FilmMonthly » stephens.jason

A.R. Gurney’s “Sylvia” hits the spot

stephens.jason — Tue, 31 May 2011 15:19:17 +0000

As an indie filmmaker living in the Inland Empire in California, my exposure to theater has been more than limited. When I resided in New York and Chicago, I loved to attend plays. Los Angeles’ theater row is small, but it has ton’s of character. The city itself is so large, and theaters litter neighborhoods so sporadically, it’s hard to keep up what is running where. Let’s face it, LA is the Silver Screen, not the stage. So when I agreed to cover the reprisal of A.R. Gurney’s play “Sylvia”, I was a little apprehensive. I knew nothing about the play, or the playwright, and what’s more, is I knew nothing about the celebrated lead Tanna Frederick, though I’d read many good things.
The play takes place in Manhattan, with a couple of the city’s typical middle aged types. Greg, played by Stephen Howard, and his wife Kate, played by Cathy Arden, are recently living in an empty house as the last of their children has gone off to college. Kate is enjoying a sort of rebirth, excelling at her teaching job, and loving life without the responsibility of being a mom. Greg has hit the proverbial middle aged wall, feeling lost, and wanting meaning in what he feels has become a stale life and career. Enter Sylvia, a dog that Greg finds in Central Park. The dog is a stray, but Greg feels a sort of connection, and decides he needs to bring it home with him.
Needless to say, Kate is less than enthused, affectionately calling the dog Saliva, instead of Sylvia. The rest of the play plays out in humorous fashion as Kate must deal with her husbands new found love for someone other than her. It’s almost as if there is a sense of an affair, without the actual affair, which allows the two to play out their apprehensions and issues with their marriage without the true threat of another woman. Stephen and Cathy play their roles well, seeming like typical New Yorkers, as I used to live there. I don’t mean this to be negative, but there was nothing overly exciting about their performances. They were just good, but good enough to make the play fun and engaging.
On the other hand, Tanna Frederick was charming, and stellar playing Sylvia. When I first saw that a human was going to be playing a dog, and her only dialogue being an inner monologue of what would truthfully be what our pets probably think, I was skeptical. I didn’t think this would be easy. I figured it’d be forced, and with that performance taking place within a scene where two other actors are being real people, with real issues, I figured the schtick would get lost. Happily, Ms. Frederick was so good, she made me lose any sense of doubt I had that the play would be good. She was convincing as a true to life, in love, dog. Her facial expressions, and her energy held the audience entranced. I felt like Tanna excelled, and is the sole reason I dug this play, and should be the same for anyone else.
If I have any criticism about this play, it’s that, at times, Frederick came off as a child. And with that being said, it was hard to watch some of the more passionate and affectionate scenes between Greg and Sylvia. I chalk this up to Frederick being so committed, she was trying to make the audience identify with a being we couldn’t possibly identify with. That, and I feel like there wasn’t enough in the script about why Greg was so unhappy, he’d be willing to quit his job so abruptly, and decide he was so in love with a dog. I know the script was already written long ago, but maybe some creative changes to make us as an audience get it more. The play was very entertaining, but not as insightful as I feel it could have been. I think it had tremendous opportunity for director Gary Imhoff to make this a standard for unconventional mid life crisis marital stories, but he didn’t.
The play was charming, and funny, and the performances were good enough, with the exception of Frederick, and in the end, I was left content. I didn’t feel like I wasted my time, and I was entertained. The play is well worth the dough, and if you want to watch a sure soon to be star on stage and indie film, go check out Sylvia, if only to see Tanna Frederick show how an actor can play more than just a human. Go see Sylvia, currently running in Santa Monica at the Edgemar Center For The Arts.

Jeff Roe Is Doing It His Own Way

stephens.jason — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:04:17 +0000

