<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Curtin Parloe Films &#187; blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/category/blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk</link>
	<description>Building madness with rudimentary tools</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:18:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>UK Crowdfunding &#8211; a brief look</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/uk-crowdfunding-a-brief-look/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/uk-crowdfunding-a-brief-look/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crowdfunding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filmaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filmmaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a new buzzword in the field of filmmaking, but in truth, crowdfunding has been around for a while. Marillion used fan funding for several oftheir albums since 1997, and movies have been doing it since 2004 (Demain la Veille). I&#8217;ve never tried it myself, so I thought I&#8217;d take a look at the different [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a new buzzword in the field of filmmaking, but in truth, crowdfunding has been around for a while. Marillion used fan funding for several oftheir albums since 1997, and movies have been doing it since 2004 (Demain la Veille). I&#8217;ve never tried it myself, so I thought I&#8217;d take a look at the different sites offering crowdfunding management. There are two types &#8211; &#8220;All Or Nothing&#8221; and what I like to call &#8220;Better Than Nothing&#8221;.</p>
<p><strong>All Or Nothing Funding</strong><br />
It&#8217;s a simple idea. If you try to raise £5000, but you only manage £100, those who did invest won&#8217;t lose out, and you won&#8217;t be left trying to make a film on a fraction of the budget. Of course, it&#8217;s a double-edged sword &#8211; if you raise £4999, you still get nothing. At least if it all goes wrong, you don&#8217;t have to shell out.</p>
<p><strong>Better Than Nothing Funding</strong><br />
This is the alternative. You keep everything you raise, but you pay a financial penalty for not reaching your target, and you still have to fulfill your obligations to funders.</p>
<p><strong>The Cost Of Crowdfunding</strong><br />
There&#8217;s usually a payment handling fee of 3-5%. Additionally, there&#8217;s a funding fee which varies from site to site.</p>
<p><strong>Is it legal?</strong><br />
I&#8217;ve wrestled unsuccessfully with this one, and inquiries to the Financial Standards Authority have met with silence. I suspect there&#8217;s a big folder at the FSA where all crowdfunding questions are kept until they&#8217;ve worked out an answer! What I do know is this: in the UK, accepting funding from more than five(or so) investors requires your company to be registered and approved by the FSA. However, there are exemptions, such as an Appointed Representative handling things. It may be that crowdfunding websites have this status, but I don&#8217;t know. There&#8217;s also the possibility of a loophole, as such funding could be seen as payment for goods or services (see &#8220;investment&#8221; below). The jury&#8217;s out on this one.</p>
<p><strong>Timescale</strong><br />
It&#8217;s fairly universal in terms of timescale &#8211; The project can be active for between 1 and 90 days, although the recommended period is around 50-60.</p>
<p><strong>Ownership</strong><br />
All these sites assert that they are merely facilitators, and don&#8217;t take any of your intellectual property.</p>
<p><strong>Incentives</strong><br />
In order to get people to fund your film, you need to give them a sweetener. This should vary depending on the amount of funding given, from something as small as an mp3, digital stills, to something as big as even a part in the film!</p>
<p><strong>Advertising</strong><br />
The sites are unanimous in their emphasis on advertising. Crowdfunding only works if people find out about your project, and as such, you need to make it eyecatching and easy to find. They recommend videos, photos, soundbites, making full use of social media links, and so on. It&#8217;s a full time job, too. You need to keep the momentum going for the full length of the project &#8211; if interest wanes, so will funding.</p>
<p>kickstarter.com<br />
This is perhaps the most well known creative crowdfunding site. It uses All-or-nothing, and if you&#8217;re successful there&#8217;s a 5% fee. Unfortunately, they use Amazon Payments, and as a result you need US residency to be able to create a new project, so unless you have an American partner or bank account, kickstarter isn&#8217;t practical.</p>
<p>indiegogo.com<br />
This has the benefit of being international, although there are extra fees involved &#8211; a $25 flat fee for international credit card transactions. Furthermore, as a better-than-nothing site, there&#8217;s a 4% fee if you reach your target, or a 9% fee if you don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>rockethub.com<br />
