolved and became more complex. The camera did more than just capture a movement. “So now we’re like ‘What if you did this? What happens if the camera starts to move?’” explains Alrick.

From the first filmmakers to DW Griffith, cameras did what Alrick calls “magical things.” Audiences experienced film in ways they had never experienced it before.

These early editing techniques began building off of each other, and the techniques came from all over the world. “My film education was focused on what was going on in America,” explains Alrick, “but film really was going on around the world.”

Filmmakers borrowed from each other. DW Griffith, for example, watched films from Germany. Einstein’s early audiences used some of his editing techniques.

“There was this communication across cultures from Latin America to Europe, where people were telling their stories. These things evolved into the techniques you would later see in the earliest Hollywood films,” says Alrick.

DW Griffith built his techniques from things he had learned from around the world. “It’s the same way a student would make a film today,” Alrick points out. “A lot of their approaches will come from things they’ve already watched and experienced.”

Film students aren’t the only ones who use this approach. Directors like Tarantino and Scorsese have spent their careers studying other filmmakers.

“We call them geniuses,” says Alrick. “And some of them deserve that title, but it’s because they’ve spent so much time looking at the history of film. They understand what techniques to keep and what techniques to throw away.”

Compared to other art forms, film is a new medium. “Filmmakers had to lean on other art forms for inspiration,” says Alrick. “So they looked at other forms of communication to build this lexicon that would become filmmaking.”

In the late 1940s to 1950s, this thing called television invaded people’s homes, Alrick Brown comments. Film, on the other hand, went from this visual thing that eventually got sound. He says, “people were in their homes listening to radios and getting sound. Imagine what happened when a box came into your home, where an image was broadcast, and you could actually see pictures and people.”
Alrick thinks that television has evolved a lot. But he wants you to understand why TV was built as it tells you a lot about what television is today. At its core, TV was built to sell coffee, knives, vacuum cleaners, and whatever the American housewife needed in the 1950s. If they could just have commercials, that’s what TV would be, Alrick says.
They created television shows as sponsorships, as a part of selling these products. “And so this magical, wonderful thing that we call television, that we consume so much and shapes our understanding of the world, was created to sell products.”
Harry Winer thinks that television had a glorious introduction. Initially, it was film theater. In the 1950s, they were trying to figure out ways to capture an audience once they had this wonderful new tool.
They would take vaudeville comedians and other stand-up comedians and put them up for variety shows, Harry says. They tried to create legitimate storytelling. They would take plays that had been successful on Broadway, or that were part of the American theatrical canon, and stage them for TV.
Harry notes that this is where many directors of a previous generation to his own cut their teeth. For example, John Frankenheimer, Sidney Lumet, and a host of others went on to become wonderful filmmakers. They took that understanding of the medium and found new ways of using imagery within a very tight budget and tight time frame in order to tell stories.
[Please embed: https://unsplash.com/photos/HWhR6lbn5xU]

The film movements were happening, and they were informing one another. A young American filmmaker who saw Godard’s work for the first time would get excited because Godard is playing with time in a way no one else had played with it.

Melvin van Peebles made independent, experimental films in the US. Then he studied and made films in France. Van Peebles was influenced by the French New Wave. He was influenced by all of those films that he saw, but he was equally influenced by what he didn’t see. Later, he became one of the first Black filmmakers to get a deal with Hollywood, along with Gordon Parks and Ossie Davis. They were the first three black filmmakers to be given an opportunity to make films in Hollywood. Hollywood needed some token people. And so they brought these three black filmmakers in, during the late ’60s and early ’70s.

These filmmakers were going to the cinema and seeing racist images that mirrored and impacted how they grew up. They wanted to change those images. They wanted to show people that there was more to the Black community than what Hollywood was representing.

In 1972, Melvin van Peebles stepped away from his Hollywood deal and made Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. In doing so, he shook up the system. It was one of the first times a person used their own money to make an independent film. His film showed police brutality and a black man taking his handcuffs and beating a police officer to death.

Given the history of film that had been created before 1972 and how the Black community was portrayed in those films, van Peebles crew was left divided. Some were not happy seeing that type of imagery. Yet these were filmmakers who were subverting Hollywood because they knew that there wasn’t a place for them. Eventually, Sweetback was a success.

That movie made money. People wanted to see the movie where this black man kills a cop, and runs away, and gets away with it, and the community protects and saves him. Audiences were eating that up.

