Posts by brightdriver75

Running something like that profitably would be an uphill battle. You’d need serious backing from major institutions.

Even those small independent theaters in places like rural China are struggling these days, even when they try running commercial programs.

If you're thinking about using a film projector to screen the classics, it's almost a lost cause because those titles aren't in wide distribution anymore, and getting physical film prints out of archival collections is a massive headache.

If you want to do something for the love of it—something that might eventually evolve into a real business—I’d suggest starting a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting film culture or something similar. Find a few other people who share your passion, and you can organize film forums, marathons, and all the stuff you mentioned. You should be able to get a space from the local city government for free, and you don't need much: just a room with plenty of seating, a digital projector, speakers, and a DVD player or a computer to run the movies.
I think that way you could get a feel for how things work without overcomplicating it, and maybe even put together a solid proposal to pitch for support from the city or a federal agency.

If you really want to dive straight into opening a small cinema, your best bet is to sit down with the manager or owner of a theater in your hometown. I doubt they'll mind answering your questions; you aren't competition in any sense since your repertoire and target audience would be completely different. What they'll tell you (and I'm almost certain of this) is that to break even as an owner, you need multiple small auditoriums and a diverse, commercially viable lineup.

Now, if you don't mind, I have a question for you. Just pure curiosity.
Let's say you've busted your tail, worked like a dog, and finally, your project is ready to launch. You're opening your own theater! Exactly the kind of place you've described here.
What would be playing on opening night? What movie would you pick to christen the place?

Yeah, it really is. It absolutely should be.
It’s a fantastic read—packed with those little anecdotes, but also carrying that same sharp cynicism and irony you see in his movies.
Give it a read; you won't regret it.

Christian Taylor3 said:@Mark Wood79

Of course I'm not going to get worked up about it, so why would I? 🤷 Besides, those PDF previews are mostly just there to give you a quick look—you know, skim the table of contents on your laptop to see if it's actually worth your time before you pull the trigger and buy it. To be honest, about 90% of the PDFs floating around this thread are already sitting on my actual bookshelf (all bought legally, I promise). I always appreciate everyone else's suggestions, but at the end of the day, I'm the best judge of what I actually want to read. 🙂

I haven't gotten my hands on *World Film Directors: Volume One 1890-1945* or *Volume Two 1945-1985* yet, nor have I read them; I'm currently hunting down some decent reviews.

Speaking of which, I've got a little something arriving for Christmas:

*Bambi vs Godzilla* by David Mamet
*William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade*
*Conversations with Wilder*, by Cameron Crowe (though my copy somehow ended up with a friend. Pro tip: never lend books, especially not to friends or acquaintances)
*John Ford* by Joseph McBride and Michael Wilmington
*Cronenberg on Cronenberg*, by Chris Rodley
*Notes on the Cinematographer*, by Robert Bresson
*Who the Devil Made It?*, by Peter Bogdanovich

🙂

It's kind of like being at a wedding 😁 where I basically hand out a checklist to my friends and family ahead of time: No socks, no CDs, no DVDs—just give me books! 🙂 It's no wonder they all affectionately call me "The Book Nazi." 😬

What incredible books. Especially the Bresson one.

There was a period in my life where I wouldn't go anywhere without two specific books tucked away. They were my perfect travel companions.
One was this Bresson volume, and the other was my personal bible—Buñuel’s autobiography. It reads almost as if Mordecai Richler wrote it, only better. It’s the kind of book you can pull out for any occasion or use to answer just about any question.
For instance, if someone happens to ask how Buñuel could be my "bible" or what my views are on God and Catholic mysticism, I automatically respond by quoting Luis: "I'm an atheist, thank God."

I don't own either of them anymore. I lost the Bresson, and I gave the Buñuel to a wonderful old gentleman in Chicago after we spent talking about film and realized he hadn't actually read it.

