Dead Gentlemen Productions

How old are you?

I just turned twenty-two.

What’s your hometown?

I moved out to Tacoma to attend college and after four years feel justified in calling it my hometown. (My previous residence was in Indiana, a state to which I harbor an intense desire to never return.)

What class are you in at PLU? Junior? Senior?

I am a Senior, but will be staying for a fifth year. When the opportunity came up to study next Spring in a small town in France called Cannes, I adjusted my directing and graduation plans. (I’m writing a jazz musical with the plan of directing it when I return.)

What is your major at PLU?

I have a double major in Film and English, a minor in Latin, and emphases in jazz piano performance and children’s lit.

The Dead Gentlemen filmmaking group raised $2,000 of the picture’s $5,000 production budget via a pledge drive in 1999. Where did the other $3,000 come from?

The $3000 came out of my own savings. While the cardinal rule of indie filmmaking is to abstain from spending one’s own money, I felt that this was a special situation. First, my money was primarily put into hardware, making it an investment in future movies as well. Second, “Demon Hunters” was a perfect opportunity to establish the legitimacy of our filmmaking group. The monetary risk paid off: when we began preproduction on “DH2″, students were coming up to us and offering financial support. From a business point of view, the money was not well spent. I am still paying off the last $1200 in loans.

Had you done any film directing before “Demon Hunters”? And if so, what and when?

I directed my first feature length movie as a Senior in high school. Titled “Only a Paper Moon”, it was an overambitious project involving three intertwining narratives about high school students whose lives begin to replay elements of classic fairy tales. As the stories began to take over, each character had to choose whether to give in to the security of a predefined role or to let go of the story and favor free will.

Was it your idea to shoot the picture using digital equipment? What gave you the idea to do that?

I could write for hours about this. When I came to PLU, my first plan was to direct, on film, a story about a failed suicide attempt on Mt. Rainier. (Its centerpiece was a night long vigil around the hypothermic suicidee.) I gave myself a three year timeline to write the script and find funding. “Demon Hunters” appeared out of thin air when I was a sophomore. Here was a feature length movie with a cast of committed people already attached, a script ready, and the freedom to direct it as I wished. However, I only had a week to plan and prepare before we began shooting. At the time, I calculated that creating the movie on film would cost around $30,000. (Most of that money would have fallen into film processing.) To begin shooting on digital media only required about $2000 up front. I was able to pull the money together in three days, purchase the camera and accessories, and borrow light and sound equipment from the school. Those are my practical reasons.

Approaching the film vs. DV debate in more generalized terms yields less clear-cut answers. I love that DV (and eventually the HDTV format) reduces costs by so much. As the technology improves, we see constant increases in picture quality and are given more control over the image. Nevertheless, DV, at heart, is still about electronic impulses being recorded on a CCD chip. While it gives us clear, crisp pictures, it has yet to approach the resolution and warmth of a film shot on fine-grain stock. The digital precision brought to us by a stream of ones and zeros obviates the chemical chaos that hides within every frame of film. Certainly, there are ways to approximate a marriage of those two worlds, like shooting DV in true 24 FPS progressive (or even in PAL) or running a 3:2 pulldown and then transferring either result to film. There is no correct answer, but the fact remains that if I had a large enough budget and a DP with enough experience, I would choose film every time. Right now, however, shooting in DV gives me room to experiment, make mistakes, and fine tune my own skills and instincts without worrying about breaking the bank.

What specific equipment did you use? Type of camera? Type of sound system? Type of editing system?

We shot on a Sony TRV-510, which at the time was the company’s top D8 camera. Most of the audio used an electret condenser boom mic with a daisy chain of converters that brought us from XLR to 1/8″ miniplug jacked into the camera. We’re still using the same camera, but now we record audio separately, using a better mic and a minidisc recorder. (We considered DAT, but minidisc presents us with fewer audio rate problems in post.) Our next production will see major camera, audio, and lighting upgrades. The TRV-510 was a good training camera, but I now need the kind of control that it simply won’t offer me.

All of the editing was done on my old and clunky PowerMac 8600. DV input was through a Digital Origin firewire card. It was stored in segments on an 18 GB external UW SCSI drive and edited with Adobe Premiere. I would complete an average of fifteen minutes of final footage at a time, export to tape, then clear the drive and import my next set of shots. Because we were working with digital media from beginning to end, it was possible to import and export scenes as many times as I wanted to without any generational quality loss. Our ratio of raw footage to a completed movie on DH1 was 1:6. DH2 is averaging out at around 1:8.

Is digital easier to use?

DV is initially much easier to use than film. However, I think that a time comes when one is expending more energy trying to achieve a high quality film look than actual film use would require. Once again, DV is great to learn and experiment with, but it currently has a major threshold, beyond which film is the only answer.