Rockethub is a better-than-nothing sourcer, with  a 4%/8% fee and a fixed handling fee of 4%. There&#8217;s also a &#8220;launchpad&#8221; section, in which creatives can enter submissions for specific opportunities (like a small-scale mofilms.com).</p>
<p>pozible.co.uk<br />
Pozible is an Australian all-or-nothing crowdfunder with a specific UK portal. It charges a 7.5% fee (5% if you&#8217;ve previously been successful).</p>
<p>crowdfunder.co.uk<br />
Crowdfunder is a UK All-or-nothing crowdfunder, part of business investors Crowdcube. It charges 5%.</p>
<p><strong>Conclusions</strong><br />
There you have it. It might be illegal, you might have to make your film for a tenner, or not at all, and it&#8217;s a long slog. On the other hand, it&#8217;s definitely easier than getting Harvey Weinstein&#8217;s ear&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/uk-crowdfunding-a-brief-look/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Little Things</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/the-little-things/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/the-little-things/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=323</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s the little things that make all the difference. The tiny little screw that attaches the tripod plate to the camera. The little sign by the fuel tank that says &#8220;Diesel only.&#8221; The writing at the bottom of page five of the exam paper that reads &#8220;Please Turn Over.&#8221; The little notch on your key [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s the little things that make all the difference. The tiny little screw that attaches the tripod plate to the camera. The little sign by the fuel tank that says &#8220;Diesel only.&#8221; The writing at the bottom of page five of the exam paper that reads &#8220;Please Turn Over.&#8221; The little notch on your key that makes it fit the lock on your front door. A Signature.</p>
<p>When it comes to film-making (and everything else for that matter), I&#8217;m a firm believer in the &#8220;Seven Ps,&#8221; or &#8220;Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.&#8221; I may ignore the Ps from time to time, but I usually end up regretting it. It&#8217;s common sense, really. If you make a cake, it&#8217;s going to be more of a struggle if you haven&#8217;t cleared the kitchen worktops, still need to wash the mixing bowl, forgot to turn the oven on, and so forth. A film shoot that&#8217;s adequately prepared runs far more smoothly than trying to throw elements together haphazardly.</p>
<p>This is where the attention to detail comes in. The little things are crucial. You need that little screw. The memory cards should be pre-cleared. That signature needs to be on the bottom of the location release form. Any one of these can hold up the shoot, perhaps indefinitely, and not all of them can be fixed with gaffer tape. I&#8217;ve been on shoots where all of these examples have been issues. Luckily, the prior planning can certainly help &#8211; you brought your gaffer tape, you can tie up the location&#8217;s owner and threaten him until he signs that form.</p>
<p>Here are some things to worry about:</p>
<ul>
<li>No power. This stops any shoot dead. Cameras, sound recording devices, lights. All need the juice, whether it&#8217;s mains or battery power. If you&#8217;re in a location, make sure you have access to power, and make sure all the batteries are charged beforehand (disposable batteries can help, but it&#8217;s a terribly wasteful route).</li>
<li>No permission. While many shoots can get along without acquiring permissions, it&#8217;s by no means preferable. If you&#8217;re filming anyone, anything or anywhere without the right permissions, it can be a tremendous headache later on, or even at the time. Furthermore, make sure it&#8217;s in writing. I&#8217;ve been on several shoots where we obtained permission, only to find that we weren&#8217;t allowed to film when we arrived. In fact, after telling us that life isn&#8217;t fair, he only relented when he asked us in future to liaise with the very person who&#8217;d given us the permission in the first place.</li>
<li>No food. I&#8217;ve said it before, and it&#8217;s still as true. Without catering for your cast and crew, you&#8217;ll make many powerful enemies of your project.</li>
<li>The bits and bobs. If it&#8217;s a light, does it have the right stand and cables? If it&#8217;s a tripod, does it have the plate? Do you have the props? The right gels? A 4-gang? These things are easily forgotten or misplaced. On my last shoot, we were missing a knuckle for a C-stand and the tripod plate. Luckily both of these were fixable with gaffer tape, but I wouldn&#8217;t recommend holding up a 2 grand Kino with some.</li>
</ul>