Ethan Howard45 said:One more thing: people will step up to help you way more than you’d expect. I’ve been surprised myself more than a few times. Especially when you find the right crew. Try looking at your cinematographer as your main creative partner rather than just some "hired gun" who shows up to clock in and out. Listen to them—just like any other creative collaborator—because they can actually take your film to a whole different level. Of course, you have to filter everything they say: you need to know what you want first, then figure out how you want to get there, and finally evaluate the creative input from others. Honestly, being able to do that is part of the job description for a director. Cheers!

That’s exactly what I was trying to get at, and I feel bad that she took my comment as a dig at her inability to do things on her own.

I apologize again for jumping into a conversation where I clearly didn't belong.

Alright, I apologize for anything I said earlier.

I truly hope you end up making an incredible documentary.

I’m not going to engage with this generalized bashing of men, but I can tell you that I’ve worked with female directors plenty of times, and I’ve never once met anyone who had an issue with the director being a woman.
In most news crews, the journalist and producer are women while the cinematographer is a man, and there isn't any drama or disrespect involved.
What exactly did you ask those guys who own the gear?
If you approached them with the same attitude you're using here, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned you down... well, you know how it goes.

1. You don't make a documentary based on a vague "idea." You need a full breakdown of everything. You have to know exactly when, how, and where to shoot specific moments. If you need something that isn't there, you have to find a way to set the scene or evoke it on camera.
You need to visualize exactly what the shots will look like before you even start filming, rather than just having a concept.

2. A movie isn't made by a camera alone. Just like a pen doesn't write a novel by itself.

3. When you're looking for a cinematographer with equipment for $100 per day, you have to actually interest them in your project to get them to agree to work. So far, you haven't done that; instead, you've just been acting arrogant and entitled.
The whole point of sharing your ideas is to fascinate people so they actually want to collaborate with you—to lend you their expertise and gear, even if you aren't paying much more than just covering basic expenses.
And keep in mind, there are enough crazy enthusiasts out there who are willing to invest their time, knowledge, and gear—and sometimes even their own cash—and convince their friends to join in, provided the project is genuinely compelling.

4. Even if you were an expert in cinematography, sound, editing, narration, and directing... (which clearly isn't the case here), you'll never pull this off entirely on your own.

Bottom line, I’d suggest you take Ethan Howard45's advice. Taking a course will help you learn the ropes and introduce you to people who might actually want to work with you to create something interesting, rather than treating this like some little hobby.

Legend has it that during the scene where Dvornik rappels down the rope to set the dynamite, he absolutely insisted that no one besides Bat hold that line. He put all his faith in me—according to Bat, I was the only one he trusted, even though there were plenty of guys on set who were physically stronger than I am.
As for how they captured those specific shots, they used this tiny little platform that could only fit the camera, the operator, and one other person. Šiba was being stubborn, insisting he had to be up there to make sure everything looked perfect. Since nobody could really talk him out of it, Bat and a few of the crew guys ended up grabbing him and tying him to a post. That way, he could still watch the action unfold without accidentally tumbling off the platform if he got too carried away 🙂

wanderinghawk17 said:No way. They’ll just refinance the movie based on whatever it pulls in at the box office.

If a production burns through $1,000,000 and only pulls in $100,000 at the theaters, the Department steps in to cover an extra $100,000.
The amount doesn't even matter; the point is that this "subsidy" is tied directly to how well the film performs commercially. As for the exact ratio... who cares.

Some countries actually use similar types of incentives. For instance, if a movie sells more than a certain number of tickets, the producer gets a payout.

Let's say the money kicks in after 25,000 viewers. In those cases, you often see this scenario play out:
A movie hits theaters, fails to fill a single room during its first three weeks, and gets pulled from the schedule within three days. Total viewership? Maybe 15,000 people.
Then, suddenly, in three different cities over three consecutive days, every single screening is sold out, and they hit that 25,000 mark.