Rare is I get the chance to chat with someone that has the passion and drive of Jeff Roe. Most people never get to. He runs like a freight train, seemingly unstoppable, with motivation and ambition at the helm. In these harsh economic times, and Hollywood’s stale brand of “new” ideas, Jeff and his little company Outlaw Laboratories are seemingly on the verge of something big. And he and his team are doing it in their own way.
Starting in 2005, Outlaw Laboratories has been making their money through live TV events, and creating the incredibly entertaining short films that precede such shows as the MTV Movie Awards and The Emmy’s. Feeling like the time is right, Jeff and his team are about to venture into their first feature film endeavor, with the ambition to create nine more in the next five years. I had a chance to speak to him on the phone a couple nights ago. Chatting about everything from his start as a photography major in college, to where he thinks Hollywood is headed, Jeff Roe made me a believer, seemingly something he’s been able to do to people for years.
Ten films in five years? Ambitious wouldn’t you say?
As a writer I have five scripts myself that I’ve been sitting on. Plus, we’re looking to reach out to those people out there who may have a great story, and other production companies won’t take a chance on them. That’s what we’re looking for. We’re just looking for good stories. You gotta risk those types of things if you wanna make a good movie.
What brought you into the film business?
I got my start doing post work at Chainsaw, and was able to work on visual effects on the movie Starship Troopers. It was fun to be blowing stuff up. Then I got asked to do a doc called Stuntwood, The Birth, Life, and Death of a skateboard, and essentially that’s where I got the funds to start my own company.
Being that you studied film in college, where did the interest in film come in?
I always loved film as a culmination of all types of art. I wanted to make movies in college, so I learned to edit on my own, and I became pretty good at it. The fact that I could edit, and liked to work in post, really helped in my career path in Hollywood.
What kind of movies do you want your company to make?
I don’t want us to be pigeon holed to one type of genre. You know who I really respect? Robert Rodriguez. I love what they’re doing over at Troublemaker. I love his ability to make a film like Machete, then do Spykids. His ability to crossover is unmatched. All his movies have a distinct feel to them. That’s what I want us to have. I want all our films, regardless of genre, to have an Outlaw Laboratories feel to them.
Where do you see Hollywood going in the next five years?
That’s a very curious question. I spoke on a panel about four years ago about this kind of thing, and in Japan at that time, ninety percent of all downloads were to mobile devices. And that was four years ago! I guess it all depends on technology. Of course we’d like to get the big distribution deals, but we’re not gonna be closed off to the web, or any other types of apps that might come out for cell phones or iPads.
I saw you worked on Justin Timberlake’s clothing line William Rast. What was that like?
Well, we didn’t do the short films he used for the TV promo’s, but we were hired to go back to his hometown and shoot a little bit about where he’s from and the inspiration for the clothing line came from. We even got to interview the guy who dressed Elvis. It was pretty cool.
What advice would you give guys who are trying to do what you do?
Again that’s a very curious question. I would say this business is unique in that it has no specific road map to success. In my opinion you have to network, network, network. And hustle. Plus, if you have a good idea, shoot it. You can shoot stuff on an iPhone now. I shot some footage for a short film for Cartoon Network with Tony Hawk on my iPhone. After some color correction, it looked pretty good. With Youtube and stuff like that, you can get anything views. It’s sad cause I do feel things like Youtube have made people more accepting of bad cinematography, but that being said it makes it easier to have people like a broader spectrum of content.
What is it you love about filmmaking?
You know, I love all parts of it at different times in different ways. Of course I love the writing aspect. You know, coming up with something from scratch and bringing it to life. But then there are times I love producing, and the problem solving aspects of it. I’m a big fan of testing oneself and one’s own abilities. Writing, producing, directing, editing, what I love about all those things individually is that you have to be creatively on all the time.
What’s the last good movie you have seen?
I really liked Machete, but I watched it at home recently, not in the theater. But I watch everything. That’s how I feel. Watch everything. Watch it, then read the scripts after, and see how they went from concept to screen. It’s really amazing sometimes.
Do you consider yourself an artist?
You know, artist isn’t the right word. I feel like when you call yourself an artist there’s a certain perception that comes with it that is not who I am. When I think about it, I feel there is an art to a lot of things. I think some things I do are art, but I also feel like there’s an art to something like stretching a dollar, or balancing one’s checkbook. Those things are art forms to me.