<p>Look after the little things, and the big things won&#8217;t fall apart.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/the-little-things/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Game Over, man! Oh wait, more credits.</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/game-over-man-oh-wait-more-credits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/game-over-man-oh-wait-more-credits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/game-over-man-oh-wait-more-credits/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve just seen Battle:LA, starring Aaron Eckhart, and it seems that an era is over. The film itself isn&#8217;t especially remarkable Sci-Fi fare, covering a fictional world invasion, and a platoon of marines caught up in the mayhem. Indeed, the usual stereotypes are there; the hard-bitten sergeant with hand tremors; the lieutenant with no combat [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve just seen Battle:LA, starring Aaron Eckhart, and it seems that an era is over. The film itself isn&#8217;t especially remarkable Sci-Fi fare, covering a fictional world invasion, and a platoon of marines caught up in the mayhem. Indeed, the usual stereotypes are there; the hard-bitten sergeant with hand tremors; the lieutenant with no combat experience who promptly goes to pieces; even the hispanic woman who out-machos the men. Think Aliens meets Independence Day. The main difference here, however, is the portrayal of the military. Back in the &#8220;post-vietnam&#8221; days, military might was at best inadequate, and at worst malevolent. The platoons in Predator and Aliens were hopelessly outclassed, the invading pilots in Independence Day couldn&#8217;t be beaten without Windows security flaws, and even as recently as Avatar, military muscle was no match for smurfs with sticks. Recently, however, things have changed. It&#8217;s not that the marines of Battle Los Angeles have become super-soldiers, instead that the alienshave regressed. To butcher HG Wells, &#8220;for all their technology and their might, the invaders were laid low with simple bullets.&#8221; And so, Vietnam is over. Once more, the American military is the most powerful force in the universe. Aliens beware.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/game-over-man-oh-wait-more-credits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expurgated</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:49:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Projects]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In November 2010, I decided to write a novel. For the uninitiated amongst you, November is National Novel Writing Month, or NaNoWriMo for short.NaNoWriMo Site it isn&#8217;t a competition, just a collective of aspiring writers who egg each other on. After all, writing 50,000 words isn&#8217;t easy. It&#8217;s even harder writing them in a month, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In November 2010, I decided to write a novel. For the uninitiated amongst you, November is National Novel Writing Month, or NaNoWriMo for short.<a href="http://www.nanowrimo.org"  alt="NaNoWriMo Site">NaNoWriMo Site</a> it isn&#8217;t a competition, just a collective of aspiring writers who egg each other on. After all, writing 50,000 words isn&#8217;t easy. It&#8217;s even harder writing them in a month, but that&#8217;s the challenge &#8211; NaNoWriMo is really an exercise in writing regularly every day.<br />
It&#8217;s not my first attempt &#8211; usually I find myself swamped as soon as I&#8217;ve started, and never manage more than 8,000 words. This time was the same, except that I was determined to get it done. I managed it in the end, and sent it to a few friends for proofing. There were a lot of errors, but on the whole, everyone enjoyed it. Originally I planned it as an exercise, an elaborate ideation session, with a view to turning it into a screenplay, but the feedback was so positive that I decided to publish it.<br />
At the moment, it is available on Amazon.com only, although I have plans for a UK edition before long.<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1456518720"  alt="Expurgated">Expurgated</a><br />
Expurgated is the story of the author&#8217;s struggle against an insidious organisation, and the aliens whose wrath they incur, with only a couple of friends and the mysterious Professor Driffield to help.</p>