What did Hollywood do? They saw an opportunity. Shortly after Sweetback was released, the blaxploitation movement began. Hollywood saw a way to make money off of stories where there was a protagonist who was black. For example, the initial Shaft character was written for a white man. It wasn’t until the success with Sweetback that they adjusted it, and the film was made with Richard Roundtree in the lead role.

In the 1950s and ‘60s, there were three television networks: ABC, CBS, and NBC. In the 1970s, Fox became the fourth network and changed the way in which the first three networks approached their business. There was more competition.

During that whole period of time—the 1960s to the 1970s– there was a certain kind of programmatic approach to content production. The networks saw what content worked and wanted to replicate it in everything they created. That was their product.

For example, they had a certain story to tell. They would cast a couple of stars and add a few particulars. They wanted to see the exact same story week after week, so audiences knew exactly what to expect when they tune in the next week.

Moving into the 1970s, content production fell under the auspices of the financial and syndication rule, where individual studios and individual producers were able to own their own product. There was an array of product that was available. But there wasn’t a tremendous amount of competition. Only certain buyers from the four networks were seeking out content.

In 1993, the financial and syndication rule was withdrawn. Networks were able to create and own their own product. Over the next few years, the networks started acquiring or creating production companies where they could then produce their own product. The networks understood that if they were producing the content, they would then not have to pay an independent producer for their creative efforts.

It was far more financially lucrative for the networks to be able to create their own production companies. They’d be able to keep the all money in the same loop, robbing the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket.

“The 1930s and 1940s were kind of the heyday of the American studio system. It was the heyday of Japanese filmmaking—many amazing filmmakers were doing so much work; however, the studio systems were still being established. And when Alrick Brown says the system, he means these things are built to just create and crank out stories. So, filmmakers became adept in storytelling because they had to constantly kick out stories,” Brown explains.
These were the filmmakers Brown first watched—Hitchcock, Orson Welles, they all came from that system. Brown continues, “Filmmakers like Ozu and Kurosawa also started their careers. It’s when I started seeing films that came before them; it was Buster Keaton, and it was Charlie Chaplin.”
Now, this new generation of filmmakers who grew up watching Keaton and Chaplin were making films. But these filmmakers functioned more independently and had a system that supported them.
Brown explains, “Films were often made while being written in these studio systems because they were just cranking out material. They put stars under contract—you are under contract; you made a certain number of films. They put directors and producers under contract.”
“And so, it was a film studio—with filmmaking machines. And in that machine system, some people were excluded. A lot of stories were excluded, as well as a lot of people who weren’t included in that part of the journey. European filmmakers who grew up on some of these American films, and were like, that’s not about them,” says Brown.
There were formulas to filmmaking. You had to believe that the French New Wave had some filmmakers trying more innovative things, that they were looking at the formulaic approach to some of the romance films that were coming out of Hollywood.
“Film noir was another popular genre in the 1930s and 1940s. This genre focuses intensely on a particular style or look. Film noir was a genre that had certain conventions it practiced. The audience always knew who the hero and villain were. They knew who the femme fatale was. This formulaic type of filmmaking, although entertaining for the masses, bred populations of filmmakers who thought of doing something different. They forgot about the narrative in the same way,” Brown states.
Brown further explains, “The filmmakers thought to loosen up the storytelling just a bit, where they were not going have this person be the hero, but instead, make them kind of a haunted hero, particularly after the war when many men came back with ailments from the war.”

The world of independent filmmaking primarily has to do with figuring out how to raise money to make your films.

“That’s certainly something I spend a lot of my time doing,” says Ekwa Msangi. “You know, after the housing crash, we started in earnest the introduction of crowdfunding. Which used to happen in a less official way before, in terms of aunties, uncles, friends, you know?”

Ekwa goes on to say: “It’s actually important to be able to pay something to people.”

At the very least, you need to pay for equipment and some insurance. Actually, it’s quite important to have insurance. You don’t want anything happening to people who are working for you and giving you their time. You also need to feed people and give them a copy of your project.

That is the bare minimum of what you have to give people if they are helping you on your project.

Crowdfunding is not only about raising cash money that you need to rent your van and the like, but it’s also about raising friends, like supporters, audience, people who are invested in your work.

People who are then going to be looking to watch your film when you’re done. “What you’re trying to relay is the excitement, is the reason why it’s good for them to invest in you and in your work and in this story and having people rally around,” says Ekwa.