The Haunting Of Amelia

stephens.jason — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:53:10 +0000

The Haunting Of Amelia right off the back, seemed to be like a knock off of The Haunting Of Emily Rose, or maybe even something like Paranormal Activity. I was incredibly wrong, but that doesn’t mean that was a good thing. This film wasn’t very good, and this film surely wasn’t horror to me. I am not even a huge horror buff, but even I feel like I was mislead, and that I didn’t get my fill of pee in my pants spooky moments.
The original title of the film was The Other Side Of The Tracks, and I actually like that title much better. The film felt more like a coming of age drama, than a film about the paranormal. Rusty, played by Chad Lindberg, is trying to overcome the loss death of his girlfriend Amelia ten years back. His is stuck in a rut with a new girl who doesn’t seem to do anything for him at all. This I like. I dig stories about overcoming one’s past, and maybe even finding piece of mind. It’s relatable, and appealing. But this film was slow. It was VERY slow. The dialogue in certain scenes, not all the scenes, was unbearable.
I understand this was an indie film, and as an indie filmmaker I am a huge advocate for indie films, but, there are some things you should do as said filmmaker to assure the film doesn’t suffer such a horrible fate as the review I am writing. One, always make sure the audio is good. If it’s bad, and your film is dialogue driven, which this film is, the audience is lost, as I was. Make sure the effects you’re trying to capture are within the realm of your budget. The few scares the film had were due to make-up, and the make-up wasn’t even very good. And, as I had already mentioned, assure your script is strong.
A.D. Calvo, the director, had a real shot at making a great film. The switch of the titles was the first mistake. If this film was marketed as a drama, I think it would’ve faired better. I might even have liked it more if I thought of it as that, though probably not. If the film used a dream flashback, instead of a ghost, it might have made things a bit more interesting. There was no build up, no mystery. The ending, which I won’t give away, is seen coming a mile away. Simple is sometimes better, and I think he was trying to do too much. I don’t mean to rip his film apart, but when I see so much possible good that could’ve come from the project, it’s hard to watch the actual end result.
If you are looking for a horror film to scare your date into bed with you, this is not it. If you want to see actors trudge their way painfully through a poor script, and bad framing, then you might want to take a peek at this. I’d like to say there were some positives, but I can’t find any. Market the film as a drama, and I might have changed my tune. But as a horror film, this piece falls flat.

The Hessen Conspiracy

stephens.jason — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:49:43 +0000

I will admit that when I received the film The Hessen Conspiracy, I was very weary. I heard the film was based on real life events, which I can’t seem to find too much information on. Plus, this is a film that didn’t have a huge studio behind it, nor a giant budget, so I figured the film would come across forced, trying to be a period piece on an all but indie budget. I am very happy to say that I was wrong.
The story, for my taste, is mediocre. I wasn’t drawn in, and though the best part of the film was the first half, it wasn’t better by much. I feel like the fact that this might not be a true to life event may have played a role in story holes, and some 007 twists and turns.
The film follows Colonel Jack Durant, played masterfully by Billy Zane, and his love interest Lieutenant Kathleen Nash, played by Lyne Renee. Durant decides to hest a fortune of jewels from the Germans shortly after the end of WWII, and enlists the help of Nash. The only problem is, the two must find a buyer for such a risky score. The two make their way to New York with the treasure to find a fence, and escape the countless number of enemies they’ve made on their quest for riches.
Zane and Nash skillfully portray the feel of that era. Director Paul Breuls does an outstanding job making each scene feel like vintage American Film Noir. As I had stated, I was a huge fan of the movie as a whole, as I was expecting more of a James Bond type film, and what I got was a slow-at-times detailed account of something that may or may not have happened. But visually, the film was fantastic.
Giving credit to the director, I have to also extend a huge pat on the back to the writers Nicolas Meyer and Ronald Roose. They created dialogue that became it’s own character. The dialogue rolled off of Zane and Nash’s tongues, and I believed them, more so than I’ve believed anyone in any movie Kevin Williamson ever wrote, and he was considered amazing. The dialogue was sleek, and cool, with Zane seeming like he took no effort to say them. I don’t know if that is a testament to him, or the writing, but whichever, it was impressive.
If you want to see a visually impressive film, with hints of excitement, see this film. If you want to watch Billy Zane redeem himself as the douche bag from Titanic, see this film, cause he is excellent. If you want to watch the closest thing to the type of film one would say, “They just don’t make them like that anymore”, then see this film. It may not be a date film, or an action adventure done right, but it is better than I thought it would be.