<p>Of course, there is a screenplay adaptation underway already, and better still, I have the author&#8217;s express permission to muck about with the story as much as I like!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expurgated</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It seems to be a character flaw. I could attribute it to low attention span, or a lack of commitment, but whatever the reason, I find it difficult to concentrate on just one thing at once. Reading my history, you can see the pattern emerge &#8211; was in a band, was writing, was making films, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to be a character flaw. I could attribute it to low attention  span, or a lack of commitment, but whatever the reason, I find it  difficult to concentrate on just one thing at once. Reading my history,  you can see the pattern emerge &#8211; was in a band, was writing, was making  films, etc. I play the guitar and sing occasionally at the local open  mic night (in a coffee shop &#8211; an inspired choice of venue), I write,  direct and edit films (such as the one I&#8217;ve had in post-production for  almost a year. Don&#8217;t judge me, I&#8217;ve had other things come up), and I  write stuff here and there. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, I am a film maker. That  is me. However, I also sing, and I also write prose.<br />
From time to time.</p>
<p>In my previous blog entry, back in November, I vowed to complete a  50,000 word novella in one month. The first week went well, and I was  almost ahead of schedule, until the inevitable happened. It always  happens in November, and always when I&#8217;m trying to write &#8211; I ended up  with two weeks&#8217; work. Usually, when this happens, I find myself at the  beginning of December with less than 10,000 words. Not this time. This  time I set my jaw, and had completed the whole thing by the early hours  of November 29th. 50,027 words! Looking back, scripts included, I think  it&#8217;s the longest thing I&#8217;ve ever written, and I feel a huge sense of  achievement. Of course, it&#8217;s all very well throwing thousands of words  into a document, but quite another to have them make any sense. I wasn&#8217;t  expecting much; it was, after all, my first successful attempt at  writing such a large piece of work (compared to short stories and  screenplays, anyway &#8211; full novels tend to be at least 80,000 words). I  passed it on to a few people for feedback, and to my surprise and  delight, they thought it was pretty good! I corrected all the errors and  typos I could find (and that my proofreaders pointed out), and finally,  it&#8217;s here. In a few days, it will be available from Amazon, but in the  meantime, it can be found at this link: <a href="https://www.createspace.com/3541126" target="_self">Expurgated</a></p>
<p>I might take a copy with me to Cannes this year, and try to get it adapted&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2011/expurgated/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why I&#8217;ll never talk with you</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/why-ill-never-talk-with-you/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/why-ill-never-talk-with-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grammar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been reading a lot recently about the grammatical distinctions between talking and speaking, and something that I often see is the phrase &#8220;talk with&#8221;. As an Englishman, I&#8217;ve never used this phrase, and it feels wrong to me. On further investigation, it seems clear that &#8220;talk with&#8221; is an American conceit, and something which [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been reading a lot recently about the grammatical distinctions between talking and speaking, and something that I often see is the phrase &#8220;talk with&#8221;. As an Englishman, I&#8217;ve never used this phrase, and it feels wrong to me. On further investigation, it seems clear that &#8220;talk with&#8221; is an American conceit, and something which I&#8217;d rather not see on this side of the Atlantic. Although it&#8217;s my own idiosyncratic opinion, I&#8217;ll share it anyway.</p>
<p>As far as I&#8217;m concerned, it has nothing to do with the two-way nature of the talking, it&#8217;s about the &#8220;with.&#8221; You stir a cup of tea &#8220;with&#8221; a spoon, and you give money &#8220;to&#8221; charity. If you talk &#8220;with&#8221; someone, they&#8217;re the instrument by which you talk, whereas talking &#8220;to&#8221; someone makes them the recipient of your words.</p>
<p>This brings me to the usage of &#8220;talk&#8221; as opposed to &#8220;speak.&#8221; These two are commonly considered to be interchangeable, although I posit that there are significant differences.</p>
<p>When you &#8220;talk,&#8221; you say words <span style="text-decoration: underline;">to</span> someone. When you &#8220;speak,&#8221; you just say words (Cambridge Dictionary Definition). Therefore, if someone &#8220;talks,&#8221; you can infer that there is someone to whom they are talking. If there is no-one else with John, we&#8217;d say that he is &#8220;talking to himself.&#8221; Conversely, &#8220;speaking&#8221; is a verb that expects an adverb: &#8220;Do you speak French?&#8221;, &#8220;Let me speak frankly.&#8221; It also negates the recipient in the speech &#8211; if you speak to someone, they&#8217;d better listen!</p>