In addition to directing the movie, you were the cinematographer and sound man. What was that like? Was it hard to direct when you had to wear all those different hats during production?

It was completely hellish. I had an audio assistant, John Schock, who saved me from total insanity. At one point during the shoot (the first scene between Chris and Katie), I found myself with a camera in one hand, a mic in the other, and a halogen lamp balanced on my left foot. The rest of the crew had left, our normal light had blown its last bulb, and I was dead on the foot that actually got to fill its original function.

I worked on Demon Hunters non-stop from March until October of 1999. It was very difficult to find crew members during the shoot and post-production fell entirely on my shoulders. I didn’t have time to edit and hold a real job during the summer, which meant a few months of eating Matt Vanci’s ramen and sleeping on his living room floor. I finished the movie itself less than four hours before the world premiere on October 8, 1999.

Never again will I put myself through that. Of course, now that people have seen the movie and have recognized our legitimacy, finding tech volunteers has become one of my easiest tasks.

I very much enjoy being my own cinematographer. My personal preference is to write out a detailed shot list, rather than storyboard, and doing my own camera work accommodates that inclination. Due to the rather insane and hurried nature of the first movie, though, I only had the luxury of planning ahead for about half of the shoot. Last minute location, cast, and choreography changes demanded an ability to improvise on a regular basis.

What’s the title of the sequel to “Demon Hunters”?

“Demon Hunters II: Dead Camper Lake”

What on-campus locations did you use in “Demon Hunters”?

We shot in Eastvold, Lagerquist, Hinderlie, and Hong Halls, the Hague administration building, the University Center, and exteriors all over campus.

Who played the demon?

Matt Vancil not only wrote the script, but he played Duamerthrax as well. I have my own theories about the personality that emerges when he is in costume. He is a multitalented guy and is mostly a joy to work with (when he’s not threatening to rip my head off!)

The group that made the picture is planning to form its own production company, Dead Gentlemen Productions? Are you a member of that company? What is your title?

Ok, this is where I think that everything gets really interesting. We’ve been talking for years about making a production company. At first, it seemed as likely to us as a sequel to “Demon Hunters”. Then we not only found ourselves making “DH2″, but planning future films.

I’ve been developing my own set of ideas and theories about entertainment and moviemaking for about seven years. There’s a lot of empty dialogue out there right now, filled with catch phrases like “digital media” and “wave of the future” and “paradigm breaking”, but they exist because we are on the brink of a potential revolution in the arts. What the move to a digital world means is a massive convergence of our many and varied ways of expressing and interpreting the collective and singular human experience. Movies have been called the ultimate art form, since they pull so many disparate elements together. That’s what attracted me to them in the first place: I didn’t want to give up any of my interests and be forced to specialize. Film at its best is inclusive. However, I have come to believe that we can take it a step farther.

I would argue that storytelling is the ultimate art form. From the beginnings of consciousness, we have used story to make sense of the world and of ourselves. The heart of storytelling is that it is a group experience. While one person may carry the narrative thread, every person listening to what is said has his or her own voice in the story, in what it means, in how it relates to other people. The storyteller plays the audience and the audience plays the storyteller. Unfortunately, we are in a world where that crucial social element has been greatly diminished. The quest for entertainment at times feels like the quest for passivity. Strangely, though, the movies that we remember are the ones that engage us, make us think, pull us into their world as active participants.

The online gaming community fascinates me. While I have been too busy to actively participate, my secondhand observations and many discussions with people in that arena hopefully give me a right to talk about it. Games like “Everquest” and “Ultima” take place in real time, with thousands of players participating in the creation of ever-growing worlds. More so, while one’s first impulse when playing those games is often to fall into the hack and slash, survival of the fittest mentality, a curious evolution has begun to take place for many players. Instead of cutting each other down, they began to help each other out and to create, within the game world, their own cities, public works, universities, libraries, and civilian occupations. How was it that they discovered working for the common good? What does that say for their own growth as members of the real world?

My long term goal is to meld the best elements of movie-making, gaming, and collective storytelling into a form that returns to us a little bit of what we have lost, our awareness of each other as real people in the real world. (This was the short explanation. I would go into greater depth, but I’m answering a different question.)

The digital convergence is making it possible for people to create and distribute their media from without the bounds of the mainstream (read: “in it for the money”) entertainment industry. Phone companies are laying the cable that in five years or so will transmit branching DTV and internet access from combination TV/ISP stations. With that it will be possible to independently stream full quality video from one’s own web site. Once the quality and the large scale broadband access is there, the numbers of people accessing streaming media on the net will skyrocket. Sites like atomfilms.com are creating the groundwork for that today. What we don’t know is what shape any of this will fall into.