Hemingway’s Garden Of Eden

stephens.jason — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:40:06 +0000

Ernest Hemingway could possibly be my favorite novelist of all time. I love everything he has done, and I find that I can continue reading the same works of his, over and over, and I find new things I never noticed before. Garden Of Eden was one of the last things of his I ever read, and in all honesty, it was because of his own personal feelings about the book being published that pushed me away. If he seemed to not like it, then how was I supposed to? It’s a good read, just as everything he writes, and on this day I was asked to review the feature film version.
The movie starts simple enough. We get a quick little montage of the marriage between Catherine and David Bourne. A short scene is used to show how the two met, and it displays Catherine’s personality, which serves as both a reason one would be attracted to her, and also why one could potentially want to leave her. The next twenty minutes or so run rather slowly. There is a good amount of nudity in the film, and the beginning of the film doesn’t hold back, with a very erotic sex scene between the newly weds. The sex isn’t gratuitous, and it’s shot beautifully, and is incredibly artistic.
The story explores the joy of new love, the jealousy that comes with success, and the true destruction that idle hands can bring about. I don’t mean to sound like a misogynist, but I feel like Hemingway wrote Catherine as the archetype of so many married women trying to keep things fresh and interesting in their relationships. Women tend to believe that men are moved by their penis, and as long as you satisfy that, all will be well. David’s success is a threat to what the marriage is. She wants him to find happiness in only her. To find inspiration in her and only her. Because this wasn’t so, Catherine sets off to find anything that could make David give her attention, including another woman.
I think the reason the beginning of the film lost me a bit is that Mena Suvari, who is playing Catherine, wasn’t believable to me as a wealthy Jazz era socialite. Her lines were forced, her smiles seemed fake, and every time she had to exude a quality that would make us as an audience swoon, I didn’t. Her sarcastic remarks fell flat to the point I felt Jack Huston, who plays David, had trouble reacting realistically to her. I don’t mean to come down hard on Suvari, as she did pull it together in the second half of the film where the marriage is really put to the test, and she has to become almost a sociopath. She plays crazy well, and her lack of emotion or tone of voice really helps her seem crazy, when in the beginning it just made her bad.
Jack Huston gives an amazing performance, making me believe he was this insecure, wounded man just looking for love the entire time. Americans had a certain way of speaking back then, best embodied by the likes of Cary Grant, even though he was from England. Huston controls his emotions well, allowing only cracks of a smile, and the slight raise of an eye brow. He was every bit the gentleman, even as his world and marriage was falling apart.
As Catherine becomes more and more impatient, and attention starved, she brings home Marita, played by the beautiful and enchanting Caterina Murino. This is not a bad film, but Caterina stole it for me. Her eyes are soft, and her skin is sun kissed, her voice gentle, and hesitant. She is a vision, and though she is given some corny lines, she delivers them with such grace and charm you don’t even care. I will say that the love story between Marita and David comes about quickly, and I didn’t connect with them on it, but in the book it’s explained in much more detail than a two hour film could ever fully express.
The story isn’t tragic, and the flashback scenes of David hunting with his dad in Africa aren’t needed for the film. It’s needed in the book, and it explains in detail, the book David himself is writing, but in the movie it simply breaks flow. We’re watching two girls make out, David drunkenly trying to write, then we’re shot over to Africa twenty years earlier. The flashbacks took too long to come about in the film, and then it ends on a flashback causing me to lose any emotion I had gotten wrapped up in during the present.
The film is well written enough to make it enjoyable at times, but what I felt gave the film it’s realism, is the locations. The film is minute after minute of gorgeous French Riviera scenery. The art direction was perfection. The clothes were legitimate, and the pencils and typewriters were spectacular. It all felt like I was there, with them in the 1920’s. The way every character walked and talked, and sipped coffee or wine had the detail of a Hemingway novel. I loved it. It was breathtaking, and at the very least, if only that, the movie was going to be saved by how realistic it was. No expense was obviously spared.
The story is not a happy one, I will say that, but not too many of Hemingway’s are. It’s not sad, but he paints life so well that you don’t care. This is what reality is. It’s the good with the bad. It’s the sweet and sour. Hemingway and director John Hyne did that part right. The performances may have been off in some spots, and the story may have moved slow, or even gotten a little jumbled, but the overall feeling you were supposed to take away was taken away, at least for me. Love is unpredictable, but not once in a lifetime, and sometimes it’s much better that way.

ALL AMERICAN ORGY

stephens.jason — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:12:42 +0000

At first glance, this film gets your attention by using such a simplistic title, which sets you up for what you’re assuming you’re about to see. In fact, even the cover would grab your attention at Blockbuster, or Netflix, using a buxom, yet faceless, figure to take up over ninety percent of the packaging. Spoiler alert, the hot girl on the cover is not in the film. In fact, if I had judged simply on the title, or the box cover, I would’ve written this movie off as just another raunchy, crass comedy that uses gratuitous nudity and dick jokes to gain an audience, but thanks to a well developed trailer, I took a shot.
What I found was a surprisingly clever tale of three couples, stuck in a rut, and using the last resort method of an orgy, to try and square away their differences. I feel writer Ted Beck touched on a great topic, which has been done before with St. Elmo’s fire in the 80’s and Singles, in the 90’s, but has yet been done right since then. Sadly, this film could have been capable of so much more, but at times lost my interest. Director Andrew Drazek had the perfect set up for a Hangover type concept film. Set up with people on their way to an orgy, the couple’s meet, insert numerous hilarious and awkward scenes before orgy, orgy happens, couples leave enlightened in some way. The concept could have been that simple, and that funny, but it wasn’t.
We open with Allen and Yasmine buying wine at a small grocery store on their way to Cumming’s Farms for their weekend orgy. Allen, late 20’s, and Jewish in a Woody Allen way, is not so sure about the orgy, where as Yasmine seems tired with Allen. Bored even. She might be going just for the experience, but has no desire to fix any problems she and Allen are having.
Rachel and Gordon seem to still have a passionate lust for each other, but Gordon’s drinking problem keeps getting in the way. Though he is witty about his issues, he seems to have no desire to stop. Rachel is the most attractive woman in the bunch, and she knows it. She’s the girl we all know who obviously loves the physical attention, but complains when guys objectify her.
Then, there’s Todd and Tina, the only couple who is married, and the hosts of the weekend of debauchery. Tom is a tad over the top with his creepiness, which made it hard for me to buy into the fact any woman would marry this man. Tina is obviously an oppressed pleaser. She’s very self- conscious, and seems to only be going along with the orgy because Todd really wants it.
The meeting of the six is awkward, with very basic set ups about Todd being a pervert who wants to screw all of the girls. Gordon is drunk, while Rachel flirts with the other men, flashing a bit of her panties to entice them. Allen is overly analytical, and Yasmine seems so detached from sex and emotion, that one could perceive she was once sexually abused. I have to stress, this is just an example, there is no indication in the film that she was ever molested or raped.
The stage is now set for what I had hoped to be hilarity, but instead turned into lots of conversation about relationships. Now, I love well written clever banter as much as the next person, but the setting is dull. The house is plain, the exteriors are foliage, and a lake. Todd keeps revealing more and more of his creepiness, while Gordon seemingly is an asshole for the sake of being an asshole. The story seems to want to show that Allen is the hopeless romantic, who apparently is in love with Rachel, and only came to this orgy so he could tell her. The problem is, I have no idea why he loves her. There isn’t even a hint at back story. It also takes about an hour into the film to find out her loves her.
The script is strong, and the character development is good, but I was left wanting more. I feel like maybe a few pages of script could have been added to the beginning, so that when it starts, we’re not just thrown into the situation. The director tries to do this, with separate scenes of the couples in their cars on their way to the farm, but those scenes seem to focus more on each of their own problems, rather than how they know and each other, and why they’d even agree to this.
When the story ends, I have no new insight on relationships. I didn’t feel a connection, cause I truly didn’t understand what the root problem of the relationships were. These people are introduced to us flawed. They are already over, and I have no desire to see any of them work out. The only story line I would’ve cared about is Rachel and Allen’s hook up, which never happens, but since I have no clue why he loves her, I also don’t care that they don’t have the happy ending.
There is also this tiny side story about a street smart drug dealer, who deals to Gordon, and somehow he ends up trying to get in on the orgy. It’s unnecessary, and I can see that it was an attempt at comic relief, but it really wasn’t needed. I would’ve preferred those pages be spent on the depth of relationships. I understand indie film, and I know that creating a film based strictly on dialogue isn’t easy, though there is one slightly R rated sex scene between Todd and Yasmine, but there is a way to shoot a film like this and make it more entertaining. I felt a little like I watched three couples go through therapy. It was a little depressing, even though it was supposed to be funny. I give credit to production company Phase 4 Films for producing a film like this in this economic climate, but it was just lacking some depth. And the ending doesn’t give us a clue as to what might happen. I don’t mind being somewhat left up in the air, the way The Break Up ends, but this film just has 6 people driving away in the car of a drug dealer.
My favorite films are the one’s that deal with relationships, and redemption. None of these people are good people, and that’s alright. It’s just that at the end, I didn’t think any of them were any better than when the film started. Their new alliances were murky. Their booze and drug filled evening didn’t even seem to have a long lasting affect on the next day. Everyone just seemed pretty content with how it all turned out, and I couldn’t even tell you how it all turned out. Great potential, strong script, but left me unsatisfied. Kind of like going to an orgy, and not seeing any breasts, or seeing some girl on girl action. When you think about it, I kind of felt like the film itself.

The Next Reel International Film Festival 2005

stephens.jason — Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0000

The Next Reel International Film Festival at New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts is the only international student film festival in the United States. During the weeklong festival, nearly 100 of the best student films from around the world are screened. These young filmmakers compete for almost $15,000 in cash prizes and awards.
With a new name and revamped look, the organizers of Next Reel International Film Festival, a biannual showcase of international cinema, announced today it will present 111 films from 25 countries, including Argentina, Australia, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Korea, Romania, and South Africa. One of the largest festivals of its kind, the seven-day program of narrative, documentary, and experimental works runs September 25- October 1, 2005 at the IFC Center, 323 Sixth Ave at West 3rd Street and Tisch School of the Arts, 721 Broadway.
Formerly known as the NYU International Student Film Festival, Next Reel organizers renamed the festival to reflect the evolution of the program and the ingenuity of the next generation of international filmmakers showcased in this seventh edition.
Other new initiatives for the upcoming festival include partnerships with the IFC Center and the Tribeca Film Festival. The IFC Center will host the Opening Night special presentation of KEANE, directed by NYU alumnus Lodge Kerrigan. In addition, the IFC Center is organizing an upcoming series of shorts from this year’s Next Reel festival to play before feature programs at the Center. The Tribeca Film Festival is organizing a panel discussion with noted industry representatives and film producers on how to use a short film as a springboard to a career in the film industry. Titled “Next Steps: Using your Short Film to Achieve your Career Goals,” the panel will guide emerging filmmakers in the how-to’s of making it in the film business, whether that is getting your first feature off the ground, doing commercial/music video work, or breaking into the studio system.
“This year marks exciting new changes for the festival,” said Tisch School of the Arts Vice Dean Pari Shirazi. “The festival’s new look, and the partnerships with IFC Film Center and Tribeca, will bring much deserved attention to Next Reel’s diverse line-up of films from emerging filmmakers around the world.”
Next Reel is also proud to announce that acclaimed directors Todd Solondz (PALINDROMES, WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE) and David Lynch (MULHOLLAND DRIVE) will host talks and screenings about their films and creative process. Solondz will be present for a screening of his most recent feature film, the critically acclaimed PALINDROMES, to be followed by a question-and-answer period with the director.
David Lynch will present his talk “Filmmaking and Consciousness through Transcendental Meditation,” a fascinating look at the relation between creativity, brain function, and the guiding role played by meditation, and an insider’s view into the creative process of one of the most highly regarded filmmakers today. Lynch will be accompanied by Dr. John Hagelin, a unified field physicist featured in the recent film WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW?, and Dr. Fred Travis, a neuroscientist. This talk is a collaboration with the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace.
Other panels and workshops scheduled for Next Reel include an editing workshop with NYU/Tisch alumnus and master editor Jay Rabinowitz (BROKEN FLOWERS, 8 MILE, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM), discussing the tough choices that sometimes need to be made when putting together a scene.
Also scheduled is a panel discussion on “Making Your First Feature” with NYU film alumni sharing their experiences as directors and producers working on their first feature-length projects, as well as a Screenwriting Workshop that will provide a how-to guide for writing for the screen.
Founded in 1993, the festival is a biannual event that is curated by a team of NYU faculty. Next Reel is the international counterpart to the NYU/Tisch School of the Arts First Run Festival and is presented alternately between New York City and Florence, Italy. Many of the exhibited films will go on to screen at premiere international film festivals, including Cannes, Toronto, Venice, and Berlin.
The Next Reel International Film Festival is generously sponsored by Kodak, Virgin Megastore, Filmmaker Magazine, Starbucks Coffee, Village Voice and Roots.
For more program information about Next Reel, please visit our website at http://www.nextreel.org. Ticket information: General admission $5; Students with ID $3; Tisch Students Free.
For press inquiries please contact Wellington Love at 15minutes, tel: 212.366.4992 or wellingtonlove@15minutespr.com