<p>I&#8217;d argue that there&#8217;s no real need to &#8220;speak with&#8221; someone at all, although I&#8217;d consider it more acceptable than &#8220;talking with&#8221; them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/why-ill-never-talk-with-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cannes &#8211; Day 2</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 11:18:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sitting in the UK Film Centre, accompanied by the soothing clash of waves upon the Cote d&#8217;Azure shoreline and the somewhat less soothing cacophony from the Kodak Pavilion as they frantically try to get everything finished. I think I saw Sir Michael Grade earlier, looking for all the world like James May in his aspect. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sitting in the UK Film Centre, accompanied by the soothing clash of waves upon the Cote d&#8217;Azure shoreline and the somewhat less soothing cacophony from the Kodak Pavilion as they frantically try to get everything finished. I think I saw Sir Michael Grade earlier, looking for all the world like James May in his aspect. Who knows, maybe it was him.</p>
<p>Cannes is the place for free gifts. I&#8217;ve already collected a huge amount of merchandising and magazines so far, from BFI badges to half a dozen DVDs from an independent US production company I&#8217;ve been a fan of for years. I now have so much junk, in fact, that my new blue (and also free) Cannes satchel is straining under the weight. I shudder to think how heavy my luggage will be by the end of the festival!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cannes &#8211; Day 1</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 14:07:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s different this year, probably because I&#8217;m unfashionably early. Last time I stood in Nice Airport waiting for the Cannes express, I had little company &#8211; there couldn&#8217;t have been more than four of us in the queue. We chatted, exchanged cards, and never saw each other again. Not now. Now I see recognisable faces [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s different this year, probably because I&#8217;m unfashionably early. Last time I stood in Nice Airport waiting for the Cannes express, I had little company &#8211; there couldn&#8217;t have been more than four of us in the queue. We chatted, exchanged cards, and never saw each other again. Not now. Now I see recognisable faces whose names escape me, minor celebrities amidst the horde.Far more intimidating, so I&#8217;ll maintain my reserve. It&#8217;s what we do best, so I understand.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/cannes-day-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making Short Films on £1 a day</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/making-short-films-on-1-a-day/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/making-short-films-on-1-a-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:39:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filmaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[filmmaking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low-budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[making]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While some people have the luxury of a tremendous budget in order to make a short film, others find it more difficult to scrape together ten grand or so. There&#8217;s a fine line between creativity and business in &#8220;Show Business&#8221; (it&#8217;s a single space, usually) and it certainly seems a reasonable generalisation to say that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While some people have the luxury of a tremendous budget in order to make a short film, others find it more difficult to scrape together ten grand or so. There&#8217;s a fine line between creativity and business in &#8220;Show Business&#8221; (it&#8217;s a single space, usually) and it certainly seems a reasonable generalisation to say that one is usually at the expense of the other unless you&#8217;re some kind of <em>überkind</em>; after all, &#8220;he who pays the piper calls the tune&#8221;. It&#8217;s a valid point of view that you should be able to motivate investors and audiences alike with your own vision, thus leaving you to make the film as you see fit, but on the other hand, it&#8217;s a case of weighing up whether it&#8217;s worth spending what could be years on a product which is very unlikely to make you any money back. So, whichever route you take, it usually results in compromise at some stage of the process.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m sure everyone knows about the film-making triangle (it&#8217;s in the Guerilla Film Maker&#8217;s Handbook, after all) which dictates that of the three qualities &#8220;Good&#8221;, &#8220;Fast&#8221;, and &#8220;Cheap&#8221;, you can only ever have two.  