When making a film, you are creating something out of nothing. You were sitting around in the shower and you came up with this idea for creating a world that did not exist. Creating a character, a person, or whatever out of nowhere.

You are literally talking about making magic! Who gets to do that? Most people in their day-to-day job don’t get to create magic.

Filmmakers do.

Artists do.

That is valuable.

Ekwa goes on to explain: “And if it’s not that, it’s, what are you going to talk about this summer at your next barbecue? You’re just going to talk about all the stocks and shares that you sold? Or are you going to talk about, like, I made a movie.”

“How many people get to say that? So I’m offering you, crowdfunding person, person who I’m inviting: I’m inviting you to come on this journey, to come on this adventure with me of creating this world and building this opportunity that we’re able to say these things that you care about.”

Ekwa acknowledges that it’s hard to raise money. If it’s your first time, “I wouldn’t start by raising $30,000. That is a lot!”

Unless you’re a professional, that’s a lot of work. If it’s your first time and this is your first film, do something small. Do something small and figure out where it is that you can cut corners.

Or if you know there’s an apartment or a house that you can use to shoot your thing, then you need to write a script for that.

There’s a lot of actors in New York and probably in LA as well who want to act and who would love to come on as an actor-producer or a DP-producer or whatever to help you get this film done.

Finally, Ekwa affirms that crowdfunding is not just about the money. It’s also about the people who are involved in helping you do this.

The friend who’s going to make a whole bunch of peanut butter sandwiches or the pot of pasta to give to your crew for lunch breaks and things like that.

All of that is really important stuff and is part of the crowdfunding process of getting your work done.

“And maybe you start with a small film and that’s the first stepping stone to the bigger project that you want to make.”

We sat with an industry expert in film to take a closer look at how the above the line and below the line budget works in the film industry and tv industry.

“When the film is getting made, the producer will work with and help to assemble a team that will help to execute it,” explains Janet Grillo. “So, when we look at a budget, there’s a top sheet budget, which is a thick document, 26-30 pages of real detailed, thoughtful estimation of the costs, from development all the way through to distribution.”

There’s a top sheet, which is usually one or two pages, that’s summarizing what those costs are. On the top sheet, imagine a sheet and imagine a line. There’s an above the line, and then there’s below the line.

The costs above the line on the top sheet of the budget, are everything to do with the ideation, creation, and envisionment of the project before cameras roll. Think of above the line as before cameras roll, explains Janet.

“Below the line is when you’re ready to make the damn thing,” says Janet. “It’s getting the cameras rolling. So what’s going to be above the line? Your writer, your director, the cost of the intellectual property, meaning the screenplays, is it based on a book, a magazine, a comic strip, is it a remake, that’s the intellectual property and all the costs of developing that into a screenplay.”

The people involved with doing that are the director, the writer, yourself, the producer, and some other producing partners that you might have, they are above the line.

And sometimes stars. If to get the film funded, you’ve got some big market value actors, they’re going to be above the line as well, says Janet.

Below the line is going to be everybody else. That includes the cinematographer, camera crew, and everybody involved with handling the equipment to the lighting, the gaffers, all the teams that put the equipment in place, the production design. All the people who work on building the sets, costumes, the people involved with wardrobe, creating the look and making the costumes and dressing the actors, all of the people involved with hair and makeup. All of the people who work on the making of the film.

If you’re a filmmaker, you often work with writers and editors at publications. And as you progress in your career, you might want people working with you to help navigate some of their questions. You might hire what’s called a publicist.
A publicist is someone who’s an advocate on your behalf. They have a lot of relationships with writers and editors, and they do some of that legwork for you. Before you even get your film into a festival, they might be emailing journalists to say, “so-and-so has a film at the festival, we invite you to check it out.”
They often know what the writers and journalists like, too. They’ll say, “this writer at Indiewire tends to like these kinds of films or these topics,” for example. Publicists might know that a journalist has written about one of your films in the past. They’re tracking all of that.
These are the different kinds of folks that are involved in helping you, your producer, and your team to make that first impression.
One of the first things that publicists do when they look at a film is to pick it apart. They figure out how to look at this film and they ask questions. What is the news from this film? What is newsworthy about it? Why is it exciting? Why does the film have a unique place in this world?
They will figure out how to amplify it in the best and widest way possible through press, online journalists, working with online journalists, and social media. They are continually working out how to continue building buzz around the film and the filmmaker. They want to amplify your point of view.
[Please embed: https://pixabay.com/photos/press-camera-the-crowd-journalist-2333329/]