As a small, talented group, we have the possibility of influencing how the unknown changes in media and the arts will take place. An entire production studio could be housed in one van, complete with full editing system and satellite uplink to the net. We are currently creating the framework for a complete set of web pages that cover all of these areas, with the primary goal being the creation of an online community that is actively involved with what we (and ultimately they) create. Although we plan on staying in the Northwest, annual summer tours where we meet up and make movies with members from that web community are utterly possible. As providers (ideally) of filmed entertainment, video games, music, role playing games, and thorough resources for other artists, the future seems wide open right now. Already, our friends and contacts in college link us to potential software developers, musicians, and entrepreneurs, many of whom are excited about being able to work with us in areas that they are passionate about.

A production company is a huge risk, but the payoff is the freedom to create as we wish and to live our lives as agents of change in the world.

So, to finally answer your question, “Yes, I am a member of Dead Gentlemen Productions.” My role is imagining and preparing for future possibilities. I am also one of the resident tech-heads. The wonderful thing about our group is that none of us does only one thing. Steve Wolbrecht acts, writes music, and is our mathematician. Matt Vancil writes, acts, sings, and knows ancient history and literature inside out. I write, direct, edit, write music, and research. Don Early acts, directs, produces, and is our theologian. The list goes on and we all continue to learn and expand our abilities. We operate on a consensus model of decision making, although when actually shooting a movie the director is, of course, in charge.

Once we officially incorporate, titles may become necessary. We’re still ironing out the details: profit or nonprofit, how to make enough money to support ourselves, what our goals are, who took the peanut butter, etc.

What is the relationship between the folks who made “Demon Hunters” and the PLU Film Society?

I wanted PLU to have a film society and “Demon Hunters” made that possible. As we were raising money for the movie, a concern expressed by many people was that equipment bought with their money would end up in the hands of an individual after the movie was shot. By giving everything to the film society, we not only were able to bring it into being with its own equipment already in place, but also with a campus-wide awareness of its existence as well. The following Fall, interest in “Demon Hunters” ran high and by using it as the first screening held by the film society, we got that group kicked off to a great start.

How many members are in the society?

There are around 35 in the production branch. The screening branch gets between ten and twenty new members every week, which puts it at around 100 right now.

What is its purpose?

Its purpose is twofold. The club operates with two connected but distinct branches. The screening branch shows a movie every Friday, following it with discussion, DVD commentaries and extras, and other movie related issues. The production branch is a place for students interested in making movies to network with each other. Once writer, director, crew, and actors have come together and submitted a project proposal, the club lets them schedule the equipment (including, until an upgrade is purchased, the editing system that I personally bought), helps support fundraising efforts, and then publicizes and screens the completed movie on campus.

Why would an aspiring filmmaker like yourself go to PLU, rather than to a film school?

The problem with film school is that it teaches people how to make movies. With a few exceptions, that’s all it teaches. I would have had to fight the system every step of the way to study jazz piano at USC, since they discourage departmental crossover.

Film is about more than film. I am greatly disturbed by how self-referential it has become. That Hollywood, once again with the occasional exception, has consistently recycled itself, looking to its past for the magical (and illusory) success formula, is seen by me as a prime reason for the stagnant quality of the majority of its releases. As I explained before, film is about more than itself. It is about who we are in the world, but to preserve that essence requires direct experience of the world. Right now I’m just a pretentious twenty-two year old, but with time and exposure I hope to translate my life and observations into a sense of the real, the important, into what is essential to us on a more universal level.

For instance, some of my best insight into film came from an anthropology class that I took. It shouldn’t be surprising that anthropological technique can apply directly to the filmmaking process. How do we effectively observe, analyze, and present a culture with respect and accuracy? Consider the jazz piano and classical studies. I edit to the rhythms of Mahler, Duke Ellington, Gershwin, Rachmaninov, Ray Brown and countless others. My focus next semester will be French art. I read more books than I watch movies.

Does this make me a technically better filmmaker? At first, certainly not. Have I already made three movies and learned from my mistakes? Absolutely. By the time I graduate I will have three feature length movies under my belt, with each one representing a major leap in quality and experience. I was once accused of studying film at PLU because I couldn’t make it at a “real film school.” I’m sorry not to be making the industry contacts. I’m sorry that I don’t have to compete with countless other film buffs for every minuscule resource and piece of funding. I’m sorry for taking time to study Latin, history, theology, philosophy, physics (imagine writing a scientifically accurate sci-fi movie!), music, computers, film history, movie production, photography, acting, directing for the stage, anthropology, and gender roles in modern society. I’m sorry for doing everything my own way, how I want to, rather than following a preset path that has as little a chance for success as mine does.

PLU has been a good place for me. I have grown as a person, made wonderful friends, and am doing what I love to do. What could be better than that?

Do you hope to make a career in film? Do you want to direct professionally?

I want to make a career in the arts. Where that will take me is a mystery.