A case in point is a short I made a couple of years ago called &#8220;Milky Thursday&#8221;. I needed some CGI work doing for it, but I was on a deadline, and having no funds, I couldn&#8217;t entice a CGI artist to work on it for me. As a result, I had to do it all myself (in a hurry), and it looks terrible. One thing I&#8217;d like to say about this triangle, however, is that it indirectly leads to one of the most controversial topics in low-budget film-making today &#8211; that of paying your crew.  Going back to <em>Milky Thursday</em> again, The budget was about £300, because that&#8217;s what I spent on fuel, costumes, props and consumables (fuel was the biggest cost). However, that doesn&#8217;t count the donations I received in terms of time and expertise from the cast and crew. If I had been able to pay them the going rate, I would have been looking at upwards of £1000. Obviously this would have been the ideal situation, but for practical reasons it couldn&#8217;t happen &#8211; film making was always a province of the rich elite, and to pay your crew the going rate it still is.</p>
<p>Obviously, this places me in the position of not paying cast or crew for shorts, which lies at odds with several campaigns, but that&#8217;s not to say I disagree with them. There are several examples of films that have been made cheaply where it&#8217;s clear that the producers have exploited their crews in order to use  more expensive equipment, or avoided paying expenses, or kept any profits for themselves, and this cannot be condoned. However, when it&#8217;s a collective who have made the film, the rules are and should be different. If a film maker can generate a community spirit for the film &#8211; if the cast and crew want to be involved in the film for its own sake &#8211; then this should be perfectly acceptable. Obviously, it&#8217;s beholden upon the producers to make sure that any wealth is shared fairly amongst its collaborators.</p>
<p>I fall into this second category, as pretty much all of my films have been made for buttons and string. Once you have people excited about your project, it&#8217;s not difficult to get the best from them without waving a chequebook under their nose. There are, however, some important guidelines:</p>
<ol>
<li>Expenses. If you can offer expenses, do so, even if it&#8217;s only a token payment. Some may refuse any money (if they&#8217;re passionate about the project, for example), but this is the exception rather than the rule.</li>
<li>Food. An army marches on its stomach, a film crew doubly so. There&#8217;s nothing worse than working on a project without any catering &#8211; you get tired and hungry, and you don&#8217;t want to be there the next day. What&#8217;s amazing is that this is the easiest and cheapest perk to provide, and the most often overlooked.</li>
<li>DVD.  If you&#8217;ve offered someone a DVD at the end, provide it. There are several people I won&#8217;t work for again, as they can&#8217;t even extend this courtesy. You know who you are&#8230;</li>
<li>Professionalism. This is key. Your cast and crew may be working for free, but this does not mean that they&#8217;re amateurs. Treat them and the project with the respect they deserve.</li>
</ol>
<p>Follow these, and you won&#8217;t go far wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/making-short-films-on-1-a-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2009 out, 2010 in</title>
		<link>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/2009-out-2010-in/</link>
		<comments>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/2009-out-2010-in/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/?p=193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve had an exceptional year. Things started a little shakily, with Seeing Smoke dragging on longer than any of us expected, but the success of Paul Blinkhorn&#8217;s Duty Calls meant that I could attend Festival du Cannes 2009 as a film maker. Combined with several camera crew roles on different projects, and 2010 is already [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve had an exceptional year. Things started a little shakily, with Seeing Smoke dragging on longer than any of us expected, but the success of Paul Blinkhorn&#8217;s <strong>Duty Calls</strong> meant that I could attend Festival du Cannes 2009 as a film maker. Combined with several camera crew roles on different projects, and 2010 is already shaping up to be a successful year for Curtin Parloe Films. Two glossy feature thrillers, <strong>Trauma </strong>and <strong>Lost At Sea</strong>, are currently at the Script Development stage, while <strong>Bog Standard</strong> from Colin Warhurst, Paul Blinkhorn&#8217;s highly anticipated <strong>After Auschwitz</strong> and the latest short from Steven Hutchinson are all in post-production.<br />
Hopefully 2010 will be the biggest year yet for Curtin Parloe Films.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.curtinparloe.co.uk/2010/2009-out-2010-in/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