Did people just wake up out of nowhere, realize they were missing out on a masterpiece, and rush to the theaters?

Or is there something else going on?

The biggest profit in this industry happens when you make absolute garbage that isn't even worth the cost of an ad campaign or a theatrical release. All the money is already tied up in the production budget, so any extra spending on marketing or screening it at a major festival like Sundance is just throwing good money after bad. It’s nothing more than an added expense that eats directly into the producer's bottom line.
The most profitable films are the ones where you make a single copy, show it once at a big festival, and then send it straight into the archives.

lonelynx16 said:Let’s take the USC School of Cinematic Arts (USC School of Cinematic Arts), specifically the USC School of Cinematic Arts. I mean, we’re talking about an institution where the faculty roster included legends like Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Alexander Dovzhenko. And the alumni? You’ve got heavyweights like Andrei Tarkovsky (who studied under Mikhail Romm), Sergei Parajanov, Alexander Sokurov, Milcho Manchevski, Daniil Iosseliani, and even Nikita Mikhalkov, who just picked up an award at the Venice Film Festival...

When you actually sit down and weigh the sheer artistic impact and importance of these graduates, you realize something mind-blowing: these titans emerged from within the confines of a Soviet (Stalinist and post-Stalinist) dictatorship. Even with the constant weight of state censorship pressing down on them, they produced absolute masterpieces. Honestly, sometimes I catch myself wishing I were Russian... because that institute was founded back in 1919 and remains arguably the best in the world. Despite whatever technological lag existed in the old USSR or modern-day Russia, their creative output was unmatched. It’s just a shame that here in America, we can't seem to spark a total revolution in film school programs. It feels like there's always some group of self-important, megalomaniacal egoists running the show, backed by certain high-ranking bureaucrats in the industry, but I won't get sidetracked naming names right now. Anyone who actually knows the scene will know exactly what I'm talking about...

Honestly, I have no clue what you're talking about. I live abroad, so I'm out of the loop. A few years back, I actually thought about moving back to the States and enrolling in that Academy, but in the end, it all fell through for several reasons.

So, what's the actual deal with the Academy? Why is it such a mess? What kind of "revolution" are we talking about here?
Is it about replacing the faculty?
And if so, who would you even bring in?

Eric Jackson68 said:You see just how easily a person can be torn apart—at least partially. Honestly, Kluković clearly hasn't spent a single second studying at Yale University. I’ll go out on a limb and assert that it is actually far easier to spend several years attempting to get into an Ivy League school than it is to pull off what he did. This is one of those rare instances where someone executes something so difficult that, if I'm being brutally honest, 99% of the people asking these questions wouldn't have the slightest clue how to manage it. Getting into a top-tier Academy is the simpler path here. No offense intended, because my goal certainly isn't to be insulting.

If there's an established system in place, of course it's easier to follow the rules and try to climb through the traditional channels.
But then again, a huge chunk of people who actually graduate from the Academy never even get the chance to direct a feature film.

To actually make a movie, you need balls of steel and the persistence of a pack mule. When you're young and nobody knows who you are, it hits even harder; you realize that 90% of your energy is going to be wasted just organizing logistics and begging friends, acquaintances, or anyone else who might lend a hand.
On top of that, there's this constant weight on your mind: the fear that whatever you shoot might never actually be seen by anyone.

You earn the title of director when you actually make a movie; finishing film academy just makes you an academic filmmaker.

Take someone like Matthew McConaughey (or whoever that guy is)
Jan Vitkovič is a director—he didn't go to film academy, but he’s got heart. He admitted he didn't even know how to format a script properly, so he just described the visual vibe of the movie and sent that in for the competition.

Even that cliché-heavy Matanic—whose films are supposedly the best in America since independence (according to those industry insiders)—didn't finish his degree, yet he's still a director.

Are Hitchcock and Kubrick somehow unrecognised directors?
In what parallel universe